Socialism Without Guns Is Impossible

I propose that a socialist State could not exist without the government possessing firearms.

Since people naturally defend that which they own, be it their labor, their property, and their bodies, brutal totalitarian violence must be used against them to separate them from their property and to enslave them.

Since I've never heard of an "opt-out" clause in a socialist state, where by one could opt not to participate in the socialist society and keep all of their property and resources for themselves, one has to assume that bloodthirsty violence was used against them to relieve them of their property.

Given that socialism necessitates vicious unmitigated brutal violence be directed against those who are the most prosperous in a given society, it stands to reason that without guns, such a system would be unable to maintain itself.

In a society where all guns are owned by the public, yet government employees could not own any guns, it stands to reason that a socialist state could never come about since the property owners would defend their property as necessary against the State aggressors.

S+F.

This is so true, I don't think I have to say more than that.

This is definitely worthy of discussion. Evidence of this is that IRS ax collectors carry guns.

It has been proven time and time again that a communist government is required to enforce socialism. It never fails that people do not want to give their money to those who didn't earn it. Which is fair. EVERYONE has to pay up in a socialist economy. How else are you going to enforce that without communism? You have to force people to work and you have to force people not to consume more than they are rationed. It is also inevitable that those in power will squander the money to themselves and leave the common citizen destitute.

This is all proven to be true even in the Democratic socialist countries of the western world.

reply to post by mnemeth1


This is why they want your guns. Japan had an interest in invading the United States mainland in WWII, but didn't because so many americans owned guns.
The government currently confiscates our wealth using the power of police. None of this would be necessary had the government simply followed the constitution. Tarrifs on certain items were necessary to build an army and man the borders. However, government chose to delve into social engineering, and developed an unquenchable thirst for our money, to barter with corporate interests for kickbacks and favoritism.
This has, unfortunately spread to the local level. Ever notice how traffic fines have excalated on a quantam basis the last few years. Go 35 in a 25 and it could cost you $200. Try not paying that. They'll lock you up until you pay. Just like the IRS. Men with guns and badges hold the threat of ruining your life over you for profit. The fines increase not because it's suddenly eight times more offensive to speed, but because they can derive more money that way, which is all they're really concerned about. This is no longer a free country. You may have witnessed that the healthcare bill passed, despite public outrage. That was for two reasons. One was control of an industry and the ability to siphon money from it. THe other was the tax increase associated with it. Some 600 billion. Thats about five thousand bucks per tax payer. So how is that any different than the mob moving in and forcing you to pay up for protection, which you don't need, except from the mob? It isn't. And if you don't comply, a guy with a gun will show up and haul you away. All so they can buy the votes of folks who don't pay taxes, so they can take more money.This was the ultimate expression that they govern without the consent of the governed. And they understand that if they don't come get your gun soon, they may have a problem, because folks are pissed off. Just like 1776. So where do you, and I mean you, draw the line. What are your boundries? It's really that simple. Are you a free man, or are you a helpless victim? Are you courage or fear?

[edit on 13-7-2010 by astrogolf]

[edit on 13-7-2010 by astrogolf]

Great points.... the socialists, commies and libs are always anti-gun, except for themselves... so they can use their guns to cram their socialist's views down your throat

That pretty much sums up America doesnt it?

For example say I dont use any roads. Never leave the house. Never had a car. Grow or raise my own food. No electricity. No public water or sewer. no use for a garbage dump. No kids in school. Live way beyond the reach of any police or fire departments and have every intention of dying on my property from something wholly preventable or curable and that's alright.

Do I still have a gun to my head and a hand in my pocket?

Yup.

For what?

Where's my opt-out?

Without a way to opt-out that isnt death or imprisonment there can't ever be freedom.

To be honest there are a lot of things that are impossible without guns. Even the good ol' US of A wouldn't be if the colonials didn't have guns.

The idea of having the right to bare arms is to make sure that the citizens have the power to object if those who make a good bit of money in the free market try to influence the government.

So capitalism is impossible without guns but even with guns it still got taken from you.

Originally posted by soleprobe
Great points.... the socialists, commies and libs are always anti-gun, except for themselves... so they can use their guns to cram their socialist's views down your throat

To a socialist, citizens are subservient to the State.

To a free market capitalist, the State is subservient to the citizens.

Even in the situation I described, peace would still be maintained.

Since there are no provisions on private security guards from owning guns, it would make sense that people would contract "police" services from a private security company (as well as arming themselves to be their own "police").

Courts might still be run by the State, but they would have to get their funding either voluntarily or they would be private courts that operated on a "loser pays" system.

Where the loser of a court case pays all the court costs.

Originally posted by daskakik
To be honest there are a lot of things that are impossible without guns. Even the good ol' US of A wouldn't be if the colonials didn't have guns.

The idea of having the right to bare arms is to make sure that the citizens have the power to object if those who make a good bit of money in the free market try to influence the government.

So capitalism is impossible without guns but even with guns it still got taken from you.

Peaceful interaction does not require guns.

Unjustly separating people from their property requires guns.

