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.

 

US Socialist/Medicare Programs: $3 Trillion Annual Loss By 2013

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


By saying "You are very naive if you think things would be better for us if capitalism wasn't restricted and controlled."

You are in effect saying:

"You are very naive if you think things would be better for us if people are allowed to voluntarily engage in the trade of private property without restrictions or control."

I believe you are wrong.

You have no right to my property.

You have no right to control what I do with my property.

You have no right to control what I do with my labor.

You have no right to control me period.



[edit on 11-6-2010 by mnemeth1]




posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   
Once again just to add support to my position and the definitions of terms I use...

Socialism...


Under socialism the workers who operate the industries and services would collectively own and democratically manage them. In each factory and other workplace, the rank and file would elect their own immediate supervisors and management committees. They would also elect representatives to local and national assemblies of the industry or service in which they work, and to an all-industrial congress to coordinate production and distribution of all goods and services throughout the country. In short, socialism would replace the political government run by politicians with an industrial government run by workers and their elected representatives.

www.slp.org...


Socialism in a nutshell...

In a socialist society the means of production [1] are owned by the workers rather than by a rich minority of capitalists or functionaries. Such a system of ownership is both collective and individual in nature.

home.vicnet.net.au...


Socialist ownership of the means of production is ownership by all workers...

home.vicnet.net.au...


What Socialism is: "Collective ownership and democratic control of the material means of production by the workers and the people.

www.bergonia.org...

No mention of social health care, Medicare, or all the other social programs you think it is. Those are all the result of capitalism and the unbalanced wealth system it creates. In a system where the means of production is not privately owned jobs would not be made artificially scarce to maintain an unemployed class. In the capitalist system the owners have to keep a unemployed class in order to maintain their power over the labour sector. If there was an abundance of jobs workers would have power over the owners, they would not be forced to keep a job they're not happy with and the owner would have to pay the worker what they demand to keep their labour. That is not in the capitalists interest.

Taking away social programs will not solve that problem, it would just add another problem, a starving homeless angry population, as a capitalist wouldn't that be counter-productive to you?

www.associatedcontent.com...

I also suggest you read this...

www.naomiklein.org...


The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism
In THE SHOCK DOCTRINE, Naomi Klein explodes the myth that the global free market triumphed democratically. Exposing the thinking, the money trail and the puppet strings behind the world-changing crises and wars of the last four decades, The Shock Doctrine is the gripping story of how America’s “free market” policies have come to dominate the world-- through the exploitation of disaster-shocked people and countries.


[edit on 6/13/2010 by ANOK]



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
You have no right to my property.


Again I already explained no one is taking away your property!

'Property' in the context of socialism is anything that is used to exploit workers. So you can keep your business, if you have one, but who is going to work for you if they can go down the street and work at a cooperative for more money and better working conditions?

No forcing, just giving people the choice and they can make up their own mind, as it is workers don't have that choice.


You have no right to control what I do with my property.


I agree, why do you think I want to control you? That is the system we have now where capitalists control the workers and exploit them.
You can do what the hell you want with your property but if the workers had the power they wouldn't be forced through economic slavery to be exploited by you or anyone using your 'property'.


You have no right to control what I do with my labor.


Who is doing that? Capitalism does that right now in this present system, can you not see that?

But you are so confused it seems, are you 'labour' or are you a capitalist? If you are 'labour' then why support capitalists? You keep confusing me with your comments that seem contradictory. Capitalists (the bourgeois/capitalist/ruling/upper classes) earn from their ownership of the means of production, they don't earn from their labour, that's what the 'workers' (The Proletariat/the working class) do. (Those that are not capitalists but support them are known as the 'Petty-Bourgeois'/the middle class)


You have no right to control me period.




[edit on 6/13/2010 by ANOK]



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 02:44 AM
link   
Very simple choice we all have here which no one will dare to say :

IF YOU DON'T LIKE LIVING IN A NATION THAT WOULD RATHER TAKE CARE OF ITS OWN THEN TO SPEND STUPIDLY GET OUT OF THE USA.

Next time you have been laid off from your job do not dare try and call your local unemployment office. Suffer alone and say nothing. Socialism guranteees that things like this are afforded to us.

Don't dare call your city Govt when your nearest traffic light falls down and obstructs your path to work. Don't dare call the ambulance when you need to go to the hospital. Forget about calling the FD when your house is on fire. Let it burn down. Next time your house gets broken into don't call the cops because Socialism pays for their services.

Socialism keeps your Grandparents Social Security financed, Socialism provides things like schools, public parks, fire departments, police stations, horpitals.

Government controlling certain aspects is not always a bad thing. It keeps that car you drive safe. Without Socialism that car would have no seatbelts, windsheild wipers, hazard lights, lights, braking systems, airbags, brakes, air conditioner.

I am getting sick and tired of these "Socialist America" threads so next time please come up with an original thought and not rehash the same thousand threads a thousand times over. It is old.



