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: 9
30
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 01:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: Krazysh0t

But then again all discussions of Libertarianism ignore that people tend to be greedy assholes and are more than willing to take advantage of the looseness of the rule of law to collect more and more power.


Without government there is no power to collect.

Money buys only influence and promises without the government to offer legal deadly force power to the money men.

Without government there is no legal deadly force anywhere at any time except in self defense.


Deadly force isn't the only way to demonstrate power you know? In fact, I'd say that wealth and money is a MUCH more powerful demonstration of power than violence is.


Demonstration isn't lethal.

Any demonstration of power from a person that causes actual damage is subject to legal action.




posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 01:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: Krazysh0t

But then again all discussions of Libertarianism ignore that people tend to be greedy assholes and are more than willing to take advantage of the looseness of the rule of law to collect more and more power.


Without government there is no power to collect.

Money buys only influence and promises without the government to offer legal deadly force power to the money men.

Without government there is no legal deadly force anywhere at any time except in self defense.


Deadly force isn't the only way to demonstrate power you know? In fact, I'd say that wealth and money is a MUCH more powerful demonstration of power than violence is.


Demonstration isn't lethal.

Any demonstration of power from a person that causes actual damage is subject to legal action.



And that is why wealth is FAR more powerful of a tool of power than violence. Violence comes with restrictions, plus it makes people unhappy when they are on the wrong side of it. Wealth allows the powerful to appeal to anyone's inner greed to get them to do what you want them to do. As the saying goes, "Everyone has a price."



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Socialism is a step before Communism, if there's a desire to reach Communism in the first place!



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Which results are they? Can you name a sole capitalist country that is currently out performing all socialist states? I can't even think of any totally pure capitalist countries, let alone talk about them doing better empirically than socialist ones.


Can you think of a "totally pure" socialist state? Capitalism and socialism are theories and no amount of statecraft will result in pure capitalism or pure socialism. We have to discuss economies, innovation and standards of living between states that attempt these ideals.

For instance the notion of a planned economy, in Cuba, Vietnam, or North Korea, were/are essentially failures. The people were only ever as rich as their economy, or in other words, dirt poor. In North Korea, health-care, housing, food, and education, are funded by the state in the spirit of socialism, yet that does not mean the people must be doing well.

But that's neither here nor there, is it? It sounds like your advocating the various social programs which are socialist in nature, yet dismissing the capitalist economies in which such programs can thrive. I might be wrong, however, I haven't read the entire thread.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 01:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Substracto
Socialism is a step before Communism, if there's a desire to reach Communism in the first place!


So how many Socialist countries have become Communist after starting Socialist?



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Yea, I am actually arguing in favor of a mix of Socialism and Capitalism. Democratic Socialism.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 01:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Substracto
Socialism is a step before Communism, if there's a desire to reach Communism in the first place!


So how many Socialist countries have become Communist after starting Socialist?


Socialism is a revolutionary ideology, you can creep up to to its edges with interventionist policy but, you must traverse the threshold and step wholly into the abode of totalitarianism, if not international Marxism at some point.

What people seem to be calling democratic socialism is still interventionism so, until the means of production are commandeered, you would not have socialism and could not then step either into international Marxism, national socialism or syndicalism.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

What if we just don't want to live in socialist regime?

Maybe I don't like the idea of industry being run by "everyone" or by the government - why can't I run my own business?

Maybe I want to get rich and hand down 40 billion dollars to my children so they can be rich without working and so can their kids, and so on? In my opinion that's not great parenting, but it's freedom to choose what happens with the rewards of my ideas or work. Maybe I don't want my children to have to work - I should have the freedom to do what I want with my money.

I don't believe workers create a business. Workers support a business and can lead to success or failure, but that doesn't equate to ownership. You get a paycheck and various job perks. That's it. The whole "private employers create oppression and slavery" mantra that many socialists tout as gospel is bull. Yes, some employers are oppressive, but the vast majority create opportunity. My feelings are that people who think working for a company should grant them ownership of part of it (or ownership by proxy, via the government) are greedy.

