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.

 

Why is Socialism so heavily disliked?

page: 9
18
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 05:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: Azureblue
There is a good reason for that. Socialism by its very nature holds the common person down.In the Socialist world only the government could rise above.I know , Socialism coupled with Communism (true , absolute) would mean no one would have to. Way back in high school , I had a teacher that stated that in the case I described above, this would be the best form of government. Basically , a Utopian society.
However , as man is not perfect , we can never have this form of true societal bliss.(at least not in the childhood stage we are in now)



Well thing are going to have to change soon because robots will put 50+% of poeple of work in the next 10 years and the powers that be know it. but perhaps that's where the depopulation agenda comes in. eg vaccines, GMO, weaponised health and more and more war.




posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 07:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluesma

And I would argue, for example, that some things people now consider "collective concerns" are of dubious benefit.

Let's take university as we see it in the US. Most public universities are stuffed with majors of dubious benefit to society as a whole. Does it really benefit the larger community to fund an endless stream of "studies" majors or other pure academics? When was the last time you life was tangibly improved by a Women's Studies major or a Latino Studies Major? How about a Theatre major give most of Hollywood's best never went to college at all?

About the only majors that could be said to tangibly improve our day to day existence in any real way are the STEM-related ones, but most people don't go into those degree fields.

And before you go on about teachers, understand that I taught based out of a program that took already degreed professionals and put them in the classroom working to certify them with a Masters to cover the teaching degree as they taught. We did as well as any other teacher, better in some cases as we have specifically studied our degree areas, not how to manage a classroom.



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 07:13 AM
link   
a reply to: proximo

yawn. Same old parroted nonsense.
He is getting it done. Don't use 'meme' arguments. You're mistaken.

Get with the 21st, global-trade century. Get an education. You sound ignorant.



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 07:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: ForteanOrg

I see.

And if the majority of people decides that a segment of the population needs to die for the good of the rest?


One of the basic rules in a democracy, and one of the fundamental paradigms in socialism is dignity and respect. Murdering a segment of the population is against basic human rights, to begin with. it is undignified, it shows no respect and it kills (literally) the idea of solidarity.

Hence, it can't happen in a truly socialist system.



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 08:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: blood0fheroes


I'm not often in the habit of repeating myself, however you must have either misread my wording, or have argued this before, against a mind possessed of less clarity.

I’m not in the habit of repeating myself either, but the misreader is you, and a mind possessed of less clarity than one which mistakes an argument against Socialism for an argument in favour of Socialism would be hard to imagine unless one were to invoke some kind of developmental disorder.

I don't believe I have claimed your argument was in favor of socialism, though after re reading our debate thus far I can certainly see how it could be taken that way.

I will, however, put forth the argument that I, and most likely a good percentage of my fellow countrymen; make no distinction between socialism and any other totalitarian form of government. Benign, benevolent, or otherwise. Tyranny comes in many guises.


involuntary taxation... Emphasis added, for clarity.


Sir or madam, I have to hand it to you. Utterances of such staggering brilliance can only come from the mind of a genius.

While I'm fairly sure this was sarcasm - in the spirit of maintaining civility I accept your compliment. You also appear to have a wonderful mind.

I made the distinction because like my signature states, I believe that while no current form of government is perfect there are steps that can be taken to improve any government. I truly believe that the power to govern comes from the consent of the governed.

If I have no power over how my taxes are spent, and particularly if I do not approve of how they are spent, then I do not consent to the taxation . Does this help to explain why I made the distinction?
edit on 3-4-2016 by blood0fheroes because: Double post...see below

edit on 3-4-2016 by blood0fheroes because: Yep. I'm a grammar nazi.



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 08:07 AM
link   
Double post
edit on 3-4-2016 by blood0fheroes because: Meh



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 08:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: [post=20557621]burgerbuddy




If the people who say welfare for individuals is bad why aren't they making just as much noise in the media about the evils of corporate welfare?



just for the record, don't any one be silly enough to claim that corporate welfare creates jobs. why, cos that means you cannot escape admitting that welfare money for individuals also creates jobs.

