A suggestion for the ones that want socialism

go live in Cuba

or Venezuela

or North Korea

maybe some "socialist" african country

and then try to get out, ha, ha

The grass is not always greener on the other side.

People should be thankfull for having the opportunity to live in a democracy, bit because the vast majority has never been abroad, they are just ignorant and ignorance is bliss

C.

so you just need the govt to change you diaper every time you sheet.....


good god, wtf

Originally posted by The Transhumanist

1) I would react by A) Fighting every policy that the said president made by calling, emailing, writing letters to my congressman and B) electing somebody else after him that would turn back the policies. If he became a dictator (like so many do in socialist countries) id fight tooth and nail to get rid of him.

What makes you think that a dictatorship would EVER be allowed by ANYONE in America? Even the citizens with a heavy socialist lean would never want that. A socialist republic is entirely possible. What makes you people think that socialism has anything to do with authoritarian rule? If the President of France really f*cked up, he would be impeached like in any other republic.

Even the citizens with a heavy socialist lean would never want that? Really? Ask Sean Penn and his likes about how good of a job Chavez and Castro are doing. What about Bill Maher? I believe that they would like it very much. Maybe just not the "middle" lefties, those who want a public option and such, but the ones on the far left wouldnt mind it one bit.

Also, what painting is that in your avatar? Ive been meaning to ask you because it looks really familiar.

Isn't castro a communist? I may be oversimplifying this, but his government has an inner circle that is privileged above others. This is not socialism, it is a bastardization of it.

Constitutional law does not preclude policies of socialism. I will admit I support certain social views, but I do not support overriding the constitution or ever setting up any type of dictatorship.

I truly believe a socially conscious people would require less authoritarian rule. I do not see these things as being equal.

I actually forgot the name of it. I think it's the colored version of some old wood engraving or something.

While I agree that there are always gonna be Obama fanatics who wouldn't mind him becoming a dictator but there was probably just as many Bush fanatics who would've wanted the same thing. Authoritarian rule has nothing to do with being left or right.

Can you provide any evidence whatsoever that Bill Maher or Sean Penn would prefer a dictatorship to a republic?

Here's my take as a child my mom and dad treated their kids with a Socialism family dynamic... the provided everything and ask we put forth minimal effort towards the communal good.

Later as teens Socialism was cast aside for outright dictatorship! "You will be home before eleven you will clean you room and do your homework and you will not see that girl again"!

Needless to say I left home because I craved my freedom... mom and dad's house, mom and dad's rules... live by them or get out...I got out, most of us did....

Given a choice between Capitalism and Socialism .... I already made my choice and guess what.. I can have my dessert without eating all my veggies!

Originally posted by Tomis_Nexis
Our current economy is a prime example of a negative for Capitalism.

Wrong.

Our current economy is a prime example of a negative for Corporatism.

Originally posted by The Transhumanist

You're not really grasping the concept. There wouldn't be one person in charge of determining what is too big. It would be every working citizens job to do that. Libertarian socialism is all about an alternative to the old paradigms of increasing corporate power versus increasing state power. That alternative is increasing direct democratic control of the state by individual citizens. That way if something screws up, it's not the corporations fault, it's not the representatives fault, it's Every One's fault.

It encourages people to think critically and take responsibility for their decisions. Libertarian Socialism is actually the fusion of personal liberty and equality that socialism and libertarianism individually advocate. It is actually the most free the average person can be in terms of having the maximum amount of say in any given decision save for Anarchy where there is no state.

So the average person can be the most free he can be as long as he doesnt sell to good of a product to where the majority like to use it? I dont understand the need for those limitations. To keep everybody safer? What happened to my ability to take risk as deemed to my want to do so?

I believe in failure being there to teach me a lesson to try and not do the same mistake again. What libertarian socialism is promoting is that Im not going to fail because I have limits on what Im able to do as determined by the collective...kinda like what we allready have today, minus the whole giving up property and corporations part, well sorta lol.

I get the concept and it sounds like it would be a great utopian society. It would be great right after we take stuff from people who earned it by working their whole lives and just gave it to the community to control. But that very first part is what I have a problem with, having to take control of the major markets in this country for the good of the people, even tho they are privately owned by people who have worked hard to earn them and keep them. Does that really sound fair? Say you were to go and work your butt of makeing a house, by hand, for you and your family in a community. Then one day a tornado comes along and rips up every other house in the neighborhood. You take a couple people in to help them, but you only have so much room. But, eventually, the good of the community comes up in discussion and the next thing you know, you and your family are kicked out of your own house, that you built, to make room for a couple more people. To me, Id be fighting tooth and nail to keep what is mine and would not just let it go and I would have that right to do so.

