Socialist I Am Calling You Out!

reply to post by ProjectJimmy


Chavez says what he says to get support? So i guess that's why he's shut down @ least 30 of Venezuela's News Networks that were opposing him...

reply to post by ExPostFacto


We need to agree on your basis of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. We cannot force one another to care.

Socialist is a word that has been demonized over time.

Would you say sociology is bad? OMG the only living beings that can actually communicate and share thought but they don't want to live in a social world...

In today's world the new socialist is what is needed.

The opposite of today's socialist is a privatist. Take your stance

reply to post by chiponbothshoulders


We were #1 in healthcare....

Originally posted by Copernicus

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]

Gee what a surprise another socialist trying to redefine terms to fit his skewed belief... Sigh!

Congratulations to the media they have successfully brainwashed enough folks with their BS that it is literally impossible to have an intelligent discussion with many of these folks.

A word to the wise a dozen or more people have already come on this thread and told me I don't know what I am talking about blah blah. But not a single one has given any specifics as to why.

So don't bother repeating them unless you can explain yourself and why you think I don't know what I am talking about. Stop parroting media BS you heard or read some where it's been repeated here like a mantra and it is enough.

reply to post by DogsDogsDogs


I was thinking that I would get more answers to that question but the reason that I asked it is because I believe that a question like that really separates the true capitalists from the rest.

Nothing wrong with your answer but a true capitalist would say that the goverment has no right to tell a business owner who to hire. This has nothing to do with the workers rights but the employers rights.

If citizens want those jobs they would have to adapt to the market or die. Sounds harsh but also if the employer pays too little no one will want to work for him and his business dies.

True capitalists believe this is how it would work.

Originally posted by dalan.
reply to post by oozyism

 

Free market failed, no rules and regulations failed, now stop the wimping and crying.. Come up with something new.

These Unites States have never had a "free market."

Not when a private bank is the one setting up and controlling that market.

Modern Money Mechanics

Well in capitalism since EVERYTHING is private, one(the elite) could argue why not have a private government and a private central bank? A corporation after all is private in that only a limited number of people hold shares.

Do people see why capitalism is bad and normally leads to fascism?

Fascism has nothing to do with socialism, in fact they are almost POLAR OPPOSITES! Communism is the EXACT polar opposite of fascism.

Too many people confuse fascism with socialism and frankly I think this is due to the cold war era and McCarthy's flawed views.

reply to post by Wotan


Well Anarchy is not what most think and has a far better track record then Democracy but that is a whole nother discussion.

The UK and the US are not the much different today Every kid in the US has free education and health care also.

I am not advocating anything radical. I am opposing the use of force. You said in the UK there is no opting out. That is force. Why should I pay for someone else kids education? If I am not using the service I should not have to pay for it period.

No one seem to want to address this question. I am not opposed to social programs as someone tried to falsely characterize. I just want to make it all voluntary. Do you or anyone have a problem with that?

In fact that is the only way to overcome the so called left right divide. Promote voluntarism and and I will stand beside you and you will be free to practice any type of socialism you like as long as it harms no one and no one is forced to participate. The Amish are a good example they have a socialist system but it is all voluntary and no one is forced to participate and can leave anytime if they feel oppressed and some do. No one has a problem with them.

Just like the health care bill in America. Had they made it all voluntary it would have been back page news with hardly a whimper.

So what say you and anyone do you have anything against making it all voluntary? Then you are not stealing from people against thier will. Who can argue against that?



[edit on 8-5-2010 by hawkiye]

reply to post by EarthCitizen07



You're wrong it only leads to fascism when it is forced by government. Capitalism is FREE markets. I wish people would quit trying to redefine it.

In a free market they could have thier private bank but people would be free to take thier business elsewhere. Why is it so hard for people to understand this?

Every example someone throws up is based on government control and force. That is why we need government out of it. If these so called big corps were forced to compete fairly without the government protection via regulation they receive they would fall by the wayside. People would vote with their feet and wallets and take their business else where because the free market would provide many alternative and choices.

And please not another word about well then they could do what ever they want an oppress people NO THEY CAN'T because in a free market people would have other choices and choose not to do business with them!

As an example we complain about big oil and how they rape the environment and cause all kinds of wars etc. So can you take your business elsewhere? Not very easily? Why? because of government regulation protecting their markets. And people thinkthe solution is more regulation...

