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.

 

Socialist I Am Calling You Out!

page: 8
23
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2010 @ 05:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts

Originally posted by hawkiye
This is bullsh!t!


On this we can certainly agree... Hope you enjoy your Fascism, because that's exactly what you want for this country... Now if I could just figure out a way to get the left wing nuts and the right wing nuts to march off a cliff...


WTF? Reading comprehension? Where in the world you get the idea that I want fascism is beyond me. Please quote me where you think I asserted that idea?




posted on May, 8 2010 @ 05:06 AM
link   
Funny stuff reading through this thread. I am a social libertarian I believe in personal responsibility and that part of that responsibility is to make sure your neighbor isn't starving, no matter what. If we didn't have a government and lived within a village say 100 people or so, would it be right that 10 of the 100 starve while the others eat? Would it be right that the village doctor wouldn't treat 20 people out of the 100? Would the 80 people tell the 20 they weren't can't get health care because they didn't have a good enough job within the village?

One thing is for certain, if we lived in a village like the one described above we could call it America.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 05:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
Funny stuff reading through this thread. I am a social libertarian I believe in personal responsibility and that part of that responsibility is to make sure your neighbor isn't starving, no matter what. If we didn't have a government and lived within a village say 100 people or so, would it be right that 10 of the 100 starve while the others eat? Would it be right that the village doctor wouldn't treat 20 people out of the 100? Would the 80 people tell the 20 they weren't can't get health care because they didn't have a good enough job within the village?

One thing is for certain, if we lived in a village like the one described above we could call it America.


Would it be right to take by force the substance of anyone in the village against thier will to feed or treat the people in need? If you believe so then you are no libertarian.

See I believe your scenario is a false argument. I believe the compassion of the people will take care of those truly in need as it always has in history. it is only when government gets involved that things get worse. It is a relative new anomaly that government should take care of these people.

Also where are the starving people or those who can't get health care in America? Anyone can walk into a hospital and can't be turned away. Any number of places give away food daily and there are a number of government programs across the country that give away free food not to mention food stamps etc. So no your scenario does not describe America.

I am not against social programs to help people who are truly in need and need a hand up as long as they are strictly voluntary. As soon as force is brought to bare then it is theft.

And government intervention has stifled free enterprise where many folks could have a better lifestyle if the producers were free to create jobs and produce without hindrance and theft of thier profits.



[edit on 8-5-2010 by hawkiye]



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 05:31 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


We do agree on one point. No body should take from one to give to another. However, if the richest person in the village consumed most of the products of the labor, and did not help that person starving...I would move to kick the rich person out of said village. Likewise, a person that does nothing to help the village would be kicked out. A person that is willing to help out, should have the support of the entire community to get them where they need to be to contribute alleviating the burden on others and spreading the wealth of the community.

Taxes were designed for the purpose of supporting the welfare of the community. Unfortunately our leaders have turned this tax collection game into contracts for the rich. What we have today is socialism for the rich and free markets for the poor.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 05:38 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


Black Market is an example of free market, you have to agree.. That is not accepted because??

Because there is no justice, have you ever operated in a black market before??

They say this product does this and does that, next it doesn't..

They say this item costs 20, you give them a 50 dollar bill, You won't get your 30 dollars back..

No justice no peace, free market creates chaos.. When you don't get your 30 dollars back, you go get your boys, the war begins..



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 05:39 AM
link   
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 


Taxes were not designed to help the welfare of others, they are necessary to keep the slow and meandering beast of government functioning. This is the only purpose of taxation. It is foolish to allow this beast to consume in a glutonous manner, and the beast should be kept on strict diet, kept lean and functioning in a minmal manner, to protect the rights of all.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 05:43 AM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


The one thing you accomplished in this thread is consistency, and that consitency is double speak. You present false dichotomies at every turn. You offer empty rhetoric and meaningless platitudes to defend the tyranny of government. Your double speak asserts free markets can't be free unless they are not free, i.e., free markets need government intervention. It is just a matter of time before you start declaring war is peace and love is hate.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
reply to post by hawkiye
 


We do agree on one point. No body should take from one to give to another. However, if the richest person in the village consumed most of the products of the labor, and did not help that person starving...I would move to kick the rich person out of said village. Likewise, a person that does nothing to help the village would be kicked out. A person that is willing to help out, should have the support of the entire community to get them where they need to be to contribute alleviating the burden on others and spreading the wealth of the community.

