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.
Originally posted by FREEwoman
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 :/
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.
Socialism, in it's traditional and true definition, means "the workers democratic ownership and/or control of the means of production". Such a definition implies that rather than a government bureaucracy for managing such means, there is a focus on highly democratic organisation, education and awareness, and every individual is encouraged to become an active, rather than passive participant in that which effect their lives. Only the workers themselves bear the knowledge of what their own freedom and liberty means, and only they know what is best for themselves, ultimately. Advocates of the state, be they on the left, or the right, have repeatedly defined the meaning of "socialism" to mean arbitrary rule by a set of "leaders", or a political con-game in which socialism is no more than capitalism with a few token adjustments for bearability.
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 recognized that there are authoritarian systems and behavior, distinct from libertarian, or non-authoritarian ones. Since capitalism's early beginnings in Europe, and it's authoritarian trend of wage-slavery for the majority of people (working class) by a smaller, elite group (a ruling, or, capitalist class) who own the "means of production": machines, land, factories, there was a liberatory movement in response to capitalism known as "Socialism". In almost every case, the socialist movement has been divided along authoritarian, and libertarian lines. The anarchists on the libertarian side, and the Jacobins, Marxists, Leninists, Stalinists, and reformist state-socialists on the authoritarian side. (And liberals more or less split down the middle.)
There was also a movement called "Propaganda by deed", around the late 1800's to early 1900's, in which some anarchists (Such as the Italian Anarchist Luigi Galleani (1861-1931)), believed that violence was the best strategy for opposing the state. This proved a disaster, alienating anarchists from the general population and exposing them to negative characterizations by the press... the "bomb-toting anarchist" is for the most part a creation of the corporate media- before this stigma anarchism was recognized as an anti-authoritarian socialist movement.
Many anarchist groups and publications used the word "libertarian" instead of "anarchist" to avoid state repression and the negative association of the former term. Libertarian Socialism differentiates itself from "Anarchy" as a movement only in that it specifically focuses on working class organisation and education in order to achieve human emancipation from the fetters of capitalism.
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.
Originally posted by nenothtu
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.
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.
Originally posted by AdAbsurdum
EDIT: Wally said it better.edit on 6-12-2010 by AdAbsurdum because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Wally Hope
Originally posted by AdAbsurdum
EDIT: Wally said it better.edit on 6-12-2010 by AdAbsurdum because: (no reason given)
Oh no! I just stared your post. Not sure I said it better, I thought you made some really good points.
Originally posted by AdAbsurdum
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.
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.
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 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 we can agree though, that fanaticism is a problem that works counter to both our ambitions.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Originally posted by Wally Hope
In a socialist economy the profit goes back to the workers, which will increase your standard of living.
Originally posted by nenothtu
Originally posted by Wally Hope
In a socialist economy the profit goes back to the workers, which will increase your standard of living.
I advocate for a system where the profit never LEAVES the individual workers, and so has no need to "go back" to them.
Originally posted by Wally Hope
LOL companies have to make profit, so how can it never leave the worker? That makes no sense at all.
Socialism has nothing to do with collective memberships. Collective just means the same as cooperative, i.e. the company is worker owned.
You will be a worker just like now, it's just that instead of the profit going to the private owners it comes back to the worker.
The money you make will be a direct result of your labour, the harder you work the more your company makes the more you make.
Capitalism doesn't offer you any incentive to work any harder than you need to keep your job, so most workers don't give 100% effort because it's pointless.
Socialism increases productivity (20% during the Spanish revolution) due to better worker incentive, and increases every bodies standard of living (unless your living comes from the exploitation of labour).
The only people that lose are the capitalists, as they would have to work for a living like the rest of us.
Originally posted by nenothtu
Then your problem is with the companies, not the economic system. I suppose you would think you would have less problems with the company if it's owned by a "collective" through the government.
I personally don't much care if the "collective" is stealing from me or a company. It's all the same sort of theft to me. I prefer to minimize my business dealings with thieves of any stripe.