Ethanol and biodiesel could easily replace petroleum but is is so heavily regulated it is almost impossible for new ethanol/biodiesel businesses to get started. And please don't turn this into and argument over whether ethanol is good or bad. All of the bad things you have heard about ethanol are propaganda put out by big oil but that is another discussion.

In a free market we would have replaced petroleum oil by now. But because of government regulation our neighbors and loved ones are still dying in foreign lands for oil. this is jut one example. Big pharma and medicine is another... Processed foods also look at all the regulations they are trying to put on organic foods and animals and herbs etc. All this is not to protect consumers but to protect the markets for thier crony corps that make crap foods that are making us sick and obese.

reply to post by hawkiye


You keep going on about the unvoluntary aspect of socialism and why no one will address it. Simply put some don't have a problem with it. I understand that it is the dealbreaker for you and the reason socialism will never be the ideal system for you.

That is your how you feel about it. The defenition of socialism is what it is. If you don't like it how is puting it in other words going to change what it is.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
There is no such thing as inalienable rights, its only a theory! Unless you plan on living off-planet you will have to settle for constitutional laws that exist in each country.

It is far more than a theory, my friend, it is self evident, and the strongest evidence of this lies in the Founding of the United States. The Natural and Inalienable Rights enumerated in the Constitution preexisted that Constitution, and the Articles of Confederation and State constitutions support that. The Bill of Rights was not even added until after the Constitution had been all ready ratified by each state. It was added to ensure those enumerated Rights were not trampled upon, and the 9th Amendment speaks volumes to the incorrectness of your assertion, unless you somehow think that Amendment is "granting rights" nobody is really sure about.

No! *Natural and Unalienable* rights is a political philosophy.

REAL WORLD rights are social constructs, defended by force and open to change and improvement.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
If you don't like certain laws then voice your concerns and lobby to have them changed. That is all you can do in a "free" democracy or "free" republic.

I can do much more than that. I can assert my Rights, and indeed have, when confronted with the unconstitutionality of a law. I can also, and indeed have, serve as a member of a jury and refuse to convict another person due to the repugnance of a law, and in that instance, it took less than an hour to convince the rest of the jury to see my reasoning, and that person charged with a "crime" was acquitted, and there was nothing anyone could do about it.

You can only assert rights that are within the constitution.

They are called the *Bill of Rights*!

Deleted due to double post!

[edit on 8-5-2010 by EarthCitizen07]

Originally posted by hawkiye
You're wrong it only leads to fascism when it is forced by government. Capitalism is FREE markets. I wish people would quit trying to redefine it.

Yes capitalism is free market, no arguement there, but a free market in today's complex enviroment can ONLY lead to fascism. Fascism according to mussolini(which I don't care for) is unregulated corporate capitalism.

Bingo that is EXACTLY what we have today!

Originally posted by hawkiye
In a free market they could have thier private bank but people would be free to take thier business elsewhere. Why is it so hard for people to understand this?

We are arguing about CENTRAL BANKS such as the FED! What does commercial banks have anything to do with this? Your confused!

Having a private central bank such as the FED for nearly 100 years has been a total nightmare for everyone. Trillions of dollars have been wasted paying them interest alone! Do you understand that THE DOLLAR IS A PRIVATE CURRENCY?

Originally posted by hawkiye
Every example someone throws up is based on government control and force. That is why we need government out of it. If these so called big corps were forced to compete fairly without the government protection via regulation they receive they would fall by the wayside. People would vote with their feet and wallets and take their business else where because the free market would provide many alternative and choices.

Actually its THE LACK OF REGULATION that has caused private monopolies to prosper at the expense of hard working american citizens. Anti-Trust laws existed for a reason but some companies are TOO BIG to listen to the government. They flash a few "ben franklins" and viola.......

Originally posted by hawkiye
And please not another word about well then they could do what ever they want an oppress people NO THEY CAN'T because in a free market people would have other choices and choose not to do business with them!

Perhaps in the pre-corporate era, BUT NOT TODAY!

The World Trade Organisation goes to great lengths each year in conspiring to undermine every government on the planet. Why do you think thousands of people turn up to protest???

