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 Exploded

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 12:34 PM
link   
Professor Joseph T. Salerno explains why a socialist economy is literally impossible.



The criminal State must rely on private markets around it to price its goods.

A socialist economy is doomed to failure because the prices of resources are entirely arbitrary and without meaning. Yet even then, the waste, fraud, and abuse that necessarily follows when there are no market forces in place to correctly allocate resources or promote cost efficiency ultimately leads to total economic implosion.

The economist Ludwig von Mises wrote the original paper that demonstrated socialism was impossible as an economic system. The problems with socialism as an economic model are summarized by something called the "Economic Calculation Problem."

Economic Calculation In The Socialist Commonwealth
by Ludwig von Mises

Here is an audiobook version of that same book:
www.youtube.com...

Socialism is a totalitarian system of enslavement that necessarily requires guns, brutality, and violent aggressive force in order for it to exist.

It is entirely coercive as a State economic system, as well as being entirely dysfunctional due to the problems of economic calculation presented by Mises.

"Socialism" can only exist as a peaceful economic system within a commune or family unit. As a State organized system of economic policy, it necessarily requires total physical domination of resources through violent militaristic action.

Put simply, if all private citizens were allowed to have guns, while no government agent was allowed to have guns, this situation would also make socialism impossible.


[edit on 18-8-2010 by mnemeth1]




posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 12:58 PM
link   
I don't think you'll ever be happy until every politician is beheaded and on fire...


Socialism is a totalitarian system of enslavement that necessarily requires guns, brutality, and violent aggressive force in order for it to exist.


Every system requires force to exist because every system is not going to universally accepted. Aside from that, as a citizen of a a country with these evil things such as "socialized health care", I haven't once been shot, brutalized, violently oppressed or coerced, or enslaved. Did I miss the fun?


Oh, also not totalitarian.

[edit on 18-8-2010 by Whyhi]



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whyhi
I don't think you'll ever be happy until every politician is beheaded and on fire...


Socialism is a totalitarian system of enslavement that necessarily requires guns, brutality, and violent aggressive force in order for it to exist.


Every system requires force to exist because every system is not going to universally accepted. Aside from that, as a citizen of a a country with these evil things such as "socialized health care", I haven't once been shot, brutalized, violently oppressed or coerced. Did I miss the fun?


Sure you have.

You don't have ownership of your property. The State owns your property. The State owns your labor.

Each time you go to work, the State takes a portion of your labor for itself.

If the State did not have guns, you would not give the State any of your labor. You may chose to give a private charity your labor, but willful donations to the State would be non-existent.

The State could not and would not exist without the use of violence to obtain the property of private citizens.

Since natural law says I own what I produce with my own two hands, socialism as an economic model necessarily requires brutal totalitarian violence be used to suppress the natural instinct of people to defend what they produce.

If I produced a spear by cutting down some wood and forming it with a knife, you would not be entitled to the use of my spear. Any attempt by you to take my spear may be met with justified defensive force by myself in order to protect my spear.

This has been the natural order of things since the dawn of man.




[edit on 18-8-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Since natural law says I own what I produce with my own two hands, socialism as an economic model necessarily requires brutal totalitarian violence be used to suppress the natural instinct of people to defend what they produce.


Arguably, some countries in Northern Europe have a fair degree of socialism in the way their societies are arranged. I never heard Norway being mentioned in the same breath as North Korea though.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Since natural law says I own what I produce with my own two hands, socialism as an economic model necessarily requires brutal totalitarian violence be used to suppress the natural instinct of people to defend what they produce.


Arguably, some countries in Northern Europe have a fair degree of socialism in the way their societies are arranged. I never heard Norway being mentioned in the same breath as North Korea though.


Sure, the point argued by Mises is that socialism as an economic model is only possible due to external markets determining prices - and that any purely socialist economic system would be impossible due to the lack of price information.

The allocation of resources by bureaucrats is economically inefficient and creates gross waste of resources. This ultimately leads to impoverishment and a break down of society. We can see that socialism (the collectivization of agriculture) in China and the former Soviet Union lead to the deaths of around 80 million people due to starvation.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 01:31 PM
link   
People who favor socialism as a State economic model are ultimately promoting bureaucratic allocation of resources - which we know to be grossly inefficient.

Since we know this to be inefficient, we can say that people who favor socialism are advocating the impoverishment of society.

