Originally posted by Constitutional Scholar

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Constitutional Scholar
There is nothing to refute, you are stating opinion. I prefer to deal in fact.

OK, I'll type real slow. I submitted the following facts:

Gosh... Protection is an activity that must be paid for. From minor things like educating population about healthy habits and what not, to FDA (protection) to disaster response (protection) and countless other activities including the cop on your block (protection) all need to be funded. Apart from that, the way I see it, healthcare is protection of citizens. Better public schools mean less crime and that translates into protection.

Please refute the thesis that these protection measures are necessary.

They arent necessary.

The Constitution doesnt allow for them.

Pursuit of happiness, not guarantee of.

healthcare isnt protection of citizens, you are merely spouting opinion.

Same goes for education.

The FDA isnt part of the pursuit of happiness, nor is FEMA.

PLease try living in the real world if you wish to continue debate.

I see now. In the fantastical world that you imagine, there is no authority to ascertain the quality and side effects of drugs, no cops to come to your rescue when your house is robbed, no emergency supplies in case your community is hit by a hurricane, and all of that because you posit that it's all unconstitutional.

You are where you are today because you treaded the fabric of the society, carefully woven for you by generations of Americans. Instead of gratitude to those who made this country into a civilized place, you extoll the virtues of law of the jungle and, frankly, silly notions like we don't need a govt body to regulate pharmaceuticals. Demagoguery, and a cheap one at that.

I'll just post my view on taxes.

Simply put, I believe some taxes are lawful, while others are not. An income tax is one such unlawful and unconstitutional tax, as it is arbitrary and effectively communicates the message that the government owns your livelihood, i.e. you. I won't even go into the fact that there isn't a single law on the books that states you must pay your income tax.

However altruistic socialism may seem, it should always be considered a system of theft, as you do not have the consent of the people. You can not encroach upon someone's rightful ownership of property, the ends do not justify the means. On a practical level, socialism is always abused and will eventually end up supporting an oligarchy headed by a dictator. History I think backs me up on that assertion.

Also, we are not in a free market. Health care, international trade (NAFTA), and the private sector have always been interfered with by the government. While economies of scale in some industries are natural, most monopolies we have seen were not and were propped up by government regulations. The mess we're in today with the fractional reserve banking system? You can thank the government for that.

Do we really need all the taxes we have today to run a strong nation? No. In fact it has weakened us beyond all belief, as it is crippling the middle class. Education, health care, and international trade should be HEAVILY deregulated and left to the private sector. The only role government should have is ensuring that teachers and doctors are properly licensed, and that contracts and antitrust laws are enforced.

So what taxes are legal? I'd say only tariffs and customs duties. That's how we ran things back when America was founded, and our economy was strong as hell, before we brought in the Federal Reserve.

Whew what mouthful, I think I wrote that mostly for myself.

What is bad about socialism.

The thing be avoided here is the level of government handling the issue, and the size of it as a result.

Socialism stands for centralizing government. Other forms of government also centralize it. Communism, fascism etc. Always forms of authoritarian governments. Because that is what an authoritarian government is.

This means for the entire country, we are given 1 program for healthcare, 1 program for education and so on. This is very bad. It will be sold as being for the good, but the real truth is they just used that as an excuse to gain control. Once the control is given, then it can be directed in different directions. Just take a look at education. Given for good reasons, and then you get stuck with someone like GWB's plans.

When you have 1 program for all, then the amount of change that can happen in that program is limited. If the program goes bad under someone like GWB, the entire country is made to suffer the effects. It then takes 4-8 years for any chance at "change". At which point, you have 1 vote in 100 million or so, which makes up a small %. Meanwhile, you are held to whatever the majority happen to vote for. You have very little to 0 power or control over your own life. Again, nobody is going to sell it on the bad angles. It will be sold on the "We will make it better" points. Democrat and republican are just 2 teams of the same game, more to come on that.