Taxes were designed for the purpose of supporting the welfare of the community. Unfortunately our leaders have turned this tax collection game into contracts for the rich. What we have today is socialism for the rich and free markets for the poor.


Now you lost me as you are advocating force. If the rich person is not harming anyone what right do you have to kick anyone out because they are not helping who you think should be helped. Where do you get authority to tell anyone where they can or can't live?

You are no libertarian my friend. What you advocate is socialism. And that is fine as long is it is voluntary. If your village was formed by mutual consent and everyone who lives thier agreed to help as you described or they must leave then that is perfectly fine.

However if the village is already established with no such agreement and most of you believe as you do, you have no right to force anyone else who doesn't to participate in any manner under threat of removal. Why should they leave thier own property they labored and paid for no matter how rich they are?



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
So can we discuss this in a meaningful way or will this just turn into another left vs right ignorance fest?


Probably not since your view of capitalism and socialism is based on your own preconceptions. You have obviously already made up your mind that socialism stands for corruption and capitalism stands for freedom of choice.

I think your views are huge simplifications and not at all accurate, but why argue.


You cant argue that capitalism is a humane system however. Its all about seeing people as resources, valuing people based on how much they contribute to the wealth of corporations. With capitalism, you get a world like today, with people exploiting and using other people to get more of this virtual scarcity called money. You get corporations maximizing profits at the expense of nature and people. Its all about the money and nothing else.


[edit on 8-5-2010 by Copernicus]



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 07:05 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


I fail to see what type/kind of system that you are advocating, to me it sounds like anarchy with a selfish biase.

Virtually EVERY countries citizens in the world pay taxes to their respective governments. But each Government does something different with the tax money.

In the UK and Europe, most of this tax money goes in to social programs like a National Health System, Welfare, Education. Other areas include Energy, Defence, Transport infrastucture, Criminal Justice etc etc. These are all paid for by the taxpayer/citizen. Everything outside of thse areas YOU pay for yourself.

Basically, in the UK:- Every child has a right to education, healthcare, welfare, housing and other social programs whilst being defended by the Armed Forces and Police. These are every UK citizens GOD given right under the UK law. It is not FREE par se as the collective taxpayers of the UK pay for these services - non are opt out. It is called a civilised and caring society.

I really fail to understand why some Americans are opposed to the European Model. Everyone pays for the collective good of the community/country. I am not saying OUR system is perfect, because it isnt - there is certainly room for improvement.

Maybe the problem lies in our (US/Europe) mentality. I think our respective historys play a huge part in why our systems are so different.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Wotan
 

Anarchy would work fine in a world where people had honor and a conscience.

Most in this world have neither,they run to church once a week to beg forgiveness for being the selfish,greedy little thieves and adulterers they deny that they truly are.

I can see all of this in myself,and in most people around me to a degree.

I do not use forgiveness to justify my evil ways,there is no need for forgiveness,there is need to forgive.

Governments were established to keep people from hurting one another,and to deal with the maintenance of infrastructure,to deal with the maintenance of the commons,that which everyone requires to exist.

Being the flawed little humans they are,they have stolen the commons from us and claimed it as their own.

Gubmint is to deal with...below
Q: To The Snake Oil Salesman,what the heck is in that stuff anyway?.
A: Gubmint determines it is poison,stop greedy little carpetbagger from selling poison to stupid moo-cow consumer.

Unfortunately,now the gubmint has become the snake oil salesman,and our misplaced trust and ignorance,allow them to have power over us.

Consent of the governed=moo-cow consumer feedbag chubbo.....

Anarchy good,current gubmint bad.

Free trade is for those big enough to play the game (who can afford to pay fees,or hire a big-time lawyer find a way around them),all others are ,for the most part,destroyed,or at least subdued to a point where they are really incapable of anything but just scraping by.

The legal system is skewed in the same way,the players in the system protect one another,and it is compartmentalized to keep those players from admitting to themselves how much destroyed lives they leave in their wake.

The entire system is based upon ignorance and greed.

Anarchy good,that's pretty much what it is anyway,without gubmint skimming their cut off the top,we could probably get by.

Uggh,Anarchy,I will name my first child this.....

Anarchy is what those who crave control over others call it when they lose control over others.

Now if only most of us were more responsible than we are,we could get on with the business of fixing this mess we have allowed others to get us into.

If you want it done right,you have to do it yourself.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 

You must live in a different america than I do,or maybe you lead a sheltered life.

