Why do Americans hate Socialism/Communism?

page: 14
19
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 05:28 PM
link   
I think a lot of people in America don't remember constitutional liberity's meaning, ideology, way of life and values anymore. At the same time, liberals have manipulated history in public schools to ignore the real ravishing nature of centralized collectivist governments and to demonize the history and nature of constitutional America. I love my European friends and as an American, I am different becasue of my people's history and constitutional way of life. What feels safe and "smart" to Europeans in the elite's power, feels like control and oppression to me. I despise the idea of royality or elitism and being under their thumbs in the name of "care" and "sharing" gives me the willies. I would rather be under my own care and share my wealth (as small as it is!) as I see fit.

I think we should consider one socialist program we all have paid into all our working lives along with our employers to understand how socialism actually works in America. Social Security and Medicare were to be America's retirement safety net and we were all promised if we paid into it, the government would assure minimum benefits in our old age. So what happened with that?

It worked great when the boomers were paying into it for the smaller generation of their parents but now it is collapsing and threatens to bankrupt the country right when boomers are going to need that money they "invested" in the socialist program. In addition, over time the distributors got greedy and used the money we paid in to buy the votes of other groups. Had it been a private investment firm using our retirement money for their personal gain, we could sue them and put them in jail for theft. But no one can sue the Federal government. They are theives and polluters and abusers we can not touch.

This is why socialism and communism stinks for America. We have a third way for reform! Let's restore the constitutional republic and strip the theives and power mongers in Washington of their ability to be bribed by socialists, communists, globalists corporatists and foreign interests for the purpose of confounding our way of life in freedom and independence.




posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
Agreed. It wasn't so much an issue before the notion that America was a "democracy" got a toehold in the early 20th century. Ever since then, the progression towards socialism seems to have been accelerating, especially after the turmoil of the 60's as you observe.


I would like to say that from the perspective of a Communist: Obama is not a socialist, Obamacare is not socialist medicine, and we are far from becoming a socialist state. I just want to say that while "progressive" liberal politics do push left. "Liberalism" as an economic model is still where those politics are rooted. Thus, anything created by the state and therefore the people, will have corporate tie-ins murdering the idea in it's crib.


In that case, the revolutionaries can't be faulted, their heirs are at fault.


Yes, I was referring to the heirs as the revolutionaries. They, rather we, share a collective responsibility for letting the ball drop.


Right, that's a large part of it, the cultural conditioning that is so ingrained and hard to fight. That is what causes the people to allow the feudalists to gain a foothold and exploit it, thereby moving towards centralization and eventually totalitarianism. That ingrained conditioning seems to lead them to expect a lord in the manor house to direct their lives. In America, the more urban the country becomes, the worse that sort of expectation seems to get.


Well, when you are ruled over by the Eternal Patriarch, I'm pretty sure that's going to manifest in peoples day to day lives. It is my experience that when one rejects the notion of a personal universal supreme ruler they have no problem questioning the authority of those in power.


You can dig those cases up if you like, but I think you'll find that all of them are on a small scale (such as the EZLN example, confined to Chiapas), which goes back to something about scale that I said earlier. There seems to be a certain class of person that, when they see all that wealth for the picking as the scale increases, feels a need to accelerate and strengthen the centralization, so they can take advantage of it. It looks to me like that's the way it worked in the communist examples, and I can see the same thing working right now in the American Experiment.


Well, it was a few cities and farming communities. The cities used money while the farming communities just used a gift economy... So I don't know how big of an example you'd like.

As far as that "certain kind of person", I think you are going to get those everywhere but a dog that turns on his own is insane and is quickly put down.


I'm at loss...


Yeah, that didn't come out too well. Currently our fiat currency is controlled by a private interest. There is no liberation in making that a collective interest as wealth is still being based on a flawed model, i.e. currency = wealth. We need a new system that doesn't allow for people to amass an item that allows them to take control. Labor is something that is intrinsic to man and so basing a currency off of that, I posit, is the solution.


Thanks for those. I'll read and educate myself in the matter.


Thank you, I think we may be able to find a compatible solution!


Takes all kinds, I reckon.


If you have some free time you might wanna give this a whirl:

www.moral-politics.com...

I'm at the very top left. Hahaha. My views are based on this model because I think the Left-Right paradigm is lacking.


With the State eliminated altogether, who do you see doing the administrative work? How is it to run smoothly with no upper level coordination between factions, co-ops, communes, or whatever you want to call them?


Admin work? Like who does inventory?

Well, one way to do it is to create the upper-level coordination group collectively through a democratic process and then once the agreement is reached by both faction's coordinators their position is dissolved. If they refuse to dissolve than I believe the people have a right to kill them, personally. But I am sure a lesser punishment can be found that's suitable.


That's a LOT of work that can generally be avoided. Still, they throw out an unreasonable tax, I'm going to get around it if I can, ignore it if I can't, and deal with the chips when they fall. Reference my stand on the insurance tax coming.


This wasn't the corner stone of my thesis, hahaha. It was just as example, but you've illustrated why corruption breeds and abounds in State Communism and in Capitalism and that is what I was getting at.


The whole "Stateless" thing is where my understanding of your concept breaks down. Are you talking about a "tribal" organization, say, at maybe what is now he US State level with "intertribal councils" at a higher level (maybe comparable to the current Federal level), but limited to mediation between lower level units rather than the regulation we have now?