The company is COLLECTIVE owned, not "worker" owned.
Where are they now?
Not exactly just like now. Now, I'm the private owner AND the worker.
That's pretty much the way it is for me NOW. Frankly, that argument is no incentive to seek change.
Strange argument coming from that side of the camp. I usually hear that argument from the other side. Maybe you guys aren't as far apart as you think.
I've seen collective bargaining, as a subset of collectivism, increase wages, but I've not seen the increase in productivity you speak of.
Nope. I've seen farms collectivized, and entire families dispossessed of their living.
Originally posted by Wally Hope
Oh boy no, you are not paying attention. Socialism requires no government, and companies are not owned by a "collective". The term collective simply means the work place is collectively, or cooperatively owned by the workers. A collective is not an authority.
You seem to have a problem understanding terms. The collective IS the workers, collectively working together, it's just another term for cooperative. You do understand what a cooperative is right?
The collective is not an organization outside of the workers that has authority like you seem to think.
Where are they now?
Still struggling against the exploitation of the capitalist system.
Hmmm private owner of what? Do you own the means of production?
You are autonomous and have no need for anything produced by others, such as food?
But you know what it's not about you. I don't care what you have, all I care about is the majority of the worlds population that doesn't have. I'm not interested in egocentric take it all for yourself attitudes.
Well great for you. Again you are basing everything on your own experience. You are one of the lucky ones, an accident of birth.
80% of the world population live on less than $10 a day. You're quite happy for that to continue, and get worse, because you are alright Jack?
Strange argument coming from that side of the camp. I usually hear that argument from the other side. Maybe you guys aren't as far apart as you think.
Strange? Not at all. Maybe you've not had too many arguments with people who know how it really works?
I've seen collective bargaining, as a subset of collectivism, increase wages, but I've not seen the increase in productivity you speak of.
Now you're just confusing issues by taking terms out of context.
Nope. I've seen farms collectivized, and entire families dispossessed of their living.
Again we're not talking about the same thing. Collectivized can have different meaning depending on the context, and who is using the term.
Originally posted by nenothtu
I'm also noticing a lot of Obamites waking up to the same realization lately, which tells me that I wasn't too far off of the mark. It just seems to take your "own guy" making a travesty of the office to shake some thought loose.
The xenophobia stems primarily from the large-scale implementations of socialism that we have witnessed...
This is where we differ, I suppose. I see the problems here as political...
There is no such thing as "too big to fail", and the State had no business at all interfering in the natural death of mismanaged Corporations. If I mismanage my personal affairs, there are consequences up to and including death to factor in, and corporate entities are no different in that respect. Miyamoto Musashi said "from one thing, know 10,000 things". In other words, the macro is no different than the micro, it's just a matter of scale. Corporations, like individuals, should not be insulated from the effects of bone-headed decisions, made by bone-headed decision makers.
Exactly so. Local people decide their own economic model, which is limited to their own sphere of influence. Not much different, really, from the way it is now politically - just extended to economics as well. For example, if I don't like the way things are run in Massachusetts, I can always give Florida a try, and if I don't like it there, there's always Montana... the main difference is preventing over-interference and micro-management by the higher level bodies. That would have the effect of strangling over centralization in the cradle.
I believe that OVER taxation is theft. A certain amount is necessary for proper operation, but what we have today goes far and away beyond that. Administration of social programs, arts, scientific research, and like programs has no place at our current federal level....
Not so different from the current process of jury selection, just with different qualification tests for the pool of potential selectees. I can see how that would work, and trend against career politicians, replacing power tripping with civic duty. No one WANTS to be on a jury, but we go when we're called.
I first noticed the "double speak" thing about the year 2000, when the meanings that held before of "red" and "blue" were swapped, blue becoming the "left wing" Democrats and red becoming the "right wing" Republicans which had previously been the opposite. I'm just waiting on China to become "Blue China" now instead of "Red China".