America is not #1 in any category other than arrogance and prejudice.

Maybe your shelter will blow away in a the coming storm and force you to open your eyes .

No offense.

Anyway.....



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 08:59 AM
link   
Dear hawkiye,

A 100% free market cannot ever succeed in bringing happiness to people, because it is like wildlife: the bigger fish will eat the smaller fish, and finally there is gonna be a single fish that will have eaten all the other fish.

A 100% free market will make poor people poorer and rich people richer, much faster from what is happening now.

The idea that a 100% free market can regulate itself is utterly ...bollocks. In an 100% free market, the big players will make agreements under the table to screw all the other players.

What we need is not more free market but LESS free market. The real reason there is an economic destruction worldwide is because we have let rich people manipulate the economy in order to become richer.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 09:03 AM
link   
Socialism is working great here...

www.usatoday.com...


CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) — Venezuela's annual inflation rate has surpassed 30% after consumer prices surged in April.
The Central Bank and National Statistics Institute on Friday reported a 5.2% increase in consumer prices during April, driving up the annual rate to 30.4%.

President Hugo Chavez's government has been struggling against the highest inflation rate in Latin America and a weakening economy in general.

Prices increased 11.3% from January to April, up from 6.7% inflation in the same 2009 period.


Of course Chavez blames evil capitalists for the higher costs.

Just a little preview of where the USA is heading now.



[edit on 8-5-2010 by Fractured.Facade]



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 09:52 AM
link   
Quick question for those that support the idea of a free market. In this free market would an employer be allowed to hire illegal immigrants?

Don't mean to be off topic or steer things that way just asking if government intervention would be OK in this case or would you prefer the market to regulate itself?



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


my opinion, no.
Hopefully, I am not the only one to feel that free market should not mean free for all.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 11:07 AM
link   
I love seeing this topic discussed, but I wish it was approached more as a brainstorm than an argument? When argued from a firm stance there's little room for creative reasoning and solution. This subject is important in understanding the state of the world today.

Socialists are shouting "What if your the town idiot?" or "What about the crippled?" While the capitalists say "Why should I share?" and "It's not fair to force me!" but what's eluded is identifying the problems as a whole. All the correct methods are being laid out, but the problems and solutions are scattered among every opposing view. Arguing complete viewpoints only cloud the picture.

The reality is there are plenty enough excesses to accommodate everyone in economies like the USA once you reign in the spending and corruption. Evening the playing field has never and will never be. The system in the US at its best came after WW2 and was far from fair, yet everyone enjoyed spoils. That's where to start. Improve on that post WW2 economy, shrink federal government, especially at military spending, and you can imagine.

Points were made throughout this thread that were true and vital. The market is unfair to the little guy. Big corps. are welcome to manufacture goods at no penalty, which is huge! They are also welcome to be based outside the US. Think of every large US corp. doing this without cost? Imagine the staggering amount of payroll taxes, property taxes, income taxes, licensing fees, business operating costs and infinite other opportunities where they would be exercising our economy should they be based here? Employees annual expenditures, traffic tickets, material needs, etc... All absent our countries economy by allowing this offshore. A luxury our smaller businesses, not only are afforded, but are required to compete against while taking up the slack in lost revenue! Post WW2 this was not allowed for good reason!

Added to that they are allowed to pollute, collude, monopolize, red-line, fraud, and wiggle their way out of literally anything, while they freely pedal low cost goods directly back to us for gross profits? They avoid $billions of what's considered the cost of doing business to the little guys in exchange for the going price to buy our lawmakers, regulators and courts. Drug companies skip expensive drug trials by greasing the FDA to fake a report. They not only save on costs of testing, but also immediately begin generating profits. This is going on and on in every corner of capitalism today!

Add the mountainous corporate welfare revenue to the run away banks scenario and unnecessary military and other federal spending and you can imagine the $numbers$! There's enough excess in the US to take care of everyone, including world hunger.

After WW2 this country got filthy rich, including the working class, and were still being cheated then. Imagine if things were actually fair? The economic systems are just a decoy to argue over. The actual system is the confusion and failure. This system never has or will break down, or collapse. It's now running better than ever and won't break down until people see it for what it is?



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Alright I haven't posted much on this because honestly this thread has started to disgust me. Most of all the most disturbing thing here is how both sides, capitalism and socialism are being defined by incredibly extreme variants of themselves.

Capitalism, it seems, many on this site will not accept unless it is a form of libertarianism, and some people want straight out anarchy.

