It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A question for critics of Socialism

page: 7
30
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 11:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I can absolutely see that progression. Some "Conservatives" scare the hell out of me. I happen to have an affinity for the Norse gods and religion, believe that gay married couples should be able to defend their legally owned pot plants with AR-15s, and that we shouldn't be policing the planet with bombs. They all agree with me on liberty, etc. - as long as it is 'their' form of liberty.

Do you strategically vote? I ask because I do (especially in local elections) and I bet more often than not, locally I probably fall more to the social/democratic side of things...




posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 11:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: SonOfThor
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I agree with your logic, but the Keynesian / bail-out solution is really only a way to kick the can down the road. I'm a libertarian but also a realist. Of course a correction would be ugly and difficult, but the more the problem is kicked down the road the worse that correction becomes.


I used to think like this too, then I thought more carefully about it. Kick the can DOES make a problem worse the longer it goes untreated, but the key here is the untreated aspect. If you make concessions to fix the problems that caused the disaster in the first place, it will mitigate the problems of the next correction. We've had social programs in effect since the 30's. Since then we've had about a correction every 7 - 8 years or so. At no point has a subsequent correction been that much worse due to the failings of a previous one.


As to needing a social safety net, I think an interesting comparison to make would be federal social welfare programs to local and state welfare programs. Before federal welfare was as big as it is, churches and local Government played a big role. Now, I think the more local we get, the easier it is to manage as far as social programs. How long have we had a war on poverty, and still we have poverty on a massive scale?


Well I think the political idea of waging "war" on something because it is a difficult concept to tackle is ridiculous, but that isn't Socialism's fault. That is our idiotic politicians' fault.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 11:20 AM
link   
a reply to: TonyS

Heh, that's dumb. We are on the cusp of obtaining (near-)infinite resources as soon as we can figure out how to mine and transport material from extraterrestrial sources to fuel our economy. We've already got companies looking to build machinery that 3-D prints itself on asteroids, mines the ore, then ships it back to the planet. These are developments coming within the next 50 years or so. Maybe sooner.

I support environmentally friendly measures, but infinite resources are actually a feasible achievement if we reach the right technological level.
edit on 10-11-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 11:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: SonOfThor
Do you strategically vote? I ask because I do (especially in local elections) and I bet more often than not, locally I probably fall more to the social/democratic side of things...



My biggest conflict coming up in this election is that I'm not a Democrat and I want to vote for Bernie Sanders, but I'm afraid that he won't make it out of the primaries. But then I don't want to register as a Democrat either so I can vote for him in the primaries.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Before ditching capitalism for socialism, I would need to see government at all levels demonstrate that they would invest in the people wisely and with full transparency and honesty.

I don't want to put any more money or power in their hands until they can demonstrate that. Fix corruption first. No, I don't expect zero corruption, but we could do a lot better.

It needs to be done now, not later. I don't know why this isn't the priority. We certainly can't wait for anyone in government to bring the issue to the forefront.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Epirus

"Personal property is the effect of society; and it is as impossible for an individual to acquire personal property without the aid of society, as it is for him to make land originally... Separate an individual from society, and give him an island or a continent to possess, and he cannot acquire personal property. He cannot be rich. So inseparably are the means connected with the end, in all cases, that where the former do not exist the latter cannot be obtained. All accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man’s own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came." - Thomas Paine


Society is the effect of human life. Society, and more so the fruits of society, owe their existence to human nature.

To say that man owes society is like saying the sun and the ocean owe the clouds.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 11:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


But then I don't want to register as a Democrat either so I can vote for him in the primaries.


I switched my registration to Repub so I could vote for Ron Paul in the 'primaries' (we only have caucuses, though, not primaries) - and then switched it back to Independent.

It's very easy, at least in my state, to switch your affiliation, even can do it just online.