A SMALL island, with a ring of guardians to sink any attempts at escape... but flat out execution would have a smaller economic overhead, and prevent the necessity to watch for them over our shoulders for ever.
"Diplomacy" has been defined as the fine art of saying "nice doggie" until you can get your hands on a big rock. The Wikileaks episode hasn't been nearly as damaging as has been let on. Looks like a tempest in a teapot to me. Most of what has been released is only internal gossip, like a bunch of old women across a backyard fence. Embarrassing, but not really earth-shattering. My thoughts on that are don't say anything in private one doesn't want going public, and you never have to worry about it. My thoughts on "state secrets" that actually do bear on national security is that they are ALL military or espionage-related in nature, and only valid as "secrets" for the time they are ongoing. After an Op is finished - or no longer active, it should automatically declassify - just as soon as the troops are out of harms way. Diplomatic missions don't even begin to qualify for "secrecy" in my mind.
Oddly, or perhaps not so much so, gossip was among the highest of crimes to the Shawnee of old, and was punishable by death or disfigurement.
True enough. If you can't see where you've been, you can't map out where you're going. It's impossible to place one's self in a context when no context exists. Perhaps the materialism is emplaced as a safety blanket in lieu of having a real context.
In the old days, execution or exile, with exile being the more common remedy. Nowadays, it's usually exile or ostracism, which often enough leads to self-exile. A tree cut off from it's roots soon withers and dies, and few indeed are willing to risk that. Since it's the entire group at risk, which is made up of all the individuals, there is rarely a lack of people willing to enforce the punishment.
Originally posted by AdAbsurdum
Yes, the next election cycle is going to get very interesting. I thought we would see the rise of a third party half way through Bush Jr. The Tea Party was not what I envisioned at all, to say the least, and I think the fracturing that's occurred on the GOP side of the house thanks to the Palin debacle and the Libertarian movements stealing voters away is only going to make things more interesting now that Democrats seem to see Obama as a panty-waste.
Makes sense but then... why no outrage about building Chinese infrastructure and outsourcing?
This is where we differ, I suppose. I see the problems here as political...
How would you address things like child labor without any government oversight?
There is no such thing as "too big to fail", and the State had no business at all interfering in the natural death of mismanaged Corporations. If I mismanage my personal affairs, there are consequences up to and including death to factor in, and corporate entities are no different in that respect. Miyamoto Musashi said "from one thing, know 10,000 things". In other words, the macro is no different than the micro, it's just a matter of scale. Corporations, like individuals, should not be insulated from the effects of bone-headed decisions, made by bone-headed decision makers.
I agree but I think the solution is a matter of an oz. of prevention. We're seeing the pound of cure. If businesses were never allowed to get that large in the first place no one would have needed to pump out billions of paper notes in a hope to prolong the inevitable just so their party doesn't look stupid when it comes down around us.
I am not sure if I am ok with, say, Texas going full blown Capitalist and becoming what we see here... Wouldn't allowing that sort of system to pop up just turn this nation back into what we are now? I mean, what we are talking about is like "neo-tribalism" from my point of view... It doesn't seem that, historically speaking, tribes manage all too well when faced with an establishment like that.
Just had a brilliant notion... I think the solution is two fold. Firstly, the budget is decided collectively. Secondly, all tax dollars not spent that fiscal year are returned proportionally. What you think?
Not so different from the current process of jury selection, just with different qualification tests for the pool of potential selectees. I can see how that would work, and trend against career politicians, replacing power tripping with civic duty. No one WANTS to be on a jury, but we go when we're called.
Right. I imagine it would work out to be the same type of misery.
Some would look forward to it, others wouldn't. And it's those that wouldn't that we truly want.
I first noticed the "double speak" thing about the year 2000, when the meanings that held before of "red" and "blue" were swapped, blue becoming the "left wing" Democrats and red becoming the "right wing" Republicans which had previously been the opposite. I'm just waiting on China to become "Blue China" now instead of "Red China".
