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.

 

Socialism Without Guns Is Impossible

page: 4
21
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Magnus47
reply to post by mnemeth1
 

Your proposal, therefore, is to remove guns from the possession of both the federal (military) and state (police) armed services, as I assume you are not suggesting that the Senators or House of Representatives would take up arms against three hundred million Americans in such a scenario.


No, my proposal is: If you work for government period, you can't own a gun.



A military or police force which lacks guns would be unable to keep the peace or accomplish much of anything at all.


Correct.


In the absence of a strong military or police, the country's resources would be up for grabs and we would either descend into a state of anarchy or be quickly overtaken and conquered by a foreign government that actually DOES use guns.


Incorrect.




posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 01:26 PM
link   
It's members like the OP that make me despair with ATS. Starting off with 'I propose...' would suggest that the OP is willing to listen to competing ideas, modify his argument accordingly and propose a second, improved, argument. But no, all you get is someone so blinded by their own ignorance to the other side of the argument and moralistic outlook that they shout down any dissent to their initial opinion. Terms like 'evil' are thrown out without even an attempt to look from a second angle.

This idea that socialism has to impose 'evil' to work, while capitalism is only 'good' is ludicrous. To start, there is no truly capitalist society, so to argue that one is 'good' makes no sense. Find me a state that doesn't operate some level of socialism and we'll see how they are getting along. Let's for a second assume that there is some pure capitalist state, everyone in it agrees that it is the best way to live. The government has no guns to force the innocent. Right, so given that you're allowing for a pure, non-existant, capitalist state, you must also allow for a pure socialist one, in which all the people have decided that this is the best way forward.

So what happens in either of these when there is dissent? According to the OP, the dissenters in the socialist state are merely exercising a right to take what is theirs and any governmental intervention to enforce against this is 'evil'. But in the capitalist society, the dissenters themselves are the ones that are bad. So already the OP has made his mind up about his view. Capitalism is good, socialism is bad. It doesn't matter if everyone starts off in each invented state as a willing participant; unless they they are enforcing a capitalist belief they are 'evil' or bad.

So at the nub of your point, people that want what they can get are good, but people that want to create something altogether more social in nature are bad. There's no point having this argument because your basic belief will not change.

Yet, I could stand here and say that it's evil to be greedy, to not share. You share with your child and would be evil not to share with them, but to suggest that to rescind on a promise to your fellow man to create a more equal society is not 'evil' while those that would punish you for it are, is just idiotic.

I'm not arguing for either society, just that your argument is so one-sided without any concession to your own opinion's fallibility, that it can't be discussed with you.

Also, in this invented capitalist state, the use of guns on the innocent would be required (remember you define innocent as someone that doesn't agree with the socialist state) because those arguing against capitalism must too be innocent. Oh wait, they're only innocent if they're arguing against socialism.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



[edit on 14-7-2010 by Woland]



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Woland
 


Socialism does require evil to work.

Violent armed force directed against the innocent is evil.

Evil is brutality against the innocent.

Evil is suppressing economic freedom.

Evil is government controlled monopolies of industry.

That is evil.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


LOL! Dude, you do realize you just completely proved Woland point......

#2



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Connector
 


Wonderland seems to think that using violence against the innocent can ultimately result in good.

This is a fallacy.

The ends do not justify the means.

Doing evil to supposedly do good is always wrong, no matter what the cause.

This was the type of excuse offered up by Bush for waterboarding.

[edit on 14-7-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Double LOL!!!! Ahh, now I see why you helped prove the actual point of his post, you missed it. C'est la vie........



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 03:38 PM
link   
I find it strange that the OP can ignore "evils" done in the name of capitalism, but not in the name of socialism. Do you not understand that there are people who literally work in fear of physical abuse for pocket change to create the low-price, high-profit commodities that modern-day capitalism needs to survive? Do you even look at what's happening in the Middle East? South America? Africa? Natural resources have been stolen from these countries by foriegn companies (albeit, with the cooperation of their respective governments).
Capitalism is not a "good" or "bad" thing. Nor is socialism. They are only economic models, and in no way have to to be run in the disgusting ways humans continue to use them.
Its as empty an argument as claiming "money is the root of all evil." It is nothing more than an economic tool. Its how we use it that is evil. So, really, the root of all evil is the homo sapien. Without us, there is no concept or possibility to perform "good" or "evil." Just a bunch of creatures reacting with their environments.
Guns are only neccesary to force, with violence, ones way of life upon another. Kind of like what you are doing right now with your words.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by mooseinhisglory
 


Voluntary trading of private resources does not produce evil.