(and the funny thing is, most of the truly, criminally oppressive employers aren't even in North America - they are in countries where this will NEVER be an option)

What if I personally believe that people should not have to support everyone else? Some people will hate on this, but the vast majority of homeless people or poor people are there as a result of choices they've made in life. While I sympathize with them, and I help out when opportunity arises, I shouldn't be taxed more to bring them up. I think capitalism would create opportunity for these people to work for themselves and bring themselves up. Even with the whole "to each for his deeds" mantra of socialism there's still an underlying motivation to create this giant safety net to bail everyone out of poverty, even if they drove themselves straight into it. That accomplishes nothing. You're not creating meaningful members of society. You're enabling bad habits.

People aren't all equal. Let's just be honest with ourselves. There will never ever be a society where everyone is equal. That's wishful thinking. Even though I personally would benefit from some aspects of socialism I don't believe in it. I'd rather make my own way, and I'd rather others did the same.

Finally, everyone whines about how the government has too much power now, and how it's too big. Socialism only causes that to grow further. We need LESS involvement from the government to promote growth and prosperity, not more.


And to respond to the person claiming the US was built on socialist ideals...No. Not even close. And your example of the rich being more significant than the poor not being in the constitution is grasping at nothingness.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

Alright, can you point to any historical, real-world, practical examples of a true libertarian state existing? Perhaps one that could serve as a model for the 300+ million Americans of various ethnicity, educational backgrounds, religious faiths, socioeconomic statuses?



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I guess that since I don't equate the two, you don't want my opinion?

Meh, I'll give it anyhow, short and sweet: I don't like Socialism because I don't think people have a right to the fruits of other people's labor, nor should they be forced to work for the benefit of others.

Helping out one's neighbors and the less fortunate should be the choice of the individual--at least in a free state. While America isn't a free state under that viewpoint, it's a lot more free than if it were purely Socialist.

I adore helping out my fellow man, but when it's my money taken by force and then given to things with which I may disagree, that's where the taste of things start souring for me.


This guy said what I was trying to say in a much better fashion.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
What people seem to be calling democratic socialism is still interventionism


I would call our current system a racket, not interventionism.

If our current socialist/social welfare policies are any indication, we could expect Congress to line their pockets and the pockets of those that reap the benefits of spending contracts, and the people to become dependent on government and abusive of the system. And there would be virtually no accountability to be found.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 01:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: stolencar18
a reply to: Krazysh0t

What if we just don't want to live in socialist regime?

Maybe I don't like the idea of industry being run by "everyone" or by the government - why can't I run my own business?


Well society is made up of more people than just yourself. There are thing about it that you aren't going to like but will have to accept as part of life just because of that simple fact.

You could try petitioning government and the other people in the country to agree with you here, but if that doesn't work, the only other option is to move out of the country. I'd say that going into the future, expect more Socialism and more regulations instead of less. The populace finds them to be largely necessary measures in modern society.


Maybe I want to get rich and hand down 40 billion dollars to my children so they can be rich without working and so can their kids, and so on? In my opinion that's not great parenting, but it's freedom to choose what happens with the rewards of my ideas or work. Maybe I don't want my children to have to work - I should have the freedom to do what I want with my money.


This is entirely still possible in our country, even with Socialist elements in it.


I don't believe workers create a business. Workers support a business and can lead to success or failure, but that doesn't equate to ownership. You get a paycheck and various job perks. That's it. The whole "private employers create oppression and slavery" mantra that many socialists tout as gospel is bull. Yes, some employers are oppressive, but the vast majority create opportunity. My feelings are that people who think working for a company should grant them ownership of part of it (or ownership by proxy, via the government) are greedy.


Why? They helped you produce your product. Part of sharing the workload is supposed to mean sharing the rewards. I think someone thinking that only the business owner owns the business is MORE greedy than a bunch of workers getting a share of the company they work at.


(and the funny thing is, most of the truly, criminally oppressive employers aren't even in North America - they are in countries where this will NEVER be an option)


That's because we drove them away due to regulations and Social programs. Are you familiar with the book The Jungle by Upton Sinclair? Yea, THOSE were the quality of businesses that we had in this country without labor rights.


What if I personally believe that people should not have to support everyone else? Some people will hate on this, but the vast majority of homeless people or poor people are there as a result of choices they've made in life. While I sympathize with them, and I help out when opportunity arises, I shouldn't be taxed more to bring them up. I think capitalism would create opportunity for these people to work for themselves and bring themselves up. Even with the whole "to each for his deeds" mantra of socialism there's still an underlying motivation to create this giant safety net to bail everyone out of poverty, even if they drove themselves straight into it. That accomplishes nothing. You're not creating meaningful members of society. You're enabling bad habits.