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 04:57 PM
link   
Here's another little article I've dug up that further supports my position...


Technological capacity to produce enough to satisfy everyone's needs already exists globally and has done so for many decades. Yet needs continue to remain unmet on a massive scale. Why? Quite simply because scarcity is a functional requirement of capitalism itself...

...Production today is not primarily geared to satisfy human needs but "effective demand"--when "consumers" are able to buy goods at a price which will enable enterprises producing them to realise a profit. If what people can afford falls short of what they need, increasing output to satisfy the latter would cause prices to fall--to the detriment of profit. So the need for profit conflicts with the satisfaction of human needs.

Profit is not essentially a measure of technical efficiency. It is sometimes argued that the market's "hidden hand" guides enterprises towards the most efficient allocation of resources by bankrupting those failing to respond appropriately to its price signals. According to this argument, resources are inherently scarce and the market provides the best, if not the only, available mechanism for ensuring they are not wasted (which would aggravate scarcity). But the yardstick of "efficiency" used here is not something external to capitalism but intrinsic to it. An enterprise is judged to be "efficient" to the extent that it is profitable...


Please read the whole article, unless you fear what you may learn...

www.worldsocialism.org...



Artificial Scarcity

Artificial scarcity describes the scarcity of items even though the technology and production capacity exists to create an abundance. The term is aptly applied to non-rival resources, i.e. those that do not diminish due to one person's use, although there are other resources which could be categorized as artificially scarce. The most common causes are monopoly pricing structures, such as those enabled by intellectual property rights or by high fixed costs in a particular marketplace. The inefficiency associated with artificial scarcity is formally known as a deadweight loss. (read more)


www.bukisa.com...

Artificial scarcity of resources is a well known concept and capitalism cannot survive without it, to the detriment of regular people.

A good example of how capitalists monopolize the market to control the distribution of resources, thus maintain high profits in my home town is Walgreens. They bought out every pharmacy in the city, go downtown and you'll see 3 Walgreens on one block. They buy out all the pharmacies and then eventually they'll close the ones not making profit. You have no choice but Walgreens now, they can charge what they want as they have no competition, the other popular one they bought out was a lot cheaper. Starbucks did the same thing not quit so successfully but they still have a monopoly.

[edit on 6/14/2010 by ANOK]



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 12:40 PM
link   
I guess no one is concerned with the truth huh?

State conditioning is extremely powerful...



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
I guess no one is concerned with the truth huh?

State conditioning is extremely powerful...


No one is dumb enough to believe socialism actually works since history is replete with examples of it failing.

Private property and free markets work, rejection of private property and free markets leads to a breakdown of society and totalitarian brutality.

Rejection of private property means resources, including labor, are controlled through violence.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by ANOK
I guess no one is concerned with the truth huh?

State conditioning is extremely powerful...


No one is dumb enough to believe socialism actually works since history is replete with examples of it failing.


Where? Please cite sources because AFAIK there has been no socialism practiced anywhere to show failure. What you call socialism, is not socialism as I've already pointed out with evidence.


Private property and free markets work, rejection of private property and free markets leads to a breakdown of society and totalitarian brutality.


Do they? You really think the system is working? I don't. Totalitarian brutality? Have you visited Baghdad lately? That's not socialists invading middle east countries to control the distribution of oil to keep prices high.


Rejection of private property means resources, including labor, are controlled through violence.


What? Where do you get that idea from? Total unsubstantiated nonsense.

If you think people would support capitalism with no oversight then you are the dumb one. People are what's important not making money for yourself by exploiting them.

But obviously your mind is made up and you've not read and understood anything I've said. Go ahead and believe in your capitalist Utopian nightmare it ain't going to happen anyway. Do you really think working class people are going to stand by and let 'private entities' control and exploit them when you have no government or state system to control it? LOL we'd be looting and pillaging your private property and what ya going to do about it?



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Where did I get the idea that without private property resources are controlled through violence?

Oh, I don't know, perhaps all of human history?


If one nation invades another to control its resources, it has violated the property rights of that nation.

When one man invades the home of another man to rob him (of his resources), he has violated that mans property rights.

Property "rights" can be defined as rights because they are not granted by a government, they arise from our natural world.

If I am the first to work a resource into something of value, I am the owner of that newly produced resource.

I like to use a spear as an example.

If I produce a spear from a tree branch, I am the owner of that spear. No one else has a right or claim to my spear. I produced it, therefore it is mine.

Thus we can say property ownership is a "right" and not a "privilege" of government. Laws that violate our property rights, such as taxes, are naturally criminal in nature.

Since I own my spear and you have no right to it, if you want to take my spear from me, I will resist you if I have the means to do so.

This is also true of taxes, which require the brutality of the state in order to be extracted. Some may pay willingly, but most would rather not pay. They only pay because they face the threat of violence from a force too powerful for them to defend themselves against - ie. government thugs.




[edit on 17-6-2010 by mnemeth1]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join