The constitution and this country was setup not on centralization of power, but on decentralization. Lets examine that a bit. We will just go 1 level lower, to the states.

Instead of 1 program, you now have 50 programs. Each working to be the best it can be, because that is what people want. When a state does the wrong thing, it's only that state that suffers. When a state does a good thing, the other 49 states can easily pick that good thing up and add it to their program. When 1 state screws up, they have 49 other programs to look at and use to improve from. You don't have that with centralization, just more baseless promises.

Your 1 vote represents a much higher % of the total vote, and you get to vote more often - every 2 years. You are not also at the same time being forced to vote on things like foreign policy and domestic issues. If you do not like the state you live in, you can always move to another state that is more inline with your ideals. While still keeping the rights you enjoy as an American.

You can take this even further, to a community and local level that handles the bulk of the social load. Then instead of 50 programs, you have 100's of thousands. You then have much more choice available, and in the elections your 1 vote and voice makes up a huge percentage. You can get the council yourself. The people in control are your neighbors and they will have to answer to the public in what they do.

I'll bet few people realize that things like the underground railroad could have never existed in a centralized government. As all states would have had to be free or slave states, there would have been no safe haven available to get them too.

Both the democrats and republicans work for centralization of everything. They represent "2" sides. But if you combine the government the republicans want, with the government the democrats want - what do you get? You get a totally authoritarian government. All the while they are elected on what? The government they don't want to give you. The democrats promise social freedoms. The republicans promise economic freedoms. In the end do you actually get either of these freedoms? No. Because it's all about just getting that control. Voluntary slavery.

But when was the last time a government program was cut? Republicans got into power, did they reduce the size of the democrat programs? Nope, they increased it in record amounts. Did Bill Clinton before him get rid of any republican programs? Nope. It's a myth they downsized the army in his time, they just renamed the units. Then they would say they got rid of this "unit". I was in a unit that was renamed after a history going back to atleast WW2.

So you accept the government that side wants in exchange for the freedoms they are supposed to represent. We call it the lesser of 2 evils. If only people could realize - you are still voting for evil. Anytime I hear "bipartisan" all I hear is "break out the Vaseline".

Every issue has 2 questions. The first question is kept silent, is biased against in all the media and if you mention it you will be called names and censored. The first question is - should the federal government be involved in this? Both republicans and democrats answer - yes. Then they present different sides for you to "vote" on, as for the direction it goes which is the 2nd question. All you ever see in the media and from republicans is the 2nd question.

Quite clever honestly. Most people stayed wrapped up in blaming the government the other side wants for all the problems, and then end up conforming to the mold presented to further the "team".

Democrats and republicans, blue team, red team. Same game. The game of getting control over people and resources for personal gain.

I'll take "How do you get people to enslave and poilce themselves for $1000 alex".

Originally posted by Constitutional Scholar
socialism must not be allowed to grow, or we will all be screwed in the end.

Why? Because you were taught that this was so?

A shift to pure socialism would definitely be a negative change, but adopting some of socialism's ideals and incorporating them into our society will certainly not "screw us in the end."

While I'm certainly not on board with the idea that the government should run everything, a line simply has to be drawn to protect the common people. Wealth hoarders often operate at the expense of everyone around them, especially their employees and customers. Since the country's millionaires and billionaires have shown a complete disregard for the people who earn their paychecks for them in the actual workplace, the task now falls on the government's hands to adjust the situation.

Health care is a good example. While I don't think medical care-giving should be government run, it's imperative to the security and prosperity of our nation that the citizens be taken care of and are in good health. Sadly, we are not. We have a rising obesity pandemic. Emergency care is financially destructive for many people because insurance prices are out of their reach. Medicine prices go up, while natural alternatives (such as marijuana) get outlawed and cracked down on. This is unacceptable.