When xyz millions or billions is spent into the economy by the federal govt and it bounces through the bank accounts of individuals and straight into the local economy, don't try n tell me that its not a form of economic stimulus and dont try n tell me that when xyz millions of dollars is pumped into the local shopping centers that that is not creating and or maintaining jobs in that shopping center (or local economy however you define it).





I just want to say that I completely agree with what you are saying...and have said the same at times. The bottom line is...welfare money ultimately ends up in the pockets of the elite...as well as doctors and lawyers and professors and teachers and almost every other employed person in the country. The sad part is, the people that have to resort to seeking financial assistance through welfare programs are made to feel like unworthy citizens and have to face the stigma of receiving these "handouts" and the people that ultimately end up with the money ( the one's previously mentioned ) get to spend it while looking down on the one's that made it possible for them to have it.

Now my own ideas regarding socialism verses capitalism. First of all...it cannot be argued that capitalism has lead to the greatest economy that the modern world has ever seen....but...it has also lead to the greatest amount of waste and destruction of land and resources that the world has ever seen. Just as an example...how much paper consumption is a direct result of capitalism? ie: advertising,catalogs, packaging ..etc ? I would dare say at least 75 %..... Capitalism leads to huge over production of goods and results in a huge waste of materials and resources. In an ideal system we would only produce goods that we actually needed...and we wouldn't need catalogs and sale flyers to tell us what we "need".

I don't know what the ideal system would be called but it would focus on only making the things we need and we would find our pleasure in making those things and in using them and in knowing that EVERYONE was secure and taken care of. I think the first step to creating this ideal system would be to come up with a new name for it...one that is not tainted by our preconceived ideas.




edit on 3-4-2016 by HarryJoy because: (no reason given)






edit on 3-4-2016 by HarryJoy because: oops !! messed up...



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 08:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: ForteanOrg

I see.

And if the majority of people decides that a segment of the population needs to die for the good of the rest?


One of the basic rules in a democracy, and one of the fundamental paradigms in socialism is dignity and respect. Murdering a segment of the population is against basic human rights, to begin with. it is undignified, it shows no respect and it kills (literally) the idea of solidarity.

Hence, it can't happen in a truly socialist system.


However, if the majority decides to rob a minority of their preferred choice, that's OK despite the very real fact that it demonstrates no respect for their choices and leaves them with little to no dignity in the end as some will have to be compelled through force to bend to the will of the majority.
edit on 3-4-2016 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 08:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
Let's take university as we see it in the US. Most public universities are stuffed with majors of dubious benefit to society as a whole.


Though myself indeed more in favour of STEM related studies, I can see the benefits of non-STEM studies / masters too. Just af few examplew, which you no doubt wil underwrite to be of imporatance are MD's, for example, or surgeons, or historians (if we only listened to them every once and a while). I can see the value of city planning, of nursing, information security, music, knowledge of the Law, marketing research.. actually, when I go through the list of masters in the US, I don't see many studies I feel are of "dubious benefit". Society is not a "simple place", it's complex, layered and has a lot of interaction going that is invisble to us, the common citizens. But an interaction that is necessary nevertheless, a fabric that is weaved by knowledgable people.

You can, of course, in general dispute the value of formal higher education w/regard to life experience; life CAN be a good teacher. But life does not come with an exam - and exams are what employers look for. Such is life.



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 08:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluesma


I cannot dispute it nor confirm it.
Not much room to debate then, eh?
The reason I asked is because from the opinions expressed here, it would seem most fine folks across the pond see our socialists as socialism lite.

Out of curiosity, do you feel that our lite version, of Europe's full flavored version could ever incorporate voluntaryism? I.E. participation is not mandatory. Or is socialism resolved to always use force to impose its will?