Funny you should mention this! I've been thinking I might have been losing it when I started seeing this sort of thing popping up. Even their logos seem to have indistinguishable amounts of red and blue in them. It's a joke in plain sight.
A SMALL island, with a ring of guardians to sink any attempts at escape... but flat out execution would have a smaller economic overhead, and prevent the necessity to watch for them over our shoulders for ever.
I still say kill them. But, this could be left up to the individual communities.
The stuff that was reported on the news, I agree with you. I've been rolling them when I have the time and from my point of view this stuff is damaging, but it's only so in circles your average American doesn't know about. I've worked in the intelligence community (INB4: Military Intelligence = oxymoron) and it isn't about what it looks like at face value. It's about what the sum of the parts mean. A little from cable A and a little from cable B and we have an idea of a game plan if you know what you are looking at. (And if anyone is going to ask: No, I won't provide any examples from the latest leaks.)
That isn't always true; however, a lot of stuff is just classified because it's easier to deal with that way. For instance, I stick a thumb drive in a SIPR computer, now that drive is SECRET instead of me having to destroy it. Same thing happens all day long with all kinds of mundane stuff. That's what makes it hard to sift through and find what is "good stuff" opposed to crap.
True enough. If you can't see where you've been, you can't map out where you're going. It's impossible to place one's self in a context when no context exists. Perhaps the materialism is emplaced as a safety blanket in lieu of having a real context.
Exactly what I think.
Hence the reason behind the creation of Christianity and the Western philosophies that have created the world today. A foreign occupying force will always face resistance. But foreign is contextual and with no context the people will accept anything. It's no different then the issues we see today with Reservations. People don't want to accept the white world but don't want to live in squalor and all they hear is, "Why don't you just leave the rez then?". My grandfather left because he needed to feed his family and now from the cultural fall out won't even tell the stories anymore. Just the last time I saw him I asked him to tell me the Niitsitapi origin story to test the waters and he just left the room. The white side of my family stands staunchly against any of it because it runs counter to ever "being successful" by western standards so they view it as all that context would just be doing future generations a disservice. He's now a tired old man and I understand now...
In the old days, execution or exile, with exile being the more common remedy. Nowadays, it's usually exile or ostracism, which often enough leads to self-exile. A tree cut off from it's roots soon withers and dies, and few indeed are willing to risk that. Since it's the entire group at risk, which is made up of all the individuals, there is rarely a lack of people willing to enforce the punishment.
Than it sounds like to me that the preventative measure is cultural and needn't worry. What are they going to do? Since all people can speak and all people are taught that it is their civic duty to speak, when someone comes who will listen? Potentially a minority, but an armed and trained populace is going to be the perfect check to that.
Originally posted by nenothtu
A guy can dream, can't he?
The outrage against those things WAS there, but attention was intentionally diverted away from them, in favor of globalism.
Since I've already said that the government has a proper function in law and order, specifically criminal issues where there is an injured party because of the misbehavior of another, I'd criminalize it as "Human Trafficking" - which is exactly what I see it as being - rather than trying to euphemistically soften it as "child labor". It's not "labor", it's abuse, no less criminal than sexual abuse. That would be enforced on the local level, since a) they are closer to the problem, and b) higher government has no business toting guns or enforcing local law. I see the higher government as being more coordinating and mediating in nature, with far fewer teeth than it has currently.
I'm not against government altogether, I'm just against overgrown, over bearing, over reaching government. My problem isn't with it's existence, it's with it's size and power. We've let it grow far too big and menacing, have let it insinuate it's tentacles into far too many nooks and crannies where it has no business at all.. That's not the fault of the government, it's the fault of us watchdogs.