We have insurance companies that keep raising their rates and lowering their coverage. We have pharmaceutical companies that lobby to keep the price of medicine sky-high. We have lawyers that will sue for anything they can think of (not to mention idiot judges and juries that let them win.) We have multi-billion dollar per year employers refusing to provide adequate health care benefits. This is unacceptable.

And health care is just ONE example of corporate America bending working-class America over a railing and stickin' it where the sun don't shine. If these greedy companies won't do the responsible thing and take care of their customers and employees, then it is absolutely acceptable to take their hoarded wealth and give some of it back to the people they conned it out of to begin with.

And if the Constitution must be amended in order to fight greed and protect the common citizen, then so be it.

I'm not saying I support a full government take-over, or even a complete redistribution of wealth. I'm just saying that when things get so bad that there are people choosing between having health insurance and saving for retirement while their employers choose between a Ferrari and a Porsche, then the "free market" has failed and needs to be fixed.

Also, it's not the "free market", or "free trade" that has failed. Just because they call it those things, doesn't mean it really is that. I remember the "Patriot Act", not the "We're going to take away all the things we say the enemy wants to take away from you Act".

We have a central bank that gives loans to the big corporations it wants to succeed, while at the same time taking away the value and purchase power of the people, and then charges interest and expects the people to also pay it back.

That's not free market economics. Don't be fooled by what it's called, look at the definitions instead, and compare where they don't match.

Americans dont know the meaning of socialism - to Americans it is simply a term of degradation, used to chastise anyone who disagrees with any given stance. It is part of the petty bi-partisan politics destroying your country. It is truly a mark of the intellectually feeble to even debate the issue in such mundane terms.

There is no true capitalist society on earth - never has been. To say otherwise is a demonstration in pure ignorance. Nor has there ever been a purely communist or socialist. The fact is that all societies are a blend of the ideas - remember these are simply political theories - none are evil or intrinsically bad.

Communism is a command controlled economy - the theory put forward by Marx has never been explored - what occurred in the USSR was a crude bastardisation of his thinking. All political theories can become evil if allowed - that is why the framers of your constitution put in place so many checks and balances - because democracy has the potential to be the MOST evil. Karl postulated that communism is a natural state which must come to fruition as a natural consequence to diminishing resources as a result of excessive capitalism. It is a theory of labour. Where we are heading with peak oil and diminishing resources / global warming is perhaps the first time we have seen the potential for communism. Sigmund Freud added to this thinking in "Civilisations and its Discontents" that this stage can not be realised until there is a technical dominance over nature (we can supply all our needs with minimum effort) - this too is coming to be realised.

All political economies are simply on a scale between these theories - with all being a blend.

Socialism is simply a collective consideration for society on the whole - whilest capitalism rejects this utterly in favour of self determination at the necessary and absolute cost to others.

Quite simply socialism brings about a better society as this is its primary concern - all of us - and capitalism brings about better circumstances for the individual at the expense of others - which by default is therefore also at the expense of society.

There is no debate on this, there are no question marks - there is only a lack of understanding of the ideas. This lack of understanding and ignorance is best exemplified by the American public's response to the issues - completely ignorant and erroneous.

It is an absolute FACT that the rest of the world laughs at your infantile approach and subsequent fear of the issues - Im sorry if that hurts but it is utterly true.

Education is a wonderful thing and something that is thoroughly missing mainstream America.

Originally posted by Constitutional Scholar
How is government stealing from one and giving to another a part of capitalism?

Lets face it, the democrats hypocritically believe the wealthy are evil. They want big government (the Bush admin does too), but freedom minded people know big government isn't conducive to liberty.

Starting about 30+ years ago, the democrats have moved soooo far left that they have more in common with communists than they do with the republic. They seriously love authoritarianism. During the shrub's terms, the dems have rubberstamped every authoritarian "law" put in front of them. They are supporting stealing from the treasury and giving to the military-industrial complex and Wall Street.