I'm most definitely not saying we should just have pure anarchy in the streets with everyone doing what they want cause we are all star children and amazing. I'm not naive. Well... That naive.

I personally believe that the State level is as high as it goes and that is for only warranted purposes that the individual communities themselves will have to decide on, aside from a few things involving military service, and following their agreements the councils are dissolved. The only time there should be a Federal type governing system in place is in self defense of our liberties governed by a war council. Federalism only seems to make sense when speaking militarily.

This way you would have a standing military in a sense because that standing military would be the entire collective armed to the teeth. Like Tojo said, "A rifle behind every blade of grass." Except I imagine this grass drilled in every tactic and tool they would ever need to not only defend against an invader but to overthrow any homegrown power seeking to imprison us.


I'll be looking for that.


Sent.


I'm not sure that most can get beyond that concept of wealth. For a lot of people, it's the security blanket that holds their entire "reality" together. For example, I've had a couple of wives who decided money was more important than me, so I let them go, so they cold pursue it. No harm, no foul. It wasn't up to me to hold them down if that was their preference. There seem to be a LOT of folks like that around.


I've experienced this as well, but I believe that this is weakness because of the weakening of the family unit, first and foremost, coupled with the lack of any social safety net and compounded by personal issues stemming from a lack of a tribal or collective identity.


I personally place more value on the ability to do as I please, assuming that I'm not injuring anyone else, than money or comfort. That's just me though, and I can sort of understand the attraction that creature comforts hold for others. I'm just not willing to give up liberty in exchange for them. If others are, that's their prerogative, but why should I have to conform to their ideals? Likewise, I have no desire to force them to conform to mine - until they cross that line and step on MY toes.


I think that they have the same line of thinking, it's just that they see money as that vehicle to allow them to do what they please. They fall into the trap and are turned into wage slaves. The creature comforts are than purchased because, if you have to be a slave, at least you can be a comfortable one.


That's a real problem. Unfortunately, the job draws power seekers like a slop jar draws flies, and the people most suited to governing in that manner want no part of the job they want neither the headaches nor the power. The American revolutionaries partially solved the problem with part time congressmen, who met for the session, then went back to their usual pursuits, rather than career congressmen as full-time employees of the State, just as a council would meet to discuss the issues at hand, then head back to the fields and woods. Term limits on governing officials helped insure that neither the burden of government nor time for corruption weighed to heavily upon them. The system that has evolved into now, with career politicians, makes a mockery of that intent, and allows the corruption to fester and grow. It actually draws the power hungry and fosters them, in a self-feeding cycle.


I think our system of checks and balances works fine, minus what you have stated. With the elimination of materialism I think the system would suffice just fine with the caveat of making it impossible to turn politics into a career.


That cycle needs to be broken, and effective stops put in place, in order to defeat and prevent the centralization.


I think that may come through my answer to the military. Anyone attempting any type of power grab risks destabilizing the entire confederation because everyone will be well armed and educated in the philosophies and doctrines of war.
edit on 4-12-2010 by AdAbsurdum because: Grammar, spelling, syntax



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wally Hope

It is those in power who are confusing the people as to what is good for them,


Huh? Are you not "one of the people"?

If you are, can you not think for yourself to figure out what is good for you?

If you can, why can't the rest of us?

Why do we need someone in power to do our thinking for us?

If we don't, how could those in power confuse us?



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by AdAbsurdum

I would like to say that from the perspective of a Communist: Obama is not a socialist, Obamacare is not socialist medicine, and we are far from becoming a socialist state. I just want to say that while "progressive" liberal politics do push left. "Liberalism" as an economic model is still where those politics are rooted. Thus, anything created by the state and therefore the people, will have corporate tie-ins murdering the idea in it's crib.


I became disenchanted with the left/right paradigm some time ago, and cut all ties to the Republican party, of which I was a member all my previous life. Just as a coin has two sides, yet is still the exact same coin, the left/right paradigm as exemplified by the Democrat and Republican parties is all one huge lumbering beast to my mind. For the life of me, I just can't see a farthing's woth of difference between the two.

It took being smacked in the head with George Bush to ram that realization home. I don't know how many people have tried to convince me of the differences between Bush ad Obama, but none have managed so far. They all point out the superficial differences in making their argument, but ignore the core issues - that BOTH, as well as several former holders of that position, are herding us inexorably towards the same goals. I doesn't matter in the least which prod they use to herd us with, it's the slaughter pen at the end of the road that matters to me. Yet people will STILL argue that the prod makes ALL the difference.

As I get older, and think more, I have less problems with either socialism OR capitalism. What I DO have a problem with is the power-tripping that uses both as a vehicle. Back in the late 70's, when I was fighting anything to the left of the John Birch Society tooth and nail, I could still see the problems inherent in our own system here. I could SEE them, but not quite identify them. I told my dad in a conversation one night that the US as we knew it would not last to see a tricentennial a hundred years from then. As it turned out, I was right, and it didn't take nearly that long. The US that is now is not the one I grew up in. The problem there that I've finally identified is the power-tripping folk. Back then, it was a given in the US that the problems with communism as implemented in Russia was the extreme control visited on the populace by the government. We thought we had it so much better here, and in truth at that time we probably did. Not so much now. When I look around me now, I see what I assumed that I would have seen in the USSR then, minus the continual shortages. That's not a pretty feeling.