Why do you think that capitalism, if it has NEVER done it before, will suddenly start caring about the people at the bottom of society without Socialism in place? Like that is completely anti-ethical to how capitalism works. Capitalism is a measure of success and luck. The unsuccessful and unlucky just end up falling through the cracks. The problem is that the unsuccessful and unlucky FAR outnumber the successful and lucky. So why should only that small minority matter? Why is luck even a measure of success anyways?

And don't try to tell me that luck doesn't factor into capitalism's success either. Two people with the exact same business plans could end up with wildly different success stories based entirely on luck.


People aren't all equal. Let's just be honest with ourselves. There will never ever be a society where everyone is equal. That's wishful thinking. Even though I personally would benefit from some aspects of socialism I don't believe in it. I'd rather make my own way, and I'd rather others did the same.


The point isn't to make everyone COMPLETELY equal. The point is to make sure that everyone has the same equal benefits and access to the same things that everyone else does to succeed.


Finally, everyone whines about how the government has too much power now, and how it's too big. Socialism only causes that to grow further. We need LESS involvement from the government to promote growth and prosperity, not more.


You do know that our country's economy has been pretty much expanding since we've implemented Socialism programs in the 30's right? Sure we have corrections every now and then, but we ALWAYS rebound and end up even more successful than before. So I think this statement is false, or at the least not entirely true.


And to respond to the person claiming the US was built on socialist ideals...No. Not even close. And your example of the rich being more significant than the poor not being in the constitution is grasping at nothingness.


Yes, Socialism builds on the Libertarian idea of social liberalism. Both have concepts in the Constitution. These facts are undeniable.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 01:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Substracto
Socialism is a step before Communism, if there's a desire to reach Communism in the first place!


So how many Socialist countries have become Communist after starting Socialist?


Socialism is a revolutionary ideology, you can creep up to to its edges with interventionist policy but, you must traverse the threshold and step wholly into the abode of totalitarianism, if not international Marxism at some point.

What people seem to be calling democratic socialism is still interventionism so, until the means of production are commandeered, you would not have socialism and could not then step either into international Marxism, national socialism or syndicalism.


This post doesn't answer the question in the post that you are quoting. Name one Socialist country that went from being Socialist to Communist. There have been plenty of Communist and Socialist countries alike. Surely there must be one if you want to maintain that Socialism leads to Communism.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: greencmp

Alright, can you point to any historical, real-world, practical examples of a true libertarian state existing? Perhaps one that could serve as a model for the 300+ million Americans of various ethnicity, educational backgrounds, religious faiths, socioeconomic statuses?


Usually these hypotheticals had to do with historical anarchies of which there have been very few but, libertarianisms (that sounds weird) are likely similarly infrequent.

At issue here is that humanity has been in the grip of statist control for so long that I think people have a hard time accepting that most state activity is deleterious to society.

Over the centuries, as capitalism spread through Europe uprooting the serfs and destroying the economic captivity which enabled feudalism, "people" (serfs) have been continually striving for and achieving levels of independence and autonomy that were unimaginable under monarchies.

I only propose to continue that trend toward individual freedom and it leads to libertarianism (if not complete anarcho-capitalism).



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Subaeruginosa




If you want my honest opinion, if your a hardcore republican and also fly the American flag in your front yard, then your in need of some serious mental health treatment. Because in reality, the American flag has always stood for progressive and socialist values.


This is simply not true.

The founders were stark individualists and this is reflected in the construction of the Constitution. Socialism is a political and economic philosophy of collectivism.


The idea of giving rights to everyone is kind of a Socialist idea.


Here is the first deviation.

True rights are not "given." They can't be because you already have them. At most, governments either protect or oppress them.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: greencmp

Alright, can you point to any historical, real-world, practical examples of a true libertarian state existing? Perhaps one that could serve as a model for the 300+ million Americans of various ethnicity, educational backgrounds, religious faiths, socioeconomic statuses?


I have come to view JFK as decent example of a libertarian. It's not my place to say he would declare himself one today, but I could see him running as one if the party was around then.

I think anyone who threatens the military industrial complex would meet with the same fate he met.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: greencmp
What people seem to be calling democratic socialism is still interventionism


I would call our current system a racket, not interventionism.