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 08:35 AM
link   
a reply to: ForteanOrg

I wasn't saying there was no place for all of it, only disputing that society as a whole should pay for it.

STEM professionals directly go back to put value into society in the fields we train them for. A music major most likely will not, not as a music major. Pure academics are the same. Sure we need a certain amount of them, but not nearly as many as will be produced if they don't have to pay for their degrees. We already see the problem with completely government subsidized loans. Students opt for the soft options of the academic studies fields, don't do the work required to entire higher level studies and end up hopelessly in debt with degrees that make them largely unemployable in job fields that would enable them to realistically handle the payoffs of their loans.

This would not change. We would be basically paying for them to carry degrees that enable them only to work in low-skilled service industry jobs like they do now, and those jobs really only require a high school diploma. So why pay for them to study and academic field for 4 years first? It is highly inefficient.



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 09:14 AM
link   
a reply to: lydie15

Medicine, education, and retirement care should be socialized. Other than that leave things the way they are.



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 09:18 AM
link   
a reply to: openminded2011

We had that in Britain but now the Government and the IMF are doing all they can to destroy these here and in other western European nation's.

Also there should always be a safety net for the unemployed who are unemployed through no fault of there own and law's to protect people's home's from unscrupulous bank's and evil hedge fund's.



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 09:26 AM
link   
a reply to: openminded2011

And that's exactly what is being proposed.



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 10:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Bluesma

And I would argue, for example, that some things people now consider "collective concerns" are of dubious benefit.

Let's take university as we see it in the US. Most public universities are stuffed with majors of dubious benefit to society as a whole. Does it really benefit the larger community to fund an endless stream of "studies" majors or other pure academics? When was the last time you life was tangibly improved by a Women's Studies major or a Latino Studies Major? How about a Theatre major give most of Hollywood's best never went to college at all?


I am a little fuzzy on why you are arguing with me on this subject - I am guessing it is because I mentioned I have relatives who hold a position on this... and perhaps you are hoping I can channel them in response? I'll try.

I agree with you on that. I actually have a brother who got his degree in latin american studies. Stupidest waste of time and money I ever heard of! Those silly courses do not exist in this country I am in now (where university is free).
Since we are all paying for that, the masses will NOT allow their money to be wasted on such nonsense.
If it was private, then yeah, they wouldn't be able to say anything about it, like in the states.

Not only are the available paths of study practical (I mean geared towards a real career) , but the competition to get in is super harsh. I know that in the program my son is currently in (third year physics and math) only one person per 200 applicants were accepted. It is commonly known to be so difficult to get in that really, if kids have the slightest doubt, they go directly into technical schools instead. Travelling around the country taking exams everywhere only to not be accepted is really a big let down.

I kind of find that a positive thing, myself. I personally am all for higher education for our youth, so I do not mind one bit paying for this system. But of course I would never want to pay for the american system, where you can get in if you play sports or are rich, and then spend most of your time partying (when you are not studying some useless nonsense).

Though ultimately I guess we could say, they'll be saddled with the heavy debt most of their lives, so that is their problem.
My mom became a doctor a week before she died, and left us nothing but her educational debt to pay.

I just think it is not very wise to set up the young so that they fall into such traps. But whatever. I am not sure how my relatives would have responded - the aunts I am speaking of were/are teachers, and both my parents were university professors, so they would probably have more interesting and specific answers for you.




And before you go on about teachers,


OKay, I was polite and respectful and answered your question to me, but if you consider my replying as "going on..." and want to be rude to me, I'll not bother. Look for someone else to have an argument with.



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 10:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluesma

Thanks for the info about French university entrance exams. That readjusted my mental world view a bit.

The Latin American Studies should be a business major. For that matter, anyone who has a four year degree should have enough mental training to start a business. Starting a business would be a lot easier, IQ 90, without the regulation and taxes...