Conversely, socialism is being portrayed only as dictatorships run by egomaniacs.

We are forgetting the massive middle ground, and I for one would like to point out that dictators can say whatever they want, but it does not make it true. Hugo Chavez is not a socialist and more than Augusto Pinochet was a capitalist. They both are just saying whatever to get support.

As for the rest of the political spectrum not covered by the extremists: Yes the United States is a capitalist country, just not a moderate one. Yes the United Kingdom is a socialist country, again a moderate one.

Get over the radicalization, this is not a black and white issue and dragging whatever random conspiracy theory you have into it and calling everyone who disagrees with it an idiot is not helping at all.

You, OP, wanted a reasonable and cordial debate, and you have not at all lived up to that goal yourself.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Management theory.

The larger management becomes, the less profit margin for any given product.

This is a basic tenet of management. The more you have managing, the less there is for the worker.

Even the the Marx man could not argue this point. Period. As JPZ brought up, he even stated this fact.

Socialism or any "forced" redistribution of products or assets has always had this problem.

Just a simplistic example. You have 10 people, in one society you have 5 producing and 5 dictating and distributing. In the other you have 9 producing and 1 dictating and distributing. Which one is more effective?

It is a basic tenet of any endeavor to keep it simple, non circulatory.

My specialty has always been management or in all actuality, removal of the micromanagement.

In this day and age specialization in all fields has made it possible to NOT have everything ran by the guys on the top. Japanese management systems have gone to this format as has the construction industry in the US of A. Sub Contractors that are self regulating entities divide up the larger contract into particular components of the whole. I use to get pissed about it because not many could understand the overall production of the whole to see why I wanted certain things to be done. I found after awhile, they do not need to understand, they just need to do their specific duties.

I was from the old school where everyone needed to understand the entirety of the production. Where one cog of the production was interchangeable with the rest. That management format is gone. Where it takes years to train someone in that format, only weeks or months is necessary in the newer specialization format.

This being said, socialism is OLD school. It cannot compete with specialization and minimalistic management. Where our government's think they can control an entire homogeneous society by micromanaging every damn aspect of it.

Some have brought to the table problems with the so called "capitalism". They are not bringing to the table the correct culprit of the problem.

The problem is not capitalism but the failure of government to enforce Natural Law. When a company or person commits harm to another, they have to be punished. Period.

People look at capitalism as the root cause, sorry, in any system you will have corruption and criminals. Hell, look at our governments, they are the most corrupt locals of said corruption. Why? Because that is where corruption and criminals flow to. It is inevitable. Same as gargantuan companies. The power is not in free markets, it is in CONTROLLED markets.

Our justice systems are also the main source of this problem. A company that hurts their consumers to gain a buck, should they be fined? Or people that knowingly harmed another to make that buck, should they go to prison?

Or let us say a representative (we will use Dodd for this example since I despise him), blatantly lies about not allowing officials at AIG were to get whatever pay the company wanted to give, even after the taxpayers had to cover their asses? In my view, this person caused harm to the taxpayers and should be thrown in prison!

You cannot have a system where the rulers are held to a different standard as the ruled. What does a socialist system and totalitarian management of said society create?

What we have today. If you are going to bad mouth capitalism, maybe you should realize we do not have a capitalistic society, we have a socialist/fascist/cronie capitalist society where the rulers are "Above the Law".



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by belial259
 


LOL - a right to jobs! This is America, you have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness among other rights such as the right to have property, the right to an attorney, the right to a fair trial, the right to a trial by jury. These were almost NOT enumerated in the constitution because they were understood to exist, given to us by non other than..wait for it...God. The O.P. has hit the nail on the head with alot of you guys. We have the right to try and fail, which i'll admit our government has had a severe problem with the latter. The move by our govt especially in just the last year with the aquisition of the health care insurance industry, auto industry and now the mortgage industry (w/the fed holding over 95% of ALL mortgages in the U.S.) is good enough reason for most who watch and read the news daily to cause concern. Our govt. is on a never ending battle against the small guy only to make itself larger and more powerful. If some of you would read the words of our founders it would be "self-evident" what direction our country was supposed to be headed in. We're based on individual liberties and we're a country of laws. I can't say it enough, do your homework before you want to trash our country into a system that's failed time and time again. For everyone interested in this thread i strongly suggest reading, "A 5000 Year Leap - Principles of Freedom 101"



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join