Since we also know that people naturally defend what they produce as being their own, we can also say that people who favor socialism are advocating violence as a means of resource allocation.



[edit on 18-8-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Socialism this, socialism that, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.

Right wingers throw this word around CONSTANTLY and accuse the current admin as being socialist that, socialism this, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.

They have NO idea what they are talking about, and have NO suggestions of their own. Only accusations, lies, and criticism.

If they were in office the country would be bankrupt by now with 2/3 of the population unemployed and big tax cuts for the wealthy at our expense.

But the parrots continue with "socialism this, and that, BLAH, BLAH.." with no suggestions.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Baloney
 


I suggest peaceful voluntary interaction within a system of homesteaded property rights (I own what I produce) as a way to run society.

I know this may sound radical to the socialist mind, which automatically assumes that violent brutal totalitarian militaristic action against innocent people that have harmed no one is the correct way of organizing society, but I think my way is ultimately more efficient and prosperous.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 01:43 PM
link   
I would argue that you need socialist policies to balance the greed of capitalism.

Look at America in one of it's most prosperous decades the 1950's the tax was 90% for the highest earners and no one was talking about being socialist back then, even though 90% tax seems like a socialist policy to me.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 



Each time you go to work, the State takes a portion of your labor for itself.


I don't have a problem with taxes, they support an infinite amount of things that improve the country.


If the State did not have guns, you would not give the State any of your labor.


I'm pretty sure I still would be working, and have been working, without the use of firearms coercing me.


The State could not and would not exist without the use of violence to obtain the property of private citizens.


I love speaking in extremist absolute terms.


This has been the natural order of things since the dawn of man.


Yes, we may have evolved our ways of thinking since then.


promoting bureaucratic allocation of resources - which we know to be grossly inefficient.


Bureaucratic allocation of resources is done by bureaucrats, who are human. Humans are grossly inefficient. Therefore, humans should not be allowed to run anything. I like this logic, anything can be turned into anything.

Is it that maybe they themselves, as individuals, are inefficient at allocating resources? What if we had someone who could allocate resources efficiently? What you still have a problem?


Since we know this to be inefficient, we can say that people who favor socialism are advocating the impoverishment of society.


Like I said above, what if you had someone efficient? If he was efficient, then by your logic, everyone against it would be against the improvement of the standard of living.


Since we also know that people naturally defend what they produce as being their own, we can also say that people who favor socialism are advocating violence as a means of resource allocation.


Do you really know that EVERYONE is going to naturally defend what they produce? Isn't your entire argument being on how bad the government, that takes away things I produce / own, is? Why would EVERYONE not defend what they have?


What about people who voluntarily believe in a system that is different than what you do? Has this crossed your mind? It's not like everyone who wants something run by someone else is basically saying "Please make the health care system different so I can get proper treatment, also can you take everything I own and beat me with batons because this somehow requires violence?"

My post probably came out badly but I'm just baffled by your statements that basically make my brain implode while exploding.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
I would argue that you need socialist policies to balance the greed of capitalism.



So you advocate the use of violence to suppress the "greed" of capitalism.

In order for the State to suppress the "greed" of capitalism, it must first violently assault the public (using sticks?) and take their property in order for it to then use that same property to build up a cache of weapons which it can then use to "suppress the greed" of capitalism.

If we had a purely free market with no State, we can see that in order for the State to enter into the equation, it must first acquire its guns from the evil capitalists themselves.

Of course, the State was created by capitalists in order to suppress and control other capitalists. Thus the State was created willingly by monopoly men in order to monopolize markets.


[edit on 18-8-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Baloney
 



Wow name calling and general juvenile behavior, congratulations, you just shot your credibility to hell......

First off, The OP wasnt accusing ANYONE in the administration of being socialist, it was a simple evaluation of socialism IN GENERAL......

2nd. There is more proof that this administration IS headed towards socialism with every law they pass and policy they put forth...........there is hard proof of this....

Where is your proof to the contrary other than your "blah blah blah" and name calling? AT ANY RATE THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS THREAD IS ABOUT!

Ill hold my breath, and next time, use some manners

To the OP great thread man, definitely some very interesting information to be kicked around in there

S&F!


[edit on 18-8-2010 by ManBehindTheMask]



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 01:51 PM
link   
If you posted this out of fear that scary socialism is coming to America, have no fear. President Obama, a tried and true corporatist, will protect you.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask
 


There are no VALID facts to support any of the usual "assumptions" that is SPEWED from the right-wing camp. And you say my credit just became shot?


