The Violence Of Socialist Security

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Janky Red

 

I'm not sure what your grandparents being conservatives from Missouri has to do with violently looting your own grandchildren, but whatever.

Because you said THIS

Your granny was sustained by her electing a politician, who then held a gun to my head.

Ya Ronald Reagan, the king of conservation

I have a question for you Janky.

Let's pretend your family and all of your extended relatives are the only people who live in America besides the people who make the laws.

If your grandkids decided to not pay into socialist security, would you personally break down their door and rob them at gun point if the law said you were allowed to do this to them?

reply to post by quackers


I have been ignoring this thread, but your bravery makes me want to join in now. These anarcho capitalists are those who say, "I don't want ANY government over me. None." Just like common criminals. Common criminals say, "I want to do what I want, when I want, and rules and laws and justice and law enforcement be damned. That is the common criminal. So: Criminal====anarchist anti government capitalist. Simple as that.
But when you are a CITIZEN you are OBLIGATED to pay taxes. End of story.

Originally posted by simone50m
reply to post by quackers

 

I have been ignoring this thread, but your bravery makes me want to join in now. These anarcho capitalists are those who say, "I don't want ANY government over me. None." Just like common criminals. Common criminals say, "I want to do what I want, when I want, and rules and laws and justice and law enforcement be damned. That is the common criminal. So: Criminal====anarchist anti government capitalist. Simple as that.
But when you are a CITIZEN you are OBLIGATED to pay taxes. End of story.

Common criminals view violence as a means to an end.

And government does not necessarily equate to a coersively funded State.

I want armed security guards.

I want private arbitration courts.

I want armed citizens.

I want insurance companies to protect me and my property.

I want armored car companies, private body guards, rent-a-cops, mall security, apartment complex guards, etc.. etc.. etc..

I just don't want to be violently looted.

In the mind of a liberal, a desire to not be looted equates to being a criminal.

It is certainly a sick twisted world we live in.

I WANT to win a gigantic lottery

I WANT then to buy a sprawling ranch style home on 10 acres of land, with solar panels.

I WANT then for my dream man to come up to the door and say he's been seeking me.

I WANT to weigh 98 lbs and eat anything I want.

I WANT a flying pink and white pony with big cottony hair that I can braid and bow and comb, but it has to fly while I ride him, on a hot pink sadle.

I WANT an all electric minivan.

(Now I think I better print this out as a Christmas list to Santa next Dec. .....)

reply to post by simone50m


Mocking me does not change the fact that violent looting is wrong, and calling for your grandchildren to be violently looted to support your retirement is even worse.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
I have a question for you Janky.

Let's pretend your family and all of your extended relatives are the only people who live in America besides the people who make the laws.

If your grandkids decided to not pay into socialist security, would you personally break down their door and rob them at gun point if the law said you were allowed to do this to them?

Those children would have the option to dismantle the system when it is their turn to take control of America via the ballot box.

You FORGET that MANY people do not mind paying into this system for a variety of reasons, Millions and Millions of people. Now, I can concede that their are millions of Americans who do not want to pay into the system either. IF you look at my first response I suggest it is WRONG that you have to pay into this system,
you should have a choice.

Originally posted by Janky Red
Those children would have the option to dismantle the system when it is their turn to take control of America via the ballot box.

You FORGET that MANY people do not mind paying into this system for a variety of reasons, Millions and Millions of people. Now, I can concede that their are millions of Americans who do not want to pay into the system either. IF you look at my first response I suggest it is WRONG that you have to pay into this system,
you should have a choice.

The ballot box is nothing more than a method of justifying mass violence against the innocent.

If 51% of the people feel entitled to take the property of the other 49% by force, they are still wrong.

Voting on it doesn't change anything.

Voting can not make violence against the innocent morally just.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Janky Red
Those children would have the option to dismantle the system when it is their turn to take control of America via the ballot box.

You FORGET that MANY people do not mind paying into this system for a variety of reasons, Millions and Millions of people. Now, I can concede that their are millions of Americans who do not want to pay into the system either. IF you look at my first response I suggest it is WRONG that you have to pay into this system,
you should have a choice.

The ballot box is nothing more than a method of justifying mass violence against the innocent.

If 51% of the people feel entitled to take the property of the other 49% by force, they are still wrong.

Voting on it doesn't change anything.

Voting can not make violence against the innocent morally just.

edit on 9-2-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

Well unfortunately democracy was invented to take the place of oligarchy...

You have a VERY easy soap box here because your ideas are not in practice, which means the outcomes
are unable to manifest and create outrage. I reject the notion of society that places all governing force in the hands with those with the most capital, IMO there is an insane amount of violence which mother nature perpetrates everyday and your ideas are basically an amplification system. You place taxation and place it above starvation on the list of egregious acts, I disagree with that notion. Systems have inherent force too -
your equation woefully fails to address this FACT of nature.

reply to post by mnemeth1


I can only imagine what the US government could do with managing everyone's health care... They should give people the money back that they scamed from them and their employers for "retirement" benefits. If it was not the government, the managers of such a fraud would go to jail. The government can get away with shaking people down and violating their rights. ENOUGH.

The stupid party (Republicans) combined with the evil party (Democrats) promises abuse of the American public from one scam to the next.

reply to post by sara123123


The market will eventually put an end to their violent looting.

The currency is going to collapse soon and then we can finally be free of the criminals, at least for a while.

reply to post by Janky Red


You can reject all you like, the end of the looting spree is close at hand.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Janky Red

 

You can reject all you like, the end of the looting spree is close at hand.

edit on 10-2-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

Ya, we will be defeated by Communist China due to the dictionary's version of greed, kind of ironic

reply to post by Janky Red


China isn't in the business of printing American dollars.

The US government is.

The looting will end when the currency is destroyed.