"Socialism", without the government middle man extorting from Peter and deciding on disbursements to Paul isn't such a bad thing in theory. Capitalism, using government to extort from Peter to enrich CEO Paul isn't such a good thing in practice. The commonalities there are "government" and "extortion". If left to my own devices, without that extortion, I can give as I please, where I think it will do the most good, without any help at all in the first case, and I can tell CEO Paul to bite me and do business with another, or none at all if I choose, in the second case. As purely economic systems, they are both harmless, and don't really look to be mutually exclusive to me. As political systems, they are both disastrous, and of course ARE mutually exclusive.

Government should be as neutral as possible, and in the matter of economics, regulate commerce between lower level polities, not regulate whatever system either chooses to use internally. What I'm getting at is that I believe any given level of government should STOP at the next level (up OR down), and deal only with those units - AS those units, leaving the still lower levels alone to be dealt with internally.

I also believe that governments in general, at whatever level, should be drastically limited in scope and power. This include limiting their funding in the form of taxation to what they actually need to operate. It doesn't allow room for them to bloat and create dependent class by means of "social programs". Regulating social values and administering social programs are not a part of government in my conception. For the most part, I would limit them to military and police matters (with no need for police above the state level, and not many there), mediation and dispute resolution between lower level polities, and dealing as a unit with other units at the same level, or one level higher.

I think what the US has now would be fine, IF each level of government were limited as originally conceived, and each politician were limited such that none could make a career of it.



Well, when you are ruled over by the Eternal Patriarch, I'm pretty sure that's going to manifest in peoples day to day lives. It is my experience that when one rejects the notion of a personal universal supreme ruler they have no problem questioning the authority of those in power.


I acknowledge a universal supreme ruler, personally, but I have no qualm whatsoever about differentiating between the spiritual and the corporeal. Because of that, I have no problems at all questioning authority, to include the spiritual. The way I have it figured, if a deity really has all that much power, it ought not to feel threatened enough by little old me to panic and squash me like a bug just because I question it. Doing so to my way of thinking would confirm fear and weakness in it, and so show it to not be worthy of my respect.

It's an extension of my take on the islamic god. Any god that needs inferior little old me to fight it's battles for it isn't worthy of my worship any how. That would mean it is necessarily weaker than I am. I would think if anyone needed anyone else to do the fighting in that situation, it properly ought to be the other way around.



Well, it was a few cities and farming communities. The cities used money while the farming communities just used a gift economy... So I don't know how big of an example you'd like.


Not so different from the way it was here in the US a hundred years ago or so, I suppose. I'm assuming by "gift economy" you mean cashless barter, and I could be wrong about that. Back then, out in the countryside, hard currency was sometimes hard to come by, but you could always go to the smokehouse and get a ham, or go get a chicken, or some produce from your garden to trade for stuff you didn't have. In the cities the converse was the rule, since the space wasn't available for farm produce.



As far as that "certain kind of person", I think you are going to get those everywhere but a dog that turns on his own is insane and is quickly put down.


That's a fact, but it's sometimes easier to disallow them getting into position in the first place than it is to dig them out and deal with them later. As Marx said (Groucho, not Karl) "I wouldn't join any club that would have me as a member", maybe the answer is to refuse power to any one who would seek it....


What a concept! Institute a draft, but for politicians rather than military!

You know I'm kidding about that, right?




I'm at loss...


Yeah, that didn't come out too well. Currently our fiat currency is controlled by a private interest. There is no liberation in making that a collective interest as wealth is still being based on a flawed model, i.e. currency = wealth. We need a new system that doesn't allow for people to amass an item that allows them to take control. Labor is something that is intrinsic to man and so basing a currency off of that, I posit, is the solution.


Could be, but I haven't had a chance to read the links yet to make an informed comment. Off the cuff, I know that making money up out of nothing really isn't the way to go, because anyone with that kind of power rules all. Likewise, I've never quite understood the urge some folks have for gold. I can't eat it, and it's damned uncomfortable to sleep on, so I never quite have grasped WHY it seems to have value to people. It's entirely likely that I'm just far too simple minded.



Takes all kinds, I reckon.


If you have some free time you might wanna give this a whirl:

www.moral-politics.com...

I'm at the very top left. Hahaha. My views are based on this model because I think the Left-Right paradigm is lacking.


I tried it, and got thoroughly confused by the results, The terminology of the report threw me for a loop, and didn't match what I'm used to. For example, it said I was a "progressive" or "ultra liberal", leading to my strong urge to throw a coffee cup through my computer screen. In another place, however, it said that only 2% of the people tested were more "conservative" than I am. I haven't really puzzled the result out yet, but my dot showed up bending the bottom boundary out, just left of the centerline, in the "libertarian" area.



With the State eliminated altogether, who do you see doing the administrative work? How is it to run smoothly with no upper level coordination between factions, co-ops, communes, or whatever you want to call them?


Admin work? Like who does inventory?

Well, one way to do it is to create the upper-level coordination group collectively through a democratic process and then once the agreement is reached by both faction's coordinators their position is dissolved. If they refuse to dissolve than I believe the people have a right to kill them, personally. But I am sure a lesser punishment can be found that's suitable.