Capitalism is purely voluntary, thus it does not require guns.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Since I've never heard of an "opt-out" clause in a socialist state, where by one could opt not to participate in the socialist society and keep all of their property and resources for themselves, one has to assume that bloodthirsty violence was used against them to relieve them of their property.

The very definition of "socialism," like all other collectivist "isms," is the removal of the "opt-out" clause.

That's their very PURPOSE.

reply to post by Booker’s


You know when the US was first founded, a portion of the treasury proceeds each year came from charity.

That is to say, people voluntarily gave government money because they felt it was operating in their best interest.

All taxes that were collected came from tariffs on imports (at the federal level), which encouraged industry to lobby against higher taxes because tariffs only benefit domestic producers, not domestic consumers.

Its as close the libertarian ideal of voluntary government as a nation has ever been.

Its hard to imagine that people freely gave money to government.

That's how a government should be run.

Leave everyone alone and treat everyone equally.

Protect my rights and my property - and stay the hell out of my life.

I'd even donate to government if that's how it operated.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by daskakik
To be honest there are a lot of things that are impossible without guns. Even the good ol' US of A wouldn't be if the colonials didn't have guns.

The idea of having the right to bare arms is to make sure that the citizens have the power to object if those who make a good bit of money in the free market try to influence the government.

So capitalism is impossible without guns but even with guns it still got taken from you.

Peaceful interaction does not require guns.

Unjustly separating people from their property requires guns.

Capitalism is purely voluntary, thus it does not require guns.

Day to day business under a capitalist economy does not require guns but installing a government under this ideal does.

Defending the free market from over reaching government and corporate influence also requires guns. That's why the forefathers thought the right to bare arms was so important.

reply to post by astrogolf


nevermind. Too many numbers.

[edit on 7/13/2010 by dbloch7986]

reply to post by daskakik


Which is why I am against government period.

If its not voluntary, then its not good.

Force and violence should be reserved for those people that violate the rights of others. They should not be used on the innocent.


[edit on 13-7-2010 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by daskakik

 

Which is why I am against government period.

If its not voluntary, then its not good.

Force and violence should be reserved for those people that violate the rights of others. They should not be used on the innocent.


[edit on 13-7-2010 by mnemeth1]

All government is not bad. There needs to be someone dedicated to preserving order and to unify humanity across great distances. Without governance we are all on tiny islands separated by vast swathes of land and ocean. We would never make scientific advancements, never achieve space travel, never have running water and sanitation, never know what the rest of the world was up to. We need government to unify our efforts.

You do know that even federal agencies like I dunno .... the US Dept. of (de) Education have put in a request to purchase 14" 12 gauge pump shot guns.

Education Department buying 27 shotguns
Why is the Education Department purchasing 27 Remington Brand Model 870 police 12-gauge shotguns (all new, no re-manufactured products, thank you)?

The guns are to replace old firearms used by Education’s Office of Inspector General, which is the law enforcement arm of the department.

Here’s a statement from the office in response to a question about why need 27 shotguns with a 14-inch barrels:

“The Office of Inspector General is the law enforcement arm of the U.S. Department of Education and is responsible for the detection of waste, fraud, abuse, and other criminal activity involving Federal education funds, programs, and operations. As such, OIG operates with full statutory law enforcement authority, which includes conducting search warrants, making arrests, and carrying firearms. The acquisition of these firearms is necessary to replace older and mechanically malfunctioning firearms, and in compliance with Federal procurement requirements. For more information on OIG’s law enforcement authority, please visit their Web site at : www.ed.gov/oig”

Source

.... now kids pleas pay attention in class while the Government dumbs you down.... 'cause if you don't the DOE SWAT team will you up!

Have a nice day!

reply to post by dbloch7986


Sounds more like communication than government. The two arent synonymous.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Cool but why single out socialism if all -isms are enforced?

Even an anarchist needs to fight to defend his rights and this could also involve violence be it a gun or some other weapon.

So even anarchy may be impossible without guns.

Originally posted by dbloch7986

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by daskakik

 

Which is why I am against government period.

If its not voluntary, then its not good.

Force and violence should be reserved for those people that violate the rights of others. They should not be used on the innocent.


[edit on 13-7-2010 by mnemeth1]

All government is not bad. There needs to be someone dedicated to preserving order and to unify humanity across great distances. Without governance we are all on tiny islands separated by vast swathes of land and ocean. We would never make scientific advancements, never achieve space travel, never have running water and sanitation, never know what the rest of the world was up to. We need government to unify our efforts.

So you think scientific advancement, running water, and sanitation could not exist without government?

Yee of little faith.

I have more faith in my fellow countrymen than to suppose government extracting money from the innocent at gun point is the only way those things can come about.

This is true, but in our country the government has guns as well.
And they have better guns, plus the moral high-ground (for intent
and purpose).

The easiest way to collapse the present system is to quit feeding the machine.
Unfortunately, the easiest way is also nearly impossible as it requires
tens of millions of participants, many of whom will become fiscal martyrs.

How to do it?

Organize 10% of taxed workers and owners of small businesses to refuse
to pay income taxes for themselves and/or their workers....