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.

 

The SOCIALIST Justice Warriors

page: 6
50
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2017 @ 09:08 PM
link   
blablabla

You're just another sheep that's buying into the hype. Dropping words because it's in fashion just because EVERYBODY else is doing it....get your mind right man, come up with your own stuff next time. "these sjws snowflakes triggered" relax Mr. Burns!




posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 12:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Dark Ghost
Unfortunately, Socialism does not really have the high moral ground in the end. The ends justify the means in the lexicon of socialists, or as Michelle Obama stated, "we have to give up some of our pie so others can have more"..... where is the justice in redistributing something someone else worked for? Socialists always have a list of why people should give up their paychecks to Big Government, but Big Government always has a longer and longer list of why we should sacrifice. In the end everyone sacrifices for the benefit of some. Socialists try to get people to sacrifice willingly, but in the end, people are bullied, shamed, stolen from, and coerced into giving up what they rightfully worked for. The Soviet Union failed because centralized control of the means of production doesn't work.
To be clear on this, I believe in free enterprise, not crony capitalism. Obama and Soros and Clinton all use crony capitalism while pushing socialist reforms. Soros made billions off of the marketplace.
Soros does not have the high moral ground and neither does Obama
fee.org...

And by the way, we have seen the results of sjw type protests where private and public property were damaged and signs left and trash and burning buildings and so on....something to think about


edit on 13-4-2017 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 01:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
where is the justice in redistributing something someone else worked for?

That sounds like capitalism. Someone works and what they worked for is given to the boss.

It might not be technically redistribution but it seems to be the same end.

....something to think about



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 08:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
where is the justice in redistributing something someone else worked for?

That sounds like capitalism. Someone works and what they worked for is given to the boss.

It might not be technically redistribution but it seems to be the same end.

....something to think about
Unfortunately even in that scenario socialism Doesn't work better. Something to think about



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 10:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
Unfortunately even in that scenario socialism Doesn't work better. Something to think about

What scenario?

I just pointed out that you can't really champion capitalism on that point.



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 06:41 PM
link   
I will admit I do not have a DEEP level of knowledge of Socialism. I do know that when I first heard of the concept, it sounded odd. Then I did some basic research and it seemed like a rather decent/moral idea. Then I started researching people that were warning against it or pointing to history for examples of how it has failed badly. At this present moment in time, it seems the negative consequences (while fewer in quantity than the positive consequences) are so extremely bad that they almost cancel out considering it as an option.

So, those who are in favour of a socialist system of any kind: if you could read a summary of my views on the topic and then answer my question well, I would probably be more inclined to be supportive of a socialist system. (Perhaps what I have mentioned below is somewhat inaccurate or ignorant, so please correct me if I am wrong.)

I personally have no issue with wealth distribution that involves transferring money from those in the VERY top bracket of wealth to helping the poor or even lower-middle class. Those at the very top will have to forgo extreme luxuries that most others in the country can only dream of, otherwise they will still be filthy rich and be financially secure, so my sympathy for them is not very high. That is the main reason why I would support socialist policies if there were no additional negative consequences besides this.

People who disagree with me so far might say (how can you support theft? It's immoral and wrong! How would you like it if you were in the top bracket and were forced to give away money you earned to others that didn't?)

My reasoning would be this: it is not fair to those at the very top that only they are required to do this to such a vigorous extent, but that lack of fairness is less important than people actually living without a home, regular access to food/water and those who are in a miserable situation that is close to impossible to escape on their own. So, I would be willing to prioritise the second situation over the first and not feel guilty or wrong for doing so.

If it ended there and I didn't have to think about the potentially negative consequences, I would rigorously demonstrate my support for a socialist system. The trouble is that it doesn't end there and the potentially negative consequences MUST first be considered.

In essence, state assets/money comes from taxpayers as a collective group (those that are contributing to adding to the tax bucket, which does NOT include everyone within the state — e.g. children under legal working age, homeless, people with deliberating disabilities, people on state benefits/welfare — only those who are working and legally paying their taxes are TAXPAYERS). The State cannot exist or function unless they have a source of resources to pull from, so since money is the most powerful global resource in countries with a strong focus on economics, the state relies on at least one taxpayer to exist, otherwise it would not.

Keeping this all in mind, socialism is changing the dynamics from "all taxpayers are contributing to the state in the current system that is relatively fair across the board to TAXPAYERS, even though all taxpayers are also supporting those who do not pay tax" to "all taxpayers are contributing to the state in the current system, but those in the highest bracket will need to contribute significantly more to ensure the more fair distribution of wealth to EVERYONE in the state (not just taxpayers themselves)" which is a rather big game changer. In essence, an already "fair" system is being made even less fair for the greater good.

What happens when you are in the top bracket and see this happening? If you are a compassionate and altruistic person you would probably stay and try to help your fellow citizens, you wouldn't be bothered too much. If you are a greedy and selfish person, you would probably view this as a grave injustice and threat to the life of extreme luxury that you enjoy. Now, I hate to paint most of the high bracket earners with such a broad brush because I don't know any personally, but I would wager the majority of them got to where they are by utilising their greed and selfishness for material gain, not by utilising their compassion and altruism. Therefore, most would leave the state and find a state where their fortune can remain intact.

Now, we have a problem: the amount of money generated to help those in need of it will be reduced by a significant margin as more high bracket earners leave, which while able to work for a temporary duration of time, means that eventually there will be no "extra" pot to draw funds from and then the state will have to put the full burden onto all taxpayers. Since only a handful of the original group of highest bracket earners remain, the state will need to include those that were not originally in the highest bracket to come into it. Eventually this system will lead to the crash of the economy with no way to adapt before it happens.

So that is a small glimpse into why I am convinced socialist systems are overall NOT a good idea for ANY party because it wants to treat equality of outcome as the primary goal when not everyone can contribute on anything close to an even playing field towards making this a reality.

Can anybody who is pro-socialist explain how to avoid such a fate when a socialist system is put in place?


edit on 13/4/2017 by Dark Ghost because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 07:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
Unfortunately even in that scenario socialism Doesn't work better. Something to think about

What scenario?

I just pointed out that you can't really champion capitalism on that point.


Yes, it does. In this case, the boss needs labor for production. You have the labor. Between the two of you, you work out an acceptable exchange of cash/goods for labor. If the terms are not acceptable, you seek to labor for someone else who will come closer to meeting your ideal terms.

The problem is that in today's market place, people have an inflated idea of what their labor is worth and often demand unrealistic terms.



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Dark Ghost

I would say that once you allow the government to force people to start giving up their property for the perceived benefit of one group of others, then the next group comes along and demands the same. So the government takes more power and takes from another group. Eventually it works its way down the chain to where it starts to impact people who really cannot spare the money that is being taken.

We are starting to be at that point. If you study Chicago, you only really have two classes left in the city: the privileged crony class who are filthy rich and the permanent underclass who depend on the handouts from government. The middle class is virtually non-existent because government has pretty much taken as much as can be taken without depredating it's privileged cronies.



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 08:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
The problem is that in today's market place, people have an inflated idea of what their labor is worth and often demand unrealistic terms.

Both sides do that. In an economy with high unemployment one side has the upper hand.

So much for working out an acceptable exchange.



new topics

top topics



 
50
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join