Permanent exile on Elba springs to mind as an alternative. Well, not Elba literally, but you get my drift. Give 'em a small island, one hatchet and a pack of matches apiece, and tell 'em the island is theirs to do with as they will. I really wouldn't care if they killed and ate each other. That's up to them.

I balk at a purely democratic process, though. That leaves minority groups (not necessarily ethnic minorities, just minorities) unrepresented, voiceless, and at the mercy of the pack.



I personally believe that the State level is as high as it goes and that is for only warranted purposes that the individual communities themselves will have to decide on, aside from a few things involving military service, and following their agreements the councils are dissolved. The only time there should be a Federal type governing system in place is in self defense of our liberties governed by a war council. Federalism only seems to make sense when speaking militarily.


Need some mechanism for dispute mediation between units (whether a trade or some other sort of dispute - like the Virginia-Pennsylvania boundary battles of the 18th century), and some sort of safe passage guarantee for folks just passing through for trade or just in transit between units not adjoining one another. Otherwise, it seems dangerously close to Balkanization.



This way you would have a standing military in a sense because that standing military would be the entire collective armed to the teeth. Like Tojo said, "A rifle behind every blade of grass." Except I imagine this grass drilled in every tactic and tool they would ever need to not only defend against an invader but to overthrow any homegrown power seeking to imprison us.


This I'm in full agreement with, and I believe the American revolutionaries of the 18th century were as well.



I've experienced this as well, but I believe that this is weakness because of the weakening of the family unit, first and foremost, coupled with the lack of any social safety net and compounded by personal issues stemming from a lack of a tribal or collective identity.


I just chalked it up to pure greed. Kept it simpler in my mind that way. A social safety net wouldn't have helped, because I was just plain unwilling to keep them in the style they wanted to become accustomed to, rather than unable. I think that sort of extravagance breeds weakness, and eventually causes the loss of skills and senses that may be needed to cut through rough times. Better to weed problem folk out ahead of time, in case those times hit in earnest.



I think that they have the same line of thinking, it's just that they see money as that vehicle to allow them to do what they please. They fall into the trap and are turned into wage slaves. The creature comforts are than purchased because, if you have to be a slave, at least you can be a comfortable one.


Oh, absolutely! They just valued different things, like money. I don't put as much value on hoarding money and "stuff", because it gives me a belly ache to eat a 50 dollar bill or a transistor radio. Nice to have, but a demand as strong as they demonstrated indicates a dependency to me, an addiction. The hell of it is, had they stuck it out, I'd have eventually given them everything the wanted to begin with and more - as soon as I figured out it wasn't an addiction, and they could do as well without those things!
See, the way I see it, "stuff" is nice to have and all, but if your whole world collapses because one day that "stuff" disappears, then you're a slave already, and just don't know it.

Incidentally, there are a lot of rich slaves around, as was demonstrated by the wave of suicides in the crash of 1929. When their "stuff" suddenly went away, they were as good as dead. they were slaves to their "stuff".



I think our system of checks and balances works fine, minus what you have stated. With the elimination of materialism I think the system would suffice just fine with the caveat of making it impossible to turn politics into a career.


Agreed, but how does one go about eliminating materialism? In my case, I just weed them out of my own little corner, but that just makes them someone else's problem, it doesn't do a damned thing about the materialism present to begin with. Hoe do you go about changing a quality so ingrained in so many?



That cycle needs to be broken, and effective stops put in place, in order to defeat and prevent the centralization.


I think that may come through my answer to the military. Anyone attempting any type of power grab risks destabilizing the entire confederation because everyone will be well armed and educated in the philosophies and doctrines of war.


Yeah, that works, but as they say, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. It's better to prevent it to begin with than to war over it afterwards. As you say, that eventuality risks destabilizing the entire confederation, an undesirable situation, and even if it didn't the death of even one individual in battle diminishes the whole (see? I still can't bring myself to use "collective"!). Sometimes battle is necessary, and when it is, folks will die. I think safeguards to prevent that as far as is humanly possible are called for. That needs to be addressed in a grand, overall theory.

Some folks will naturally try to weasel in occasionally and test those safeguards. THAT is when the arms laden populace steps in to convince them of the error of their ways. That is also where this current experiment has failed. The people were not jealous enough in guarding their liberty, and some really slick bastridges snatched it right out from under them. Therefore, the people would also need to be better educated (dare I say indoctrinated?) in the rights and responsibilities of a free people than this current crop has been.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 



If you are, can you not think for yourself to figure out what is good for you?

eh(!), Amicus, that's possible in one case, but impossible in another: human can have different moments (lack of knowledge/abilities/info) to not be able of right decision for own life



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
Huh? Are you not "one of the people"?

If you are, can you not think for yourself to figure out what is good for you?


I wasn't talking about me, I was just being general. I was talking about those who follow the conditioning of the state and don't think for themselves. I know what would be good for me, and you, a socialist economy.


If you can, why can't the rest of us?


Well that's the question isn't it. Most people are just confused, and are either too lazy or too stupid to really learn what is good for the people and what isn't. When I keep hearing working class people support capitalism, and call socialism evil, it's obvious to me they don't really understand how these economic systems really work and which one would be better for them.

The media tells us socialism is big government, and capitalism is free-markets. Both are lies. Socialism requires no government, and it allows free-markets (market socialism allows free production and exchange based on market forces, not centrally planned). The difference is in who owns the means of production, that which is used to hire labour.


Why do we need someone in power to do our thinking for us?