That involves preventing monopolies, and capping buyouts. Preventing trans-border corporations might also help. If they expand across a border, yank out their ability to do business within your own borders. Make them an entirely foreign entity, subject to the import tariffs and such if anyone in your own borders starts up an international trade with them. That would serve to inhibit growth AND prevent outsourcing. Further, I think if it were me I'd make the import tariffs for such companies astronomical, to protect startup and operation of local businesses engaged in producing whatever widget the traitors were producing. Call it a "punitive import tariff" to differentiate it from business done with with honest foreign companies.
I dunno. Texans are pretty tough, but how do you suppose they'd fare in a war of conquest against all other 47 of the continentals with mutual protection pacts in place? look at Tecumseh. He gave the opposition a pretty good run by negotiating several alliances, building one larger confederation without subverting the individual identities or autonomy of the constituent tribes. I believe that run would have been even more successful, and stood a real chance, had not little brother Tenskwatawa ignored the plan and jumped the gun prematurely at Tippecanoe.
In the matter of guarding against expansion of a hypothetical full-blown Corporatocracy in Texas, it would rest then, as now, with the watchdogs. An armed to the teeth, irascible, and educated populace who have no intention of being taken over, or allowing those in the "buffer zone" to be taken over - because then WE would be next. The main difference between our situation and Tecumseh's would be that in our case, there would be a damn sight more of "us" than "them".
It could work, assuming that budgetary matters were confined to a level manageable by a straight democratic process. That would, in turn, require a limit on government size to a much smaller level, and so the idea has it's merits. Also, if the Federal Bureau of Picking People's Pockets ad Bugging Their Living Rooms pissed off enough people this year, they could find operating funds entirely absent next year, and be forced to close up shop and get a real job to feed their families. Where the idea heads south is in allowing people to vote themselves raises in matters of social programs. Assuming that social programs are confined to the local community, both in funding and disbursement, it could work, especially with the notion that keeping government smaller through less funding translates to a direct tangible benefit to the taxpayer - returned funds.
A guaranteed job there would be in the mail room of the Bureau of Giving Folks Back Their Money.
Also, if classified diplomatic cables are a problem, they might want to consider limiting diplomacy to diplomatic matters, and leave espionage to the professionals.
Therefore, I think diplomacy and espionage ought to be taught in different schools., and operated out of different shops.
Hiding secrets among piles of "secrets" may be one strategy, but fewer secrets make a more manageable pile, and are easier to control and keep track of. I dunno. It's just my sense that classified government stuff should have built-in expiration dates, and expire when military or intel ops using it are finished, and the lives involved are off the field. That wouldn't extend to individuals, though. Every individual has the right to be secure in their effects, including their secrets. I just can't grab the logic that would extend that to a government in perpetuity.
I mean, hell, FIFTY YEAR non-disclosures? Really now...
That's a hard road.
Yeah, that would leave you tired and darn near broken.
What did she think I was gonna steal? Did she think I was really working, and just trying to take a free ride on an indian ticket? I just can't fathom some folks' minds, so I've stopped trying.
I only mention this to show that I'm not talking out of my ass when I say the things I do, and I'm not as ignorant of the facts of the matter of poverty as some folks would like to think. No, it wasn't the rez, but it wasn't far off from some of them. That shack is no more. It burned down to the ground about 10 years ago or so, after we were all gone.
Exactly!
An armed population, educated in a jealousy for their liberty over material gain, and the ways folks will try to steal it, and you've got a winning combination for all!
Originally posted by AdAbsurdum
Hehe, you are welcome to it. I don't see Obama winning, it's too early to tell, but I'm of the opinion that what ever comes next isn't going to be pretty... I mean, I still believe that McCain sabotaged his own running just so Palin couldn't get in because, yes, people are that stupid.
I mean really, who's going to run? With the GOP eating itself and coming a part thanks to the Neo-Cons they don't stand a chance. I even read a few days ago that the tea party is having problems with fundamentalists and they've split. The irony is hilarious, " I come not to bring peace but a sword."
China is the problem of the Chinese as far as I'm concerned. I brought them up because we outsourced labor to a communist country... yet we still have economic sanctions against Cuba.... It didn't add up for all the Red Menace talk I see a lot of.