But that very first part is what I have a problem with, having to take control of the major markets in this country for the good of the people, even tho they are privately owned by people who have worked hard to earn them and keep them. Does that really sound fair? Say you were to go and work your butt of makeing a house, by hand, for you and your family in a community. Then one day a tornado comes along and rips up every other house in the neighborhood. You take a couple people in to help them, but you only have so much room. But, eventually, the good of the community comes up in discussion and the next thing you know, you and your family are kicked out of your own house, that you built, to make room for a couple more people. To me, Id be fighting tooth and nail to keep what is mine and would not just let it go and I would have that right to do so.

Well the real argument is: is the democratic process fair? The answer is no. Only true anarchy allows people to have autonomy and essentially do whatever they want, but that would still essentially boil down to mob rule eventually once the majority realized they could push everyone else around. If we adopted a direct industrial democray however, whatever the majority would decide would be fair to the majority, which is about as fair as you can hope to get. There is consensus democray, the style that created the Constitution, but we all know what that compromise lead to. (Slavery ring any bells?) The majority is rarely always right, but they are at the very least fair to the majority.

In terms of people working hard their whole lives, what about migrant farm workers working 15 hour shifts in the fields every day. Do they ever get to own a single share of the farming company that puts them to work? No, and they would never be able to afford anything besides the bare necessities on that salary so they wouldn't even have the opportunity to invest. Capitalism is marketed as the most fair system because everyone has equal potential to become rich. This is simply not true. You have to have poor farm workers in order to subsidize food costs for everyone else and so that someone else can profit off of your labor. Is that fair? No I don't think so.

Let's say everyone in America gets a free ride to Harvard and graduates with a degree in environmental science. Obviously some people, although equally qualified and of equal status are going to get the short end of the stick. In Libertarian Socialism, people still have to work the jobs no one wants to do, but those people are paid the same and in some cases more than an environmental scientist doing exactly what they want to do to make up for that.

Originally posted by The Transhumanist

In terms of people working hard their whole lives, what about migrant farm workers working 15 hour shifts in the fields every day. Do they ever get to own a single share of the farming company that puts them to work? No, and they would never be able to afford anything besides the bare necessities on that salary so they wouldn't even have the opportunity to invest. Capitalism is marketed as the most fair system because everyone has equal potential to become rich. This is simply not true. You have to have poor farm workers in order to subsidize food costs for everyone else and so that someone else can profit off of your labor. Is that fair? No I don't think so.

Let's say everyone in America gets a free ride to Harvard and graduates with a degree in environmental science. Obviously some people, although equally qualified and of equal status are going to get the short end of the stick. In Libertarian Socialism, people still have to work the jobs no one wants to do, but those people are paid the same and in some cases more than an environmental scientist doing exactly what they want to do to make up for that.

While I agree with the first paragraph that you wrote, the second one is where it gets a little hazzey to me. Its true that migrant workers work hard as hell, probably harder than you or I have ever worked in our lives, unless you have been a mirgrant worker of course lol. But, I assume that you have not since you are on a computer, talking on a forum over the internet. That would go against the bare essentials thing that you stated. A question I ask is whether or not do migrant workers have the ability to own a share in the company that they work for? I say yes, if the company is publicly traded, they have every right to buy a share if they so choose, as do you and I. But if it is a privatly owned company, what right do they have to buy into the company if they are not asked to?

Your statement that "Capitalism is marketed as the most fair system because everyone has equal potential to become rich. This is simply not true." is false in my view. It is the most fair system in that everybody does have the potential to become rich if they work hard enough to become rich. Just because somebody has a hard job doesnt mean that they will become rich, you have to save and make investments and such do so. Its not just handed out, sacrifices must be made. For a migrant worker, maybe they eat one less meal a week to save a couple bucks to go somewhere else to look for a better job and so on. This whole country was built on the sacrifice of others, unfortunately some of it was forced, but it was sacrifice non the less. My ancestors never held slaves and they sacrificed to get where they were and to become "richer" over the years. That meant that maybe the second generation of my family was able to buy a house of their own instead of renting, then the third was able to start a company and so on.

Yes, you have to have poor farm workers to keep prices low. That goes back to your other thead in which I stated that the min wage law and unions are what outpriced GM right out of the market. But, the beauty of capitalism is that eventually, if the poor farm worker plays his cards right, he can move up in the world. At the very least, his children will move up...if he plays his cards right. You are saying that no matter what he does, he will be taken care of which is not fair.

In Libertarian Socialism, Im wondering who would determine who gets the "short end of the stick" and who would get the other job? The collective masses would pick every job for every human being? If so, that is highly inefficient and I believe that it will go back to the same old way, eventually, of its not what you know but who you know. And why should they get paid more than they other guy? Because they are doing a less desirable job? Wouldnt that make the job more desirable in the end?