You aren't stuck with the 'affiliation' any longer than you want to be.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 11:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Epirus


"When the good Samaritan left his Patient at the Inn, he gave Money to the Host, and said, TAKE CARE OF HIM, and what thou spendest more, I will repay thee. We are in this World mutual Hosts to each other; the Circumstances and Fortunes of Men and Families are continually changing; in the Course of a few Years we have seen the Rich become Poor, and the Poor Rich; the Children of the Wealthy languishing in Want and Misery, and those of their Servants lifted into Estates, and abounding in the good Things of this Life. Since then, our present State, how prosperous soever, hath no Stability, but what depends on the good Providence of God, how careful should we be not to harden our Hearts against the Distresses of our Fellow Creatures, lest He who owns and governs all, should punish our Inhumanity, deprive us of a Stewardship in which we have so unworthily behaved, laugh at our Calamity, and mock when our Fear cometh. Methinks when Objects of Charity, and Opportunities of relieving them, present themselves, we should hear the Voice of this Samaritan, as if it were the Voice of God sounding in our Ears, TAKE CARE OF THEM, and whatsoever thou spendest, I will repay thee. But the Good particular Men may do separately, in relieving the Sick, is small, compared with what they may do collectively, or by a joint Endeavour and Interest" - Benjamin Franklin


People want feel good. Sometimes that means giving to charity.

There was a lot more charity before Socialism sucked out its 95% infaltion.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 11:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Harvin
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So you are saying that we do have social safety nets? So we are already socialist?



What do you call welfare, SNAP, unemployment benefits, Social Security, and other programs of their nature?


That was my point. So your question is to those who want to stop those programs or countries that do not have those programs? Another election in the U.S is not going to stop those programs. We have a problem since too many countries are not on board with that. These problems are much larger than throwing the word socialism around. Just preaching to the choir here. Those countries will never come around.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 11:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Before ditching capitalism for socialism, I would need to see government at all levels demonstrate that they would invest in the people wisely and with full transparency and honesty.


I have zero trust in any government to be transparent and honest.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 11:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Krazysh0t


But then I don't want to register as a Democrat either so I can vote for him in the primaries.


I switched my registration to Repub so I could vote for Ron Paul in the 'primaries' (we only have caucuses, though, not primaries) - and then switched it back to Independent.

It's very easy, at least in my state, to switch your affiliation, even can do it just online.

You aren't stuck with the 'affiliation' any longer than you want to be.


Why does everyone keep saying "Ron" Paul? I keep seeing that in these threads over and over, isn't it Rand Paul?



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Epirus


"I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country." - Thomas Jefferson.

"The power of all corporations ought to be limited, […] the growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses." - James Madison

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." - Thomas Jefferson


In those days all of the corporations were banks.

The first non bank corporations were the government subsidized railroads, 1860, which were crony tax payer funded money pits.

The Founding Fathers were aristocrats with "Noblesse Oblige". Back then anybody could become an aristocrat by acquiring land hence the rhetoric of equality.

But really the political freedom was supposed to be for the aristocrats, and the economic freedom to become aristocrats for everyone else.

The Constitution is not Socialist, it is aristocratic.





edit on 10-11-2015 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheBandit795

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Before ditching capitalism for socialism, I would need to see government at all levels demonstrate that they would invest in the people wisely and with full transparency and honesty.


I have zero trust in any government to be transparent and honest.


That's how I feel. The people would have to have oversight in a socialist economy.

As someone who has written many open records requests that have been denied in violation of the law, I realize we have NO oversight. Nothing. We are helpless. Most people cannot incur the cost of litigation to enforce open government laws. The people in government know this and corruption is rampant.




edit on 10-11-2015 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

For me it is a matter of comparing socialist states to non-socialist states. The empirical results far outweigh the theoretical ones. Of course one might say the Nordic model is socialism, and indeed they do apply socialist programs and the welfare state, but they no less do so within the framework of capitalism.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 11:55 AM
link   
I've resigned to the fact that no ONE "system" is the "best" system, especially in America where we have over 300 million people from all kinds of socioeconomic and religious backgrounds.