We don't. I never said we did. I support libertarian socialism, a socialist economy without government.

It is those in power that do most peoples thinking for them, when I hear people saying socialism is evil because of Russia, or China, shows me the person hasn't done any thinking for themselves, they just except what the state system has conditioned them to believe. Evin in the face of historical evidence people still refuse to except they've been lied to. The world will never change for the better if people keep failing to understand economic and political systems and how the state system has twisted the meanings beyond recognition.

People tend to react emotionally based on what they've been taught, conditioned, to believe. Reality is replaced with cliches and half truths.


If we don't, how could those in power confuse us?


They confuse you through conditioning. Through your school and media. If people think Russia was really socialist then they are obviously confused, and haven't taken the time to find out what socialism really is. If people keep thinking social health care is socialism they are confused. People who think socialism is big government are confused.

It's obvious to me those who argue for the present capitalist system, don't fully understand it or the alternatives.
Sorry if the sounds arrogant but I'm just being honest. If you were honest, instead of reacting emotionally to my claims, then you would have replied with an intelligent post that understood what I'm saying, even if you disagreed with it.
edit on 5-12-2010 by Wally Hope because: typo



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 07:28 PM
link   
Who is going to keep Iran in check? Who is going to keep North Korea in check? The UK? The UN? I guess the bad old USA has to do this one too. Feel free to sit on the side lines, sip tea, and poke fun - just don't get in the way. Just like in WW2, brits are too prissy to make a difference about anything, by the way who's your queen these days, or do you just have to look in a mirror



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
I became disenchanted with the left/right paradigm some time ago, and cut all ties to the Republican party, of which I was a member all my previous life. Just as a coin has two sides, yet is still the exact same coin, the left/right paradigm as exemplified by the Democrat and Republican parties is all one huge lumbering beast to my mind. For the life of me, I just can't see a farthing's woth of difference between the two.


There really isn't economically speaking. Both sides are steeped in liberalism. The only differences exist between whether or not the moral order of society should be tightened or loosened. In my opinion it's just Monday Night Football for self proclaimed intellectuals and the pious moral arbiters of society.


It took being smacked in the head with George Bush to ram that realization home...


I think this is where a large portion of America woke up. This is what kicked off the push for "Change" that people were still fooled into believing Obama would provide.


As I get older, and think more, I have less problems with either socialism OR capitalism. What I DO have a problem with is the power-tripping that uses both as a vehicle. We thought we had it so much better here, and in truth at that time we probably did. Not so much now. When I look around me now, I see what I assumed that I would have seen in the USSR then, minus the continual shortages. That's not a pretty feeling.


The power mongers exist in either system. But I argue that communism allows for more checks and balances. Look at the industrial revolution. Capitalist countries employed children as young as four years old. It took the people demanding intervention to put a stop to that. We also have the 8 hour day, vacation days, health insurance, etc. thanks to economic intervention. A "free market" isn't anymore free than a Russian gulag.

It is easy for us to look east and understand the failings of State Communism, our media and government went to great lengths to educate us as to it's failings; but, we don't have the same kind of information about the retardation inherent in capitalism. It took Bush and all this bailout nonsense for America to even see things from the socialist perspective and even now people are still opposed to socialist views because of some sort of xenophobia that I can't even begin to understand.

In my opinion there is no difference between the USA and the USSR excepting the top layer of the pyramid. In the USSR the State owned the Corporation and in the USA the Corporation owns the State. We agree that we have to decentralize powers so I'll leave this alone and we can press on.


"Socialism", without the government middle man extorting from Peter and deciding on disbursements to Paul isn't such a bad thing in theory. Capitalism, using government to extort from Peter to enrich CEO Paul isn't such a good thing in practice. The commonalities there are "government" and "extortion". If left to my own devices, without that extortion, I can give as I please, where I think it will do the most good, without any help at all in the first case, and I can tell CEO Paul to bite me and do business with another, or none at all if I choose, in the second case. As purely economic systems, they are both harmless, and don't really look to be mutually exclusive to me. As political systems, they are both disastrous, and of course ARE mutually exclusive.


I think it's important that we distinguish between politics and economics. Communism and capitalism are purely economic models. My argument is that the problems with the communist countries we know all to well are not economical, they are political. The problems with the Western world are both economic and political.

Assuming we could out the corrupt members of our current administration and get the country back on track, I argue that we would only be buying us time until we are right back were we started at best and only facilitate a faster rising of the Corporate State at worst.


Government should be as neutral as possible, and in the matter of economics, regulate commerce between lower level polities, not regulate whatever system either chooses to use internally. What I'm getting at is that I believe any given level of government should STOP at the next level (up OR down), and deal only with those units - AS those units, leaving the still lower levels alone to be dealt with internally.


Interesting... So, allow the people to choose the economic model for themselves? I'm on board with this as long as every individual is educated on the benefits and failings of both systems. I believe that we can find some sort of coexistence with the political model I was describing earlier. On the State level everyone could decide for themselves and one person go move to another if they didn't like that particular people's process, politics, etc.


I also believe that governments in general, at whatever level, should be drastically limited in scope and power. This include limiting their funding in the form of taxation to what they actually need to operate. It doesn't allow room for them to bloat and create dependent class by means of "social programs". Regulating social values and administering social programs are not a part of government in my conception. For the most part, I would limit them to military and police matters (with no need for police above the state level, and not many there), mediation and dispute resolution between lower level polities, and dealing as a unit with other units at the same level, or one level higher.