Name one instance of an American corporation using violence against anyone.

It doesn't happen.

Thus, your claim that capitalism has "evil" done in its name is wrong.

All of the "evil" done in the name of "capitalism" has been done by the American government, not private corporations.

Corporations using the power of government to do evil has nothing to do with capitalism and everything to do with fascism.

Take the entire military industrial complex for instance. Here is an entire sector of the economy that would not exist without government.



[edit on 14-7-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Since when did "socialism" equate to "totalitarianism". Socialism is where all the workers own the McDonald's they work at and have a say in how the company is going to be run. Socialism is where it isn't just the one "totalitarian" boss in control of society, but everyone. It's just another way of organizing a business like a society, or a market like a democracy. In fact I would argue that socialism is more democratic than capitalism. Which isn't inherently a good thing of course. I mean an entire business could collectively vote that it's alright to use cheese with radiation in it because it's cheaper. Just like an individual business owner could come to the same conclusion. I will agree that statist socialism, as practiced by Stalinist Russia and Maoist China, is a bad thing and has created violence; but I would say the same thing about corporatist socialism, as practiced here in America. I would also say the same thing about nationalism. I would also emphatically say the same thing about fundamentalist religiousness.

Socialism without guns is possible, and it happens every day here in America. Worker owned businesses and co-operatives are surviving while the classical corporate model requires government handouts, apparently, to stay afloat. I'd posit that it's fascism, corporatism, which is impossible without guns.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by MajorDork
 


Socialism is more democratic than capitalism?

How so?

In a capitalist society you get to vote every day of your life with your pocket book.

If the public decides they don't like the cars an automaker is producing, they will not buy them.

In a socialist country, you get what the government produces and you have no choice.

Have you ever looked at the cars socialist countries have produced?

They are utter garbage not fit for human occupancy.

Corporate socialism or corporatism is not capitalism.



[edit on 14-7-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Well, by this same token, have you seen some of the cars the USA has put out recently? There's a reason loads of car companies failed, even with subsidies from the state. The pure and kind USA couldn't make a decent car, so people got them from Europe and Japan, not quite socialist places, but more socialist than the USA.

I think part of the problem on this thread, is there hasn't been enough definition of which form of Socialism we are talking about. Just like Capitalism varies, some countries taking a more 'pure' strain than others, it's just the same with Socialism. Some forms depend on a type of "Direct Democracy", where everyone votes on almost everything.

This would be far more Democratic than we currently have in most western counties, however many in the USA would not like this, as they prefer a more elite/representative based Republic, citing such arguments as "Democracy is mob rule".



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 05:39 PM
link   
I think the problem here is OP does not understand his own idea.

Do you know what socialism is? Do you know what capitalism is? Do you have any idea how form of government has nothing at all to do with either? They are economic practices.

They are not diametrically opposed either. A capitalist country can have certain parts of it that are socialist. As well a company like coca-cola can be run in a socialist fashion.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by harpsounds
 


Saying socialism works because Japanese private automakers have produced decent cars is ridiculous.

They are subsidized by the government, which means other sectors of the Japanese economy suffer because of them. They are not owned by the government.

The Japanese economy has been a complete failure and has been stagnant for over decade.

The Japanese are not better off than we are.

If the government were to subsidize US automakers, they would have to take money from other sectors of the economy to do this. While this would certainly make US cars more competitive, it would do untold damage to the rest of the economy, ultimately making us all worse off.




[edit on 14-7-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbloch7986
I think the problem here is OP does not understand his own idea.

Do you know what socialism is? Do you know what capitalism is? Do you have any idea how form of government has nothing at all to do with either? They are economic practices.

They are not diametrically opposed either. A capitalist country can have certain parts of it that are socialist. As well a company like coca-cola can be run in a socialist fashion.


Sometimes I wonder why I even argue in here.

You are accusing me of not know what socialism and capitalism are.

You.

I mean seriously.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by harpsounds
 

If the government were to subsidize US automakers, they would have to take money from other sectors of the economy to do this. While this would certainly make US cars more competitive, it would do untold damage to the rest of the economy, ultimately making us all worse off.


There actually were/are subsidies to the US automakers, as I said in my post.