If our current socialist/social welfare policies are any indication, we could expect Congress to line their pockets and the pockets of those that reap the benefits of spending contracts, and the people to become dependent on government and abusive of the system. And there would be virtually no accountability to be found.


That's an accurate description of every example of interventionism.

"An essential point in the social philosophy of interventionism is the existence of an inexhaustible fund which can be squeezed forever. The whole system of interventionism collapses when this fountain is drained off: The Santa Claus principle liquidates itself."

-Ludwig von Mises



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I could respond to your whole message but it's not needed.

The majority of people in the US will never be pro-socialism, ever. Whatever ideas you have about it won't happen. For you to say that it will, and that I'll just have to get used to it, is silly. You need to get used to how things are now and learn how to live within a system that is full of opportunity instead of wishing we had a system full of bailouts.

I might remind you that being part of a majority (maybe?) on ATS doesn't mean you're part of a majority in the rest of the world. ATS, as great as this group of people is, is a very narrow bunch of people, broadly speaking. We're all "outside the box" thinkers. We wonder about what secrets the world has, and how things could be different if X, Y, or Z happened. Sadly, the majority of people aren't so much this way. The majority are content with how the system works.

In closing, you say...



Why? They helped you produce your product. Part of sharing the workload is supposed to mean sharing the rewards. I think someone thinking that only the business owner owns the business is MORE greedy than a bunch of workers getting a share of the company they work at.


I cannot disagree with this more. The people that share the workload are rewarded - a paycheck. Payment for work provided. If I invent something one day and hire 100 people to build it and market it for me and I pay them fairly I still own my business - not them. I don't care how much they do - if they do while employed by me and paid by me they do not magically become owners of my idea. That single thing right there is perhaps the biggest problem with socialism - it will drive innovation and business away, leading to huge societal problems that nobody can fix.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Everyone does realize that the Founding Fathers of America borrowed from Hobbes and Locke when forming this country, right? Part of that influence contained something called the "social compact":



The Declaration of Independence recognizes as a self-evident truth that “governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. . . .” There are two aspects to this First Principle of the Social Compact. First, that legitimate governments are instituted among the people; second, that the just powers of the government are derived from the consent of the people. The Founding Fathers derived much of their understanding of this First Principle from John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, and other like-minded philosophers.

The Founding Fathers believed that because conflict is inevitable in a state of nature, individuals united in civil societies and established government to secure the peace. James Madison reflected that “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” But men are not angels, Alexander Hamilton noted, and government becomes necessary to restrain “the passions of men.” Thus, paradoxically, legal restraints are necessary to preserve liberty. The alternative is vigilantism – which Hobbes aptly termed a “war of every one against every one.”

americassurvivalguide.com

So if we want to have a society in which we we have things like industry, farming, housing, education, and technology -- we have social cooperation.

When even TWO people meet and decide not to kill one another and peacefully coexist, a social compact/contract is formed. You can't wiggle out of not being a part of some kind of social contract in life. Even before you are an adult and part of your society at-large, you have a social contract within your own family. As a child, you don't get a "vote" or say in how things are run. Your parents don't let you take whatever you feel is yours from other members of the family.

I hear people complain and moan about how the government is slavery. I don't think these privileged people know what true slavery is. None of these people who tell me the government is a form of slavery have ever been locked in cages, beaten, starved, forced to work for zero compensation, sold as a literal piece of property to another human being. None of these people have a clue what it means to actually have zero control or say over their own lives.

If someone doesn't consent to the social contract of the USA -- they're in the minority and can leave at any time. I hear Somalia has very few (if any) laws. All you need to do is renounce your citizenship and move there. Just like that.

Then the argument comes back that if government is something derived by consent of the people -- why are taxes law and not voluntary?

Human nature is why. Not everyone will remember to pay taxes, not everyone will know how to calculate their own taxes. Human beings are greedy and self-serving by nature (hundreds of thousands of years of evolution to survive will do that to a species). Humans will always try to cheat a system for maximum benefit, even if they agree to a contract they'll try to scam it.

"You give humans to little credit!" -- No, no my friends I give human beings just credit. I have amply historical references to look back upon to see the nature of man. It's great it YOU think you are a shining model of some ideological belief you hold, but its illogical to believe 330 million people will think exactly like you.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

JFK? I was asking about actual countries or systems of working libertarian ideals/beliefs. Are there a place on Earth that has a libertarian form of government we can study?



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join