I believe that taxation is theft on one hand, but I believe that people should have "buying power" when dealing with their government. I think some form of taxation may be necessary for infrastructure, however I think that the people should also be able to opt out and hold onto their earnings if they disagree with the governing bodies decisions.


I think what the US has now would be fine, IF each level of government were limited as originally conceived, and each politician were limited such that none could make a career of it.


I whole heartedly agree. I'm completely supportive of returning to this model, I just don't believe it's possible and I think it would be all to no avail.


I acknowledge a universal supreme ruler, personally, but I have no qualm whatsoever about differentiating between the spiritual and the corporeal.


I think we can agree though, that fanaticism is a problem that works counter to both our ambitions.


Not so different from the way it was here in the US a hundred years ago or so, I suppose. I'm assuming by "gift economy" you mean cashless barter, and I could be wrong about that. Back then, out in the countryside, hard currency was sometimes hard to come by, but you could always go to the smokehouse and get a ham, or go get a chicken, or some produce from your garden to trade for stuff you didn't have. In the cities the converse was the rule, since the space wasn't available for farm produce.


Barter system and labor co-op. Like, I need shoes lemme go work eight hours for the cobbler. The labor co-op idea is the solution to getting around a lot of wealth = money issues, in my opinion.


What a concept! Institute a draft, but for politicians rather than military!

You know I'm kidding about that, right?


Hehehe, I'm not.

After this conversation I think we'd both be able to live in the same community and serve it well regardless of differences of opinion. So why not a draft or the taking of turns? We can put some educational and experience based checks in place to ensure we don't get some 18 year old in an insanely powerful position, so why not?


Could be, but I haven't had a chance to read the links yet to make an informed comment. Off the cuff, I know that making money up out of nothing really isn't the way to go, because anyone with that kind of power rules all....


I look forward to hearing your thoughts about this after you've checked into it. I can't help but feel like this conversation is akin to Palestine and Israel discussing peace.


I tried it, and got thoroughly confused by the results, The terminology of the report threw me for a loop, and didn't match what I'm used to. For example, it said I was a "progressive" or "ultra liberal", leading to my strong urge to throw a coffee cup through my computer screen. In another place, however, it said that only 2% of the people tested were more "conservative" than I am. I haven't really puzzled the result out yet, but my dot showed up bending the bottom boundary out, just left of the centerline, in the "libertarian" area.


Yeah, this seems to be the average outcome. There has been some kind of Orwellian double-speak going on this country for some time involving political ideologies. I saw a guy throw his monitor once because he hit the "Paleo-Conservative" area. He just yelled, "My ideas are not old!"

Anyway, I figured we had to be touching on some spectrum and it looks like we are.


Permanent exile on Elba springs to mind as an alternative. Well, not Elba literally, but you get my drift. Give 'em a small island, one hatchet and a pack of matches apiece, and tell 'em the island is theirs to do with as they will. I really wouldn't care if they killed and ate each other. That's up to them.


I would still sleep better knowing there wasn't a chance they weren't going to create some sort of nation who's culture was based on a grudge... but I would just take it upon myself to ensure that everyone knew that was a possibility and the people would be prepared for it.


I balk at a purely democratic process, though. That leaves minority groups (not necessarily ethnic minorities, just minorities) unrepresented, voiceless, and at the mercy of the pack.


No no, it would still be a Republic like process added with the extra benefit of the mobility of the person to truly change their residence to something all together different.


Need some mechanism for dispute mediation between units (whether a trade or some other sort of dispute - like the Virginia-Pennsylvania boundary battles of the 18th century), and some sort of safe passage guarantee for folks just passing through for trade or just in transit between units not adjoining one another. Otherwise, it seems dangerously close to Balkanization.


Oh yes, there has to be! That's just not an area I've educated myself enough on. Wikileaks has helped spur me in that direction now that I can see how diplomacy has been handled. It's just been difficult to see any "hands-on" processes and how what is said is interpreted since I didn't even know where to start.

As far as safe passage, most certainly. I believe that the freedom to travel as we please is inalienable.


I just chalked it up to pure greed. Kept it simpler in my mind that way.


Unfortunately I'm cursed with inability to stop thinking and analyzing things... So you may be right as I have a tendency to over think things, but I still believe that there is a root catalyst to the actions we see people perform.


See, the way I see it, "stuff" is nice to have and all, but if your whole world collapses because one day that "stuff" disappears, then you're a slave already, and just don't know it.


Yessir, that's what I was getting at.


Agreed, but how does one go about eliminating materialism? In my case, I just weed them out of my own little corner, but that just makes them someone else's problem, it doesn't do a damned thing about the materialism present to begin with. Hoe do you go about changing a quality so ingrained in so many?


Well, firstly I think we have to get to the bottom of why it is so prevalent in the first place. Personally, I think it stems from a lack of heritage. A lack of historical context that other cultures have. That's my reasoning for why what's good for France isn't good for America, etc.


Yeah, that works, but as they say, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. It's better to prevent it to begin with than to war over it afterwards. As you say, that eventuality risks destabilizing the entire confederation, an undesirable situation, and even if it didn't the death of even one individual in battle diminishes the whole (see? I still can't bring myself to use "collective"!). Sometimes battle is necessary, and when it is, folks will die. I think safeguards to prevent that as far as is humanly possible are called for. That needs to be addressed in a grand, overall theory.