Either you are for big business or you are for the people.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


You yammer on about how the only Rights are those listed on some peice of paper, then you point to the Bill of Rights, completely ignoring the 9th Amendment, that I have all ready brought to your attention. You willfully ignored that question I asked of you, because you know full well the 9th Amendment shoots your argument down.

Further each person in the United States can rely on far more than the Bill of Rights, as each State comes with a constitution enumerating rights as well, and almost without fail, these state constitutions make clear that rights are Inalienable and Natural. Your propaganda is just that, and it is not a message of freedom and Individual Rights, but a strong defense of government rights, and the right for the government to grant rights at its whim. In short, you make a tyrants argument

reply to post by hawkiye


You cannot just 'pick and choose' which bits you want to pay into if you want a civilised society. ALL pay for the collective good of the society.

I agree with you that there are 'parts' that you may not personally use, but one could argue that, say for example Education, that you have already used that part and are now paying for it.

The same goes for Healthcare. It is no good having half of the population riddled with disease and infections because they cant pay for Healthcare as the diseases and infections will spread to the ones that can pay for healthcare. ALL pay for healthcare so the population becomes healthier, thus cheaper in the long run.

Noone knows what may happen to each of us in the future, hence why we pay taxes into Welfare. This is much like an insurance policy whereby you can fall back onto Welfare so one does not starve or lose their homes.

You cannot choose not to pay into Defence, Police or Fire can you? It would be ludicrous for the Fire department to turn around and say Mr. Blogs house is on fire but since he didnt pay his fire service part of his taxes we are going to stand here and watch his house burn down. Or the Police saying 'well, sorry about the murder of your wife, but since you didnt pay your police tax, we wont investigate this case''.

What I am trying to say is, Socialist Policies are for the collective good of the WHOLE community, not just the individual. ''No Man is an Island'' - We are ALL affected by what happens with the rest of the community.

You say paying taxes amounts to theft. If it wasnt for taxes, you certainly would not be living the lifestyle you do now - man would still be living in caves.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

You yammer on about how the only Rights are those listed on some peice of paper, then you point to the Bill of Rights, completely ignoring the 9th Amendment, that I have all ready brought to your attention. You willfully ignored that question I asked of you, because you know full well the 9th Amendment shoots your argument down.

My only comment about the 9th ammendment is its a bit too vague.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Further each person in the United States can rely on far more than the Bill of Rights, as each State comes with a constitution enumerating rights as well, and almost without fail, these state constitutions make clear that rights are Inalienable and Natural. Your propaganda is just that, and it is not a message of freedom and Individual Rights, but a strong defense of government rights, and the right for the government to grant rights at its whim. In short, you make a tyrants argument.

The problem with the USA in my opinion is that each state has a constitution of its own in addition to the national constitution causing all kinds of confusion.

reply to post by Wotan


The collectivist will always argue that cooperation and society could not exist without the collective, always ignoring that no collectivist can exist without the individual. The individual always comes first, and if that individual chooses not to partake in a collectivist hive mentality, they have every right to do so. You sound completely like the Borg:

"Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated"

And how do you defend this indefensible argument? The greater good. Yet, your greater good argues Machivellian principles where the end justifies the means. Conversely, Natural Law and Inalienable Rights argues that the means justify the end, and when things go horribly awry, it was because the means justified the end, and when things accomplish the greater good, it is because the means justify the end. You can not point to any modern socialist or collectivist system that has achieved the greater good. Because, the means justify the end.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Well, thank you at least for responding to it. The 9th Amendment is only vague in regard to those Rights that have not been listed, where the 9th Amendment is clear is in that those vague Rights are Rights belonging to the People and it can not be construed that just because other Rights were enumerated that only those Rights are what belong to the People.

Further evidence of the Inalienable nature of Rights, at least regarding The Bill of Rights, is in the language. Take just the 1st Amendment for example; "Congress shall make no laws..." The sort of rights you are advocating are government granted rights, but what can be granted by government can be taken away by government, but the 1st Amendment makes clear that the 1st Amendment can not be repealed, nor suspended. It has prohibited Congress from trampling over those Rights, in any way shape or form.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


There is no reason at all to be confused about what a State constitution says, and of course, the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights you spoke to, makes clear, what power not granted to the federal government is reseverd for the States, and the People respectively. What is so confusing about that?


[edit on 8-5-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]