At the same time, the republicians have moved so far to the right that they have more in common with WW2 facists than they do with the republic. They have enthusiastically embraced every authoritarian "law" put in front of them during the shrub's reign-of-terror. They are supporting stealing from the treasury and giving to the military-industrial complex and Wall Street.

My point is that there is not a lot of difference between the dems and republicians. The differences they spout in public are pretty much window dressing designed to incite passions. (You really think Obama could get his freebie package thru congress?) In truth, both parties are supporting authoritarianism and bowing down to corporate and foreign PAC payola.

The really wealthy (mostly corporate and foreign PACs) *are* the enemies of this country. Like the robber barons of yesterday, they are buying laws to stack the deck in their favor at the expense of this society. They are exporting manufacturing while simultaneously importing cheap foreign labor (both illegal and H1B) to undercut our citizens. These greedy bastards have damaged our economy to transfer wealth to Wall Street (and overseas). The ongoing devaluation of the dollar will have disasterous results.

So....... the answer is no longer "democrat" or "republician". The answer is "none of the above".

Okay, I apoligize due to the fact that I have not read much of this thread, and I may end up repeating a few things because of this...
First off, Bunch, you are correct, sir! WTG!
If what we are concerned with here is redistibution of wealth, from what I gathered on the first page of this thread, then for God's sakes, what about the bailout???
I will go back and read the entire thread soon, but from what I saw, no one mentioned this travesty of redistribution... Why? Because it only helps those in power. This is the biggest redistribution of wealth since the great depression, and if no one has brought this up, then shame on all... BTW, if you have, and I haven't read, I apologize.
Funny how short our attention spans are...
You want redistribution? Let's do this... Let's pretend we're Capitalist until the rich have to take a hit... Then, we can just shift the hit to the middle class and completely eliminate them, never mind that they are the backbone of this whole shebang... Then, we'll just have rich and poor. To hell with the poor, they work for us, right? We'll just distract them with XBox360's!
Sorry, but all arguments about redistribution of wealth are off until we "bailout" the Wall Street tycoons, my friends. Ask Bernie Sanders in Congress... He'll tell you all about the lobbyists who were trolling around The House saying "Hey, you guys gotta make sure we don't pay for this mess. This needs to go to the taxpayer". Where is the outrage about that?
Frankly, the way I look at it, if we didn't fight this stupid war with a country that had nothing to do with knocking down our buildings, we could have rebuilt every single road and bridge, we could have sent EVERY teenager to college, and we could have already been completely independent from oil. Don't think it's true? Try again.
This administration has completely robbed the US Treasury. And what did we do about it? Squat.

Originally posted by badmedia
What is bad about socialism.

The thing be avoided here is the level of government handling the issue, and the size of it as a result.

Socialism stands for centralizing government. Other forms of government also centralize it. Communism, fascism etc. Always forms of authoritarian governments. Because that is what an authoritarian government is.

By standards of some of the more radical right, most countries in Europe are socialist. Does it make them a bad place to live? You gotta be kidding. You should try it some time. Does it make them authoritarian? What a joke.

This means for the entire country, we are given 1 program for healthcare, 1 program for education and so on. This is very bad.

But that's not the case! There are plenty of education options, and in countries like UK (Brits please correct me if I'm wrong) there are private medical practices if that's what you want to use.

Again, you are taking it to some absolute, and that just doesn't exist in real life (such as in Europe).

AmreiKans will learn soon enough of the "Plans" Comrade Obama has is store for his Kingdom on Earth -

Lord Barrack Obama his most Merciful States" -

He will raise taxes on all people making over $42,500 per year
Increase welfare payments for those in need
Universal healthcare for all on welfare and working

The middle class will pay for this all, people like Obama do not have to pay taxes like the middle class, they have ways of getting around it.

So Comrade sheepole Vote for your Messiah and help usher in the New World Order with Lord Obama his most merciful and George Sorros pulling Obamas strings

(pay no attention to the man behind the curtain - Sorros)