I think for America -- some hybridized, blended system is going to as close to perfect as we'll ever see. We're going to have to compromise and borrow ideas from across the spectrum. And why wouldn't we want to anyway? Why lock ourselves into one political/economic system? Why not pick and choose the best parts, forming a truly new system that fits America best?

Imagine if you were to deconstruct capitalism, socialism, communism, libertarianism, and anarchy into their constituent pieces -- and place all those pieces out onto a buffet line. We could walk up and down that line, taking pieces a la carte ...

We could feast at the Golden Corral of political-economic systems!

Well, except for that nasty chocolate waterfall/fountain thing. I think we all can agree we don't want that thing...who knows what people have been sticking into it.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 12:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t

For me it is a matter of comparing socialist states to non-socialist states. The empirical results far outweigh the theoretical ones. Of course one might say the Nordic model is socialism, and indeed they do apply socialist programs and the welfare state, but they no less do so within the framework of capitalism.

The problem with that is that it is an impossible comparison as their are no real world examples. The closest you could get would be comparing North Korea and Somalia. Hardly a good indication for what works in a modern developed economy.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 12:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t

For me it is a matter of comparing socialist states to non-socialist states. The empirical results far outweigh the theoretical ones. Of course one might say the Nordic model is socialism, and indeed they do apply socialist programs and the welfare state, but they no less do so within the framework of capitalism.


The problem with empirical results is that there is no baseline. All empirical results today include the wealth and knowledge created by the Industrial Revolution, which although not in any way socialist, gets counted in the empirical data.

If socialism had come before the Industrial Revolution, the IR could not have happened.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 12:05 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot




The problem with that is that it is an impossible comparison as their are no real world examples. The closest you could get would be comparing North Korea and Somalia. Hardly a good indication for what works in a modern developed economy.


I've been to Vietnam and Cuba and seen the government owned housing with my own eyes. Decent places to visit but I don't think I'd want to live in those dilapidated buildings.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 12:07 PM
link   
I find it ironic that our founders wanted to shed the weight of the British aristocracy when we became a new nation -- and yet here we find outselves not more than 239 years later with our own aristocracy all over again.

The top 20% in America own 85% of the America's wealth. Link

Aristocracy:



Aristocracy (Greek ἀριστοκρατία aristokratía, from ἄριστος aristos "excellent," and κράτος kratos "power") is a form of government that places power in the hands of a small, privileged ruling class.

Link

I don't think you can argue that money runs our government, and the people with the most money get their say. The Princeton study clearly shows that special interests, wealthy individuals and corporations have far more influence than the general will of the population.

I can't link to the actual study, as it is a .pdf. Here is a website that gives information on the study. You can find it by Googling it on your own as well. In the comprehensive study it was found:




When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.


Here is a graphic representing the study's findings:



Now tell me how we don't have an aristocratic, ruling class in America?



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 12:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
I've resigned to the fact that no ONE "system" is the "best" system, especially in America where we have over 300 million people from all kinds of socioeconomic and religious backgrounds.

I think for America -- some hybridized, blended system is going to as close to perfect as we'll ever see. We're going to have to compromise and borrow ideas from across the spectrum. And why wouldn't we want to anyway? Why lock ourselves into one political/economic system? Why not pick and choose the best parts, forming a truly new system that fits America best?

Imagine if you were to deconstruct capitalism, socialism, communism, libertarianism, and anarchy into their constituent pieces -- and place all those pieces out onto a buffet line. We could walk up and down that line, taking pieces a la carte ...

We could feast at the Golden Corral of political-economic systems!

Well, except for that nasty chocolate waterfall/fountain thing. I think we all can agree we don't want that thing...who knows what people have been sticking into it.


The problem with that is the law. There can be only one law in a just system.

Unless true justice allows different laws for different people.




top topics



 
30
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join