I guess now we may need to find a Fascist to point the holes in our system. But, since they aren't exactly known for being open minded I don't think any are going to show up to lend a hand, hahaha. So, I'll just ask: What would happen from the Shawnee perspective if a man attempted to destabilize the group and/or seize authority over it?


Some folks will naturally try to weasel in occasionally and test those safeguards. THAT is when the arms laden populace steps in to convince them of the error of their ways. That is also where this current experiment has failed. The people were not jealous enough in guarding their liberty, and some really slick bastridges snatched it right out from under them. Therefore, the people would also need to be better educated (dare I say indoctrinated?) in the rights and responsibilities of a free people than this current crop has been.


In America after you enlist you attend BMT (Basic Military Training). In other nations they call it Indoc. What ever you call it, end of the day, it's military indoctrination. I may be biased, but I don't really see it as a bad thing. It's just another level of education that would seem to be necessary to ensuring a free people in light of America's history.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by AdAbsurdum
 


Thank you for your service.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by sara123123
I think a lot of people in America don't remember constitutional liberity's meaning, ideology, way of life and values anymore. At the same time, liberals have manipulated history in public schools to ignore the real ravishing nature of centralized collectivist governments and to demonize the history and nature of constitutional America. I love my European friends and as an American, I am different becasue of my people's history and constitutional way of life. What feels safe and "smart" to Europeans in the elite's power, feels like control and oppression to me. I despise the idea of royality or elitism and being under their thumbs in the name of "care" and "sharing" gives me the willies. I would rather be under my own care and share my wealth (as small as it is!) as I see fit.


So... You think that American's hate socialism because Liberal America has engaged in historical revisionism to hide the "true" nature of communism? Some how I don't think that makes any sense....

As far as you being under your own care, that's not always possible. You were a child once and required parents. You will grow old and require family. You belong to a collective organization one way or another.

I also don't understand what royalty and elitism has to do with socialism, could you elaborate?


Social Security and Medicare were to be America's retirement safety net and we were all promised if we paid into it, the government would assure minimum benefits in our old age. So what happened with that?


Well, for one, a public service was allowed by the people to be used for the personal interests of those who had access to it.

Secondly, now that the people are aware that they aren't getting their money back, they are allowing the government to just wash their hands of it as opposed to demanding their heads.

I can go on, but these are the most important points I'd like to make. We the people, have and still do, nothing and so we are fleeced.


Had it been a private investment firm using our retirement money for their personal gain, we could sue them and put them in jail for theft. But no one can sue the Federal government. They are theives and polluters and abusers we can not touch.


We could sue. But if they had no money then how would it be returned to us? A corporation doesn't serve the public. It serves itself.


This is why socialism and communism stinks for America.


Because the American people are lazy and refuse to take collective responsibility for their national failings? Sounds like a more collective approach is exactly the answer.


We have a third way for reform! Let's restore the constitutional republic and strip the theives and power mongers in Washington of their ability to be bribed by socialists, communists, globalists corporatists and foreign interests for the purpose of confounding our way of life in freedom and independence.


We should! What is the name of the movement you are organizing and when is your next protest? Do you have a website?



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by StlSteve
 


Eh, thanks, but I don't think I was really doing anyone a service other than the corporate elite. I enlisted with good intentions but in the months after that I started to see what was behind the curtain.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by StlSteve
Who is going to keep Iran in check? Who is going to keep North Korea in check? The UK? The UN? I guess the bad old USA has to do this one too. Feel free to sit on the side lines, sip tea, and poke fun - just don't get in the way. Just like in WW2, brits are too prissy to make a difference about anything, by the way who's your queen these days, or do you just have to look in a mirror


Keep them in check?

If it wasn't for western capitalist interests there would be nothing to keep in check.

What came first? Terrorists, or the oil industry?

You really need to learn some history and quit believing all the put down BS is actually true. The Brits had already fought and won against the Nazis before you got here, or did WWII start in 1942 in your world? Russia did more to save Europe than the US did, with no help from anyone. America did not save Europe, you helped, it could have managed it by itself as the US had nothing to do with Russia reaching Berlin. Get over your egocentric self.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Wally Hope
 


You need to learn reality. Do you think a nuclear North Korea is good? How about Iran? Please tell, or shut up



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by StlSteve
reply to post by Wally Hope
 


You need to learn reality. Do you think a nuclear North Korea is good? How about Iran? Please tell, or shut up


How is any of that bad for me? Might suck for Israel or South Korea, but not for America. The wikileaks cables have already shown that neither our nation or Russia thinks that Iran and North Korea could really hit anything before 2015.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 08:33 PM
link   
That's the problem with [snip] countries that decide they have a problem with the US. No backbone (sorry England) Here's a thought, put up, or shut up. I'm guessing alot of ATS's won't like it, but......

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.


edit on 2010/12/5 by GradyPhilpott because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by AdAbsurdum
 


I got shanghaied when I got home this evening, so this reply will be necessarily short, and focused on the Labor Dollar concept.

I read up on it, and it has a certain interest about it. Sounds to me like a sort of hybridization between labor barter, military MPC scrip, and the old local currencies widely issued before the American Civil War.