Then the empire will truly fall and your precious ponzi schemes will unwind in a cataclysmic catastrophe.

So yes, greed indeed will be the cause of our demise.

The belief that you can get something for nothing and that people are entitled to use violence to rob others will ultimately destroy us.

Social security has nothing to do with socialism. The definition you posted is the statest version of socialism. Social programs supported by the government is not socialism.

The real definition of socialism is the 'workers ownership of the means of production', as in opposition to the 'private ownership of the means of production', capitalism. It has nothing to do with government hand outs. Socialism does not require state, or government, and Anarchism has traditionally been socialist because its the only way the people can be truly free.

You claim to be anti-state and government, yet you buy into the very system that creates them and enslaves the majority in the worker-wage system, capitalism. You buy into the lies they tell you, capitalism is not freedom, it is control and exploitation.

There is nothing more violent than capitalism. Capitalism requires authoritative organization in order to protect capital. Along with capitalism came police and courts, and the state system. Private ownership of the means of production was very difficult until the establishment of the police and courts. Without it there can be no private ownership of the means of production, as the workers would have no incentive to not just take what they needed, as apposed to being coerced to be a wage slave.

You're not against socialism because you know what it is, but because you have been conditioned to think its everything BUT what it actually is. And don't try to tell me you do because you've already proven you don't.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
The belief that you can get something for nothing and that people are entitled to use violence to rob others will ultimately destroy us.

The irony is capitalists do that.

Capitalists rob the workers of what they could be earning as they sit and do nothing but collect the profits from other peoples labour. Capitalists use violence to protect their capital, and to expand their markets.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by sara123123

 

The market will eventually put an end to their violent looting.
The currency is going to collapse soon and then we can finally be free of the criminals, at least for a while.

Who Knows, the currency may very well collapse but I doubt that Social Security will be identified as the cause, at least not by anyone considered to be reasonably sane.

Furthermore, if it does collapse, what makes you think that this will rid us of "the criminals?" Those very criminals you speak of are the ultra wealthy corporate elite who obtained their wealth by stealing it from their workers. They stole it by not providing insurance and retirement benefits to their employees, choosing instead to pocket that money as personal profit, ultimately transferring the responsibility of caring for their elderly retirees on to the rest of America. All the while, they are constantly bitching about the measly 6.2% they have to match in S.S. taxes. They will also be the ones standing their holding most of the gold and other precious metals when the paper currency collapses. So tell me again, just exactly how did we get rid of them?

I agree that there is plenty of room for debate regarding the idea that everyone should not be required to participate in S.S. but in order to get it right, certain benchmarks would first have to be established, like;
No exemptions for any employer and/or employee who is not already participating in a "Defined Benefit," federally insured and regulated, retirement plan which insures that they will not become a future unfunded burden on society during their years in retirement.

I believe that in principle, this is why railroad workers today have a choice to opt out of S.S.. en.wikipedia.org...

On another note, just because you say these things are going to happen doesn't necessarily make it so. For all I know, you may be holding huge assets in precious metals yourself, hoping and praying for an economic collapse. Judging by the responses to your thread, it seems quite apparent that your opinion is the least valued by those participating and if mass consciousness has anything to do with it, I wouldn't count on your hopes and prayers being answered.

There are two approaches to every problem, one; We could just prepare for it to happen and then pray that it comes and goes quickly leaving us on top. Or; We could come together collectively to address and fix the problems plaguing the system, avoiding the collapse altogether. I would hope that we choose the later.

reply to post by Flatfish


The criminals are the people who make a living by looting others.

When the government loses the ability to endlessly borrow and print money, those who benefit from government largess will be out work or welfare.

Right now the US government is spending 6.5 trillion with a total revenue of 4.7 trillion.

That is a total shortfall of 1.8 trillion dollars a year, and that shortfall is only going to keep getting bigger.

Since government will not be able to borrow enough from foreign countries to make up the difference, it will leave the government with one of two options - either declare bankruptcy or print the difference.

The US is currently printing the difference in the form of "quantitative easing"

Eventually what will happen is countries around the world will reject the dollar as a reserve currency and refuse to conduct trade in dollars. When that happens, which will be soon, everything that we don't produce here will become insanely expensive. Further, since the currency will become near worthless very rapidly, people will begin to refuse working for dollars.

When people begin to refuse work in exchange for dollars, the US government will no longer have the ability to maintain itself. It will not be able to pay its employees or entitlement programs with a currency that's worth anything.

This is going to happen.

This isn't some wild conspiracy theory.

The looting will end.

It will end either in a government declared bankruptcy or through the destruction of the currency.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by mnemeth1
The belief that you can get something for nothing and that people are entitled to use violence to rob others will ultimately destroy us.

The irony is capitalists do that.

Capitalists rob the workers of what they could be earning as they sit and do nothing but collect the profits from other peoples labour. Capitalists use violence to protect their capital, and to expand their markets.

edit on 2/10/2011 by ANOK because: typo

No, that is what government does.

Government uses violence to impose a fiat currency which it can then inflate at will.

Capitalists don't use violence to protect their capital, government uses violence to enforce a monetary monopoly.

It is through the monetary monopoly imposed by government that fascists then use to fund their crony corporations.

Those with the most money will always influence and control government to their own benefit - but that has absolutely nothing to do with capitalism and everything to do with fascism.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Flatfish

 

Since government will not be able to borrow enough from foreign countries to make up the difference, it will leave the government with one of two options - either declare bankruptcy or print the difference.

edit on 10-2-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

I think you left out an option which is to raise taxes on the ultra wealthy as a means of recovering some of the wealth they have stolen off the backs of labor and the average taxpayer. Same thing with S.S., there should be no income level which is exempt from the tax, all that does is to enable them to steal from the poor.