Ketsuko's more general introductory statement about "collective concerns" gets ignored in general.

The application of collectivism starts with the idea that everything and anything are within the scope of government control.

I am not meaning to pick on you personally.

Thanks again for the info.



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 10:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: blood0fheroes
a reply to: Bluesma

The reason I asked is because from the opinions expressed here, it would seem most fine folks across the pond see our socialists as socialism lite.


I am sorry, I do not know who these american socialists are... besides perhaps Bernie Sanders.
I know that the Americans widely considered the Obamacare thing as "socialism" which most europeans see as nothing even close. But it is not considered a "lite" version of socialism - it is considered a sort of fascist action instead.
So before I answer the next question , I need to let you know I am not real clear on what you mean by the "lite version" of socialism.




Out of curiosity, do you feel that our lite version, of Europe's full flavored version could ever incorporate voluntaryism? I.E. participation is not mandatory. Or is socialism resolved to always use force to impose its will?


Europe is many different countries, with different languages, cultures, practices and political systems.
You have not specified which you refer to.
I can only comment on that of France.

Voluntarism, in which area? Do you mean social programs such as paid vacations, unemployment, retirement, national health insurance? You can choose not to take part in those. Of course, if you do, you cannot recieve them.
Each pay check you get quotes how much total you have paid into the program and have available to you if you need or claim it.
If you do not pay into social security, then that will show nothing available to you.

I personally don't know anyone who has made that choice. I am not sure why you wouldn't want to. Everyone gets sick, everyone needs a vacation, everyone retires. In any case, there is still taxes you have to pay anyway, just as in the US.

Using your national medical coverage, you are free to go to any healthcare provider you want. There are both private and public hospitals and clinics. They compete with each other in terms of quality.
When I first came here and had my first child I went to a private clinic automatically assuming it MUST be better than the public one. I made a mistake. The public hospitals are much better. But in any case, my national insurance coverage paid for it, along with my mutual.
This is a multi-payer system. The national coverage only takes care of the necessary treatments and in the case of serious illness or injury. For some things a portion is left unpaid by the state. For that, we can either choose to simply keep the necessity-only coverage, or take a mutual to cover the rest. These are health insurance groups, but that do not work for profit, so they are less expensive than the health insurance companies in the US. They are private though.

The obligatory taxes, which go towards things like the military, police, education, roads, etc. I personally like having these services, so don't mind paying for them. I notice also that the people here do not speak as if these are somehow 'the government's' , like the government is an entity separate from the people-entity. They use the term "notre" (our) police, roads, universities and schools, army... and they can be very outspoken about their right to say what these can do or not, how they are run.

I first found that somewhat troubling - as if little people assert a claim of power over things they do not have right to, and their quickness to protest and put a stop on the whole country was a childish fit throwing.
But with time I saw it is effective !!!! They actually have an impact and win - just about every time.
The peoples claim of power is not empty or dellusional - they have figured something out we have not in the US.
The proclaim fiercely - these government officials are MY employees, I pay them, and they are using MY money, so I am not about to let them run around and do whatever they wish with it!

Personally, I will not hide that I have gained a bit of admiration for that attitude.



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluesma


The obligatory taxes, which go towards things like the military, police, education, roads, etc. I personally like having these services, so don't mind paying for them.


“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.”
― Frédéric Bastiat, The Law 1850 AD



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: blood0fheroes


If I have no power over how my taxes are spent, and particularly if I do not approve of how they are spent, then I do not consent to the taxation . Does this help to explain why I made the distinction?

What you will or will not consent to is not the question. The question is what the mass of people will or will not consent to. If you make taxation voluntary, you will raise precious little in the way of taxes.

It appears that Socialists are not the only ones putting too much faith in human nature.



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Socialism will never work - it's the most corruptible system in the world - ask anyone living in a system like this.

What we need is the robotic evolution so we stop bickering around.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join