I wasn't trying to make any big point, other than the fact that countries like Japan and Germany, more socialist than the USA, make better cars. I don't think it's correct in your post where you said to look at the trash cars the socialist countries make. Apart from some of the silly cars in the old Soviet block, most of the more serious Social Democracies do make better cars than the USA.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by harpsounds
 


Private corporations receiving subsidies is not socialism, its fascism.

Of the socialist countries that did produce state manufactured automobiles, ALL OF THEM were total garbage.

In a fascist system of subsidies, you still have market forces pushing innovation and competition, its just that the pressures of competition are alleviated somewhat by the subsidization.

So the products are still going to be better than a socialist system that faces no competition.

The harm in fascism comes from the economic damage done to the other sectors of the economy from which the wealth was transfered.



[edit on 14-7-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


What does that mean? "You"? Whats so special about me that I can't accuse you of maybe not fully understanding what you are talking about? What did I do to you?

You're saying socialism is impossible without guns. Any form of society is impossible to maintain without weapons period. Weapons are needed for hunting and defense.

You said that Capitalism and Socialism cannot exist in the same forum. Yet today they co-exist to some degree in most Western countries. So obviously it is not impossible. With proper fiscal maintenance it can be a very healthy balance actually.

There are some things that everyone is entitled to, like their basic needs to live: clean drinking water and food and shelter. It used to be back in the day that everyone would share a river or lake for drinking water, or they would all tap into the same underground water source with wells. Now the waterways have all been siezed and polluted by capitalist corporations and water is distrubuted and filtered by private companies in a very lucrative business.

There are some things in this world that should not be left to the private interests to control and profit from. That's just my opinion. Some things we should all share, such as natural resources required to sustain our lives. All of us, as lifeforms living on this planet are entitled to them simply by being alive on this planet, just as all other lifeforms are entitled to them on this planet.

Yet people make a lucrative business out of them by forcing us to pay for them. The Federal Government further supports this by not allowing us to hunt for our own food so we are forced to go get our pockets scraped by corporations that do it for us. We cannot have our own farms without spending tons of money on special permits and then we can't just set up shop anywhere because you have to buy empty land from the Federal Government and only then if they allow you to purchase it.

You're correct that corporate bailouts are Facist.

So if you would like everything you need to sustain every breath to take to be in the hands of private corporations or citizens, then I pray you never have your way. Private corporations are lobbying the government to tax the very air we breathe right now with this cap and trade market of carbon credits. Private corporations keep our prison system at a high recitivism rate and cause us to have all kinds of ridiculous laws so it is easier for us to go to jail so they can make billions from it. Private corporations formed the military-industrial complex and keep us at war constantly so they can keep making money.

Absolute power corrupts abosultely. If you give the government all the power, it becomes corrupt. If you give the corporations all the power, they will become corrupt. There needs to be a healthy balance.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by dbloch7986
 


Since you are so hung up on this I suppose I should rephrase to clarify.

Socialism and "capitalism" (which we don't have today) could feasibly exist at the same time - however, eventually one will drive the other out.

The two systems are fundamentally incompatible because the socialist system does not have a method of allocating prices, which means it does not have a method of correctly allocating resources.

The gross market distortions caused by the socialism will inevitably lead to a market breakdown.

This point was argued by people far far far smarter than myself.

This was proven by something called the Economic Calculation problem derived by Mises.

en.wikipedia.org...

Socialism does not work.

Here's Hoppe's epic work:

A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism
mises.org...

Free of charge.

read it.




[edit on 14-7-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo

Originally posted by Bottom

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Socialism always fails, [...]


LOL, tell that to Scandinavians....


Scandinavian states are not socialistic. They are capitalist social democracies. Thats a big difference.


I know they are (capitalist) social democracies...
I was commenting on your (the whole quote
"Socialism always fails, as we are finding out with our medical system." quote.
Your "failed medical system" can't be a proof of "socialism always fails", this is just untrue...or are/were you living in a pure socialist state... or what?



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 08:15 PM
link   
So ina country with no guns, I guess the guy with the sword rules the roost right?, wait, no swords allowed either?, ok then the guy with the baseball bat witht eh ten penny nails through it rules the roost, correct? wait, no baseball bats? guess it's the guy with the pointy stick..... you get the picture. Angry Monkeys always find something or someone to fight with and I guess humans have to be the angriest monkeys of all!



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join