I still believe that the issue is the economic system. It's only a matter of time until materialism takes hold all over again... I fear, anyway.
This is why I argue for a communist system... or at least a more socialist one. It doesn't require government oversight and from what I have seen works better the more decentralized you get.
Whether you agree or not, I am happy we have come up with a political system that can be agreed upon. That speaks mountains. It may be possible to finally get people to agree from across the aisles. I'm gonna have to go through this entire thread and write up a manifesto and try to pitch it around here and see what the Average Joe thinks. Mind proof reading it after I finish?
I think the tariff and anti-cross-state sanctions to be brilliant. The also way that helps is all that money created from the tariff is distributed to the people at the end of the fiscal year. That ensures there is plenty of left overs to bolster Mom and Pop.
That's fair. But I was more thinking can what we've got so far withstand 500 years of constant attempts at erosion. I worry that in the transition phase we wouldn't be able to rid the cultural issues that allowed what we have today. But, perhaps that's another discussion.
I guess what we would have to do is have some sort of Constitutional agreement that if a group suffers from that kind of exploitation then it is the responsibility of everyone around them to destroy it. In this way we can share the benefits of both individualism and collectivism.
Here I was thinking something along the lines of a Republic type set up with a Senate these terms would last for 4 years and would still operate under the raffle system. But the pool of people raffled from is individuals elected from their respective communities. This way we still ensure representation and at the same time force another check that disallows corruption. These individuals would have nothing to do with the policy side of the house. Only to do with ensuring that what is produced, be that capital or labor, is allocated correctly as far as the governing body is concerned.
The benefit to this is that if the communist areas see a rise in the State you've come to hate, than the capitalists in surrounding areas come to our aid and if the capitalist areas see the rise of a Corprotocracy we come to yours. This way we avoid the trappings of both systems and allow all the variations in between.
A guaranteed job there would be in the mail room of the Bureau of Giving Folks Back Their Money.
But, that's a good thing. This allows room for people with disabilities and removes the need for social programs in the sense we have them now. End of the day everyone still has the right to withhold taxes.
I mean, hell, FIFTY YEAR non-disclosures? Really now...
Heh, I know stuff I can't talk about for the rest of my life and there are countries I'm not allowed to visit. It goes way beyond fifty years.
Yeah, I'm sorry for even bringing this up. I just haven't met anyone who could hear me, I guess, and I jumped at the chance.
I only mention this to show that I'm not talking out of my ass when I say the things I do, and I'm not as ignorant of the facts of the matter of poverty as some folks would like to think. No, it wasn't the rez, but it wasn't far off from some of them. That shack is no more. It burned down to the ground about 10 years ago or so, after we were all gone.
Now, if only we can convince people in this Country that for some it is the 3rd World. It never ceases to amaze me how these things can go unnoticed.
Well, it looks like we have pretty much laid out the ground work for a system that works for everyone regardless of political affiliation. I guess I'll do the hard part next and write this thing up.
Originally posted by sasquatch5100
reply to post by hawkiye
Excellent response Hawkiye!!! Socialism, Communism, Marxism has failed miserably through out history. It will be debated by so called "intellectuals" but no matter what, at the end of the day, they can not point to one example of collective thinking ever leading to prosperity for a nation's citizens!
In fact, the opposite can be pointed out over and over regardless of how educated the stooges try to sound!
Originally posted by Wally Hope
Originally posted by MGriff
Communism and socialism have failed historically, and is not in conjunction with the liberties America was founded on.
Failed because it has never been given a chance. The capitalists have the power, always have.
Originally posted by Wally Hope
Read about the Spanish revolution. The fascists were supported by capitalist all over the world, including the US, in their attempt to stop the power the workers were gaining all over Europe.
Originally posted by Wally Hope
If you're talking about the USSR they were never socialist or communist to start with.
That was all just propaganda by the US after the end of WWII.