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.

 

I'm against socialism, apparently I'm an idiot. Ask me nothing.

page: 17
58
<< 14  15  16    18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2016 @ 06:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: GodEmperor
a reply to: Fishy

Economic activity can still take place without money.

It is more troublesome, trading bundles of wheat for steel or whatever. Still happens.

No economic activity takes place with people who work for food and lodging?

Interesting.


You're going to run a modern economy on barter? Also, why do you bring up company towns like they were a good thing?





posted on May, 15 2016 @ 06:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
It means they FEAR your opinions.

Yeah like your opinions have ever made a difference in anything or even a difference here, during the last 6 years.



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 07:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Fishy

No that’s not an assumption; it is a logical consequence. If Trump didn’t hire those people, or if they did not choose that job, they would not have that job, just like any human relationship in which people are free to take part or not. I’m not saying they couldn’t go work somewhere else or go start a commune in the woods.

Wealth isn’t just money.

I don’t view money as an enabler. I view it as an intermediary for the assessment of value. It’s a medium of exchange. In any exchange both parties can agree on a set value. If I do not agree with the terms I do not have to engage in the contract, and neither does the other party. Anything else is coercion, and that’s what socialism is at its core.



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: TheTory

You didn't say "that" job you said that "they would't work" as if Trump or anyone else is needed for people to work.



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




Every generation of conservatives lives in a status quo different than the previous ones.


It is one continuous legacy. It's like a growing plant, and conservatives defend it from those who would cut it at the root.



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 07:12 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




You didn't say "that" job you said that "they would't work" as if Trump or anyone else is needed for people to work.

Right. Like someone wouldn't work if Trump never hired them. Come on.



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 07:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheTory
It is one continuous legacy. It's like a growing plant, and conservatives defend it from those who would cut it at the root.

No, todays conservatives accept what conservatives 100 years ago would have actually fought against, with actual fighting, not just interweb venting.



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 07:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheTory
Right. Like someone wouldn't work if Trump never hired them. Come on.

Been sippin'?

That is my point exactly. Trump is not needed for people to work so why would you say

But they wouldn't work if Trump didn't employ them.



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 07:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: TheTory
It is one continuous legacy. It's like a growing plant, and conservatives defend it from those who would cut it at the root.

No, todays conservatives accept what conservatives 100 years ago would have actually fought against, with actual fighting, not just interweb venting.


If that helps you feel better about yourself for dismissing my arguments, be my guest. I happen to like the values we all happen share. It's a shame others would seek to change them for their own.



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 07:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: TheTory
Right. Like someone wouldn't work if Trump never hired them. Come on.

Been sippin'?

That is my point exactly. Trump is not needed for people to work so why would you say

But they wouldn't work if Trump didn't employ them.


I was replying to other other poster. why would you rip it out of context?



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 07:38 PM
link   
malfunction

edit on 15-5-2016 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 07:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheTory
If that helps you feel better about yourself for dismissing my arguments, be my guest. I happen to like the values we all happen share. It's a shame others would seek to change them for their own.

Makes no difference in how I feel. You are not a monolithic group. No group is.

Nobody is changing your values. They are forcing your actions which might be against your values. Not my fault that it is being chipped away at.


I was replying to other other poster. why would you rip it out of context?

It isn't out of context. I followed the conversation. You wrote one sentence, how much context could there be?



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 07:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gh0stwalker
a reply to: TheTory

What about all the offshore tax havens? The Panama papers, Swiss bank... have you been following any of this? You seem quite eager to defend the status quo. Though with a name like "The Tory" I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

Those are crimes that most conservatives agree are serious.



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 09:07 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

'Cause I am anti- establishment
'Cause I am hardcore
'Cause that's how I roll brah



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 09:28 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

i personally never heard anyone say they want socialism.
i hear people say they want social programs.
- road maintenance
- fire departments
- police departments
- national parks
- public education
- post office
- food stamps
- WIC (women infants and children) program that provides basic sustenance to moms and their children.

we could take a portion of the money away from the military budget and fund all our current programs without any increase tax to the people.



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 09:30 PM
link   
a reply to: whatsup86

Not quite America just yet, but we're getting there at break neck speed.



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 09:35 PM
link   
a reply to: subfab

Yep we could take from the military, and we wouldn't even have to cut troop strength or equipment requirements...we could cut that money in the secret projects and make DARPA open up all of its research to the public. This alone would free up a third of the military budget.

In fact. there would be much money to be made by doing that and we could even bolster the ranks. Streamline vehicles to meet a certain standard instead of multiple vehicles for one or two functions.

We could even go half the allotted budget and maintain superiority. People don't realize how much of that budget goes to R&D and dark projects. Practically half in an over inflated flow of money. The US could release all of those patterns that make life better instead of suppressing them because big oil would lose.



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 09:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Gh0stwalker
a reply to: TheTory

What about all the offshore tax havens? The Panama papers, Swiss bank... have you been following any of this? You seem quite eager to defend the status quo. Though with a name like "The Tory" I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

Those are crimes that most conservatives agree are serious.


They aren't crimes. That's the thing. There are legitimate reasons for dealing with tax havens.



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 10:41 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Socialism goes against everything the Republic of the United States was founded to be.

Under socialism, and for the good of all, individual rights are taken away, and in the end we are all individuals so the rights of everyone are taken away.

Under socialism all power rests in one branch of government, so there is no balance of power and no one to oversee and "regulate" the government.

Under socialism "extreme austerity measures are enforced" and of course "for the good of all". What this means is that the government regulates what food you eat, how much you eat, and when you can buy food.

Under socialism the government regulates how much energy you can consume, even if you are dying of heat exertion or dying of hypothermia if the government has to cut off electricity they will. After all it is 'for the good of the collective"...

Under socialism private businesses are regulated to death.

Just look at the latest example of "socialism of the 21st century" in Venezuela to see what will happen in the United States if socialism is ever completely enforced.

Slowly but surely tenets of socialism have been implemented and it gave us the Federal Reserve, it gave us the IRS and the tax code that almost no one has been able to read because it's too long and too complex, among other things.


edit on 15-5-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 03:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: GodEmperor
a reply to: Fishy

Economic activity can still take place without money.

It is more troublesome, trading bundles of wheat for steel or whatever. Still happens.

No economic activity takes place with people who work for food and lodging?

Interesting.


It depends on your definition of "economy". Money is almost always a factor in such definitions, e.g. "the state of a country or region in terms of the production and consumption of goods and services and the supply of money." Another one is "Economy is the large set of inter-related production and consumption activities that aid in determining how scarce resources are allocated. This is also known as an economic system."

Note that in the first definition "money" is mentioned, in the second it is not. It all depends on your definition of "economy".

About money / "scarce resources": the underlying idea is that there is scarcity, so people need to compete for these scarce resources. I loathe this: we should not compete for scarce resources, but either help to create them (and eliminate scarcity) or learn to live without them (if that is possible and it often is). Also, we should ask ourselves if we should not stop our race for efficiency when we already produce more than we can consume. Did you know that many resources that have some "monetary" value don't even have that value at all - and that the value is created artificially by DESTROYING already produced goods? For example, perfectly fine food is being destroyed just to keep the price at a minimum, while there are still people starving on this planet. A shame.

So, IMHO economic activity can exist without money, but the current state of affairs is that all economists will say it can't.
edit on 16-5-2016 by ForteanOrg because: he added some whitespace. Air..




top topics



 
58
<< 14  15  16    18  19 >>

log in

join