Edit - typo




[edit on 18-8-2010 by Baloney]



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
I would argue that you need socialist policies to balance the greed of capitalism.

But where does this greed come from? Human nature?

If you don't think humans are responsible enough to manage a corporation that can at best control access to only a handful of resources or manufactured goods, then how can you possibly think humans are responsible enough to manage all of them? (i.e. government)

This is the fundamental problem of all "we need government to control the greed" rhetoric. When you look at the behavior of all Western governments, you will see the irony dripping from every word of such rhetoric.

The intractability of the corruption in our supposed "democratic" government, and the fact that the government has already financially doomed itself (don't believe me do the numbers) and the only question is will the collapse of everything be sooner or later, all belie the idea that humans are fit to govern the economic activity of other humans.

Either people are generally responsible and have integrity, or they are generally evil and corrupt. If the latter, no political system will save us, because such a system will be composed of the same evil and corruption. Like father like son. There will be no human savior. We will all drown in our own collective karma, one way or another.

Politics is BS.

Salvation cannot come from man. Almost makes you hope there's a God, because nothing short of the supernatural can save our doomed race.





[edit on 18-8-2010 by NewlyAwakened]



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 02:06 PM
link   
Milton Friedman explains why people pursuing their own best economic interests is a just and proper way for society to organize itself.



I don't agree with Friedman on everything, but he's certainly dead on with his assessment of people pursuing what is in their own best interests.


[edit on 18-8-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Baloney
Socialism this, socialism that, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.

Right wingers throw this word around CONSTANTLY and accuse the current admin as being socialist that, socialism this, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.

They have NO idea what they are talking about, and have NO suggestions of their own. Only accusations, lies, and criticism.

If they were in office the country would be bankrupt by now with 2/3 of the population unemployed and big tax cuts for the wealthy at our expense.

But the parrots continue with "socialism this, and that, BLAH, BLAH.." with no suggestions.


I'm sorry, you have the wrong thread. You want the Kool-Aid lounge. Down the hall to the left.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Living in Europe, where most countries have a socialist system, we all are doing fine. Perhaps better than most Americans AND we are more happy.

So I am not sure where OP is talking about. Books?? Well, study the reality of the current world, and judge than.

Again and again, I read Americans expressing their fear of all systems others then their own. Come on... stop worrying about it, and stop wars about it.

The American system is a HUGE problem for you all to be happy !!
Stock holders value is the biggest problem of all. It drains people, nature for the short term benefits of those who have shares, beyond limits.

Always (short term) results have to be better otherwise the stockholder may drop our stocks. Stock analysts that monitor company performance on a daily bases. Quarterly results it have to be better. But unless cheating it can't be always better. There is an end to it, and ups and downs are to be accepted. The long term is most valuable factor and most beneficial for people that put their life's work into it. That is what really counts. Not the dammed money, what makes nobody happy anyway. It isn't stock holders value but stock holders greed that now counts.

But this will not continue. People, not being robots will stop to continue to step into that trap and being exploited beyond humanity.

So a liberal social system as we have here in Holland ain't that bad, really!!



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I feel like i've had this debate before and its getting tiresome. We have socialist policies in the UK for over 50 years, none has been forced on to the population by violence, people have decided they wanted and enjoy a national health service, We want our children to be educated so we are happy to pay for schools and teachers. We want good roads and infrastructure so most are happy to pay for these things, without the threat of violence. I'm sure any political party that advocated using violence on its citizens to pass certain policies would not last very long.

I dont know where you get this forcing the populace through violence from.

However, when people protest against bankers and G20 events they may very well be met by violence from the state.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 


What is getting tiresome is your advocacy of violence as a just means of organizing society.

You nor the State has the right to forcibly take peoples' property and labor at gun point in order to use for your own nefarious ends.

You do not have a right to loot me in order to fund your wars.

You do not have a right to loot me in order to pay for your child's schooling.

You do not have a right to loot me in order to pay for your healthcare.

You do not have a right to use violence against me period, nor does the State. The only time violence is justified is in defending your property from the unwarranted aggression of others.

Thus a person that refuses to pay their taxes and is violently assaulted by the State is justified in defending himself according to natural law. If I was on the jury of such a case, I would obviously vote not guilty.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join