I can see how it could be made to work intra-community, no matter how large or small that community was - just as long as all agreed on the values exchanged, or adjusted the values in established units per transaction. Something like agreeing that a particular job was worth twice the going rate to the employer. No different than an individual telling me that they'll pay me 10 dollars an hour to clear brush, and me saying "you'll pay me 20 an hour if you want me to do it", and them agreeing that it's worth that to them to avoid that bit of unpleasantness themselves. In the case of the Labor dollars, the agreement would be measured in Labor Dollars, and just valid for that particular odd job. The underlying value of the scrip would be the same, I'd just get twice as much (or half, or whatever was agreed to for that transaction) of it in that instance.

It has the added advantage of taking the Federal Reserve entirely out of the loop, and I like that notion a lot. If we can't twist their arm hard enough to make 'em abolish the Fed, the next best thing to do would to be to make the Fed entirely irrelevant as far as possible.

Inter community trade would be an entirely different thing. There would need to be some sort of super-currency or similar system for inter community transactions, or else the external community would have to redeem the local currency within the local community,which could get a bit cumbersome. One community may not value the labor quite the same as another. In that respect, it resembles the local currencies issued by local community banks before the Civil War, needing to be redeemed in the community where it was issued.

I can see how it could be made to work with a little tweaking, and the look on Bernanke's face when he realized he had a tin cup full of "foreign" labor dollars at the end of a hard day of panhandling (which would be the outcome of the Fed being made irrelevant, one could hope) would be priceless.

I'm not quite as comfortable with the systems that use centralized ledger entries instead of a scrip, though. That introduces a third party into an essentially private transaction. Third parties are notorious for finding inventive ways to skim their cut of the action out, which is one of the problems with the Fed to begin with. The folks keeping the ledgers would amount to being "bankers", and I'm thoroughly uncomfortable with banks and bankers. They are part of the problem to me, and no part at all of the solution.

I'll reply to the rest tomorrow, since I'm beat right now and still have a couple of other matters to attend to. I just figured I'd kept you waiting on my opinion of the Labor Dollar concept about long enough.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Rob37n
 


Read the book, or watch the movie:

1984 - George Orwell



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 04:57 AM
link   
reply to post by StlSteve
 


Yes, nuclear Iran and nuclear North Korea is a good thing. Imho.
If they go nuclear, they have a better chance of being left alone.
Its not as if they have a history of agressive wars al over the world, do they. In fact, can you count how many wars have those two countries started?

Get some bloody manners! And a brain if possible.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Rob37n
 


Because the evil Socialism / Communism of the USSR, Red China, etc, always springs from the current ideals of Liberalism and Progressive ideology. In the end though, it always ends with mass murder for the benefit of the collective (social justice). Please don't try and refute this. I have done my research and I can list the tens of millions who have died, where, and when. I could bury you in facts and not even break a sweat. It's evil, disgusting, and in the end...murderous... This is America. Equal Justice not Social Justice. The Right to pursue an education not the Right to an education. A hand up not a hand out. Medical care is a privilege not a right. The Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness not the guarantee of happiness. If you don't like the way our country is established, move to a communist country (while you're still free to go).



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 03:03 PM
link   
I can't believe how many people on this site think socialism and communism are wonderful - I guess none of you fared too well in history class :/

I propose the best experiment ever:

Everyone who believes that capitalism (the real thing - not the corrupt system/gov't we have now) is the best system - all of you can live, let's say, on the east coast of the US. These are the people who value small gov't - for the people, self-responsibility, keeping the fruits of their own labor, charity on their OWN TERMS, as well as HONESTY and TRUTH.

All those who believe that sharing the wealth is the answer (communism/socialism) - you all can live on the west coast of the US. These are the people who have no problem sharing the fruits of their labor with others, who may or may not have earned those same fruits. These are the people who SCREAM for the government to REGULATE the economy, finance, education, etc. - and especially PERSONAL LIFE ISSUES. These are the people who want more and more laws created in the name of 'protection' and 'charity'. Well, you know who you are.

Anyway, if this experiment were to actually happen, it would be the best day of my entire life. I would certainly be on the east coast - and I would be thrilled to FINALLY be in a place where the government is small and for the people, therefore unable to be corrupt. Where the government does not stick its nose where it doesn't belong - such as in the economy, healthcare, education, etc. Where I would be free to learn about, become and DO whatever the hell I want (as long as it does not infringe on another's rights). Where all substances are legal and usage relies on SELF RESPONSIBILITY. Where dishonest, or just plain crappy, businesses fail because no corrupt government is going to bail them out! (This allows better, more innovative and equipped companies to fill that gap - naturally.) Where the fruits of my labor are not STOLEN - for any reason. Where I am responsible only for the well-being of myself - no one else.

It is clear to me what the outcome of this experiment would be. Just like in the history books, the west coast commie country would eat itself from the inside out and fail miserably. It wouldn't be long before the west coasters will be CRYING to jump the border to the east coast. They would finally learn that nothing in life is FREE. That you have to EARN everything. That taking someone's earnings for a good cause is still STEALING. That the more power you give to a government, the more CORRUPT it becomes. That there is no INCENTIVE to work if you think everyone else is going to do the job for you. That you are not FREE if the government is controlling every aspect of your god damned life!

I sincerely wish people were able to see the bigger picture in this life- an ability that I am blessed (cursed?) with.





new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join