It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Obama's Second Bill of Rights is coming

page: 15
<< 12  13  14   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 03:10 PM

Originally posted by Kali74

A true free market is impossible under capitalism and guaranteed by socialism.

A true free market is squashed like a bug by both. You cannot enjoy the fruits of your labors when everyone else is just sticking their hands in and taking what they want. In both cases it always devolves into a monopoly on power. Capitalism morphs into corporatism, where they folks at the tip of the pyramid are siphoning off everything from the base up, and in socialism the same thing occurs - they just call it "the dictatorship of the proletariat" to make the proletariat feel good about it, but it's the guys in the dachas who are getting the benefit, and hold all the power.

BOTH are "collectivist" - the only real difference is which guys (who aren't you) are collecting the rent from everyone else.

edit on 2013/2/2 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 03:51 PM

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by neo96

Oh stop it, you bring up the founding fathers all the time.

There would be no need for a government to interfere in a free market if simple basic laws existed or some natural laws that are ignored, weren't.

One ignored natural law deals with exploitation. Really think about that word and all it's economic applications.

One does not ignore a natural law. Nature does not care, and exhibits no partiality. if you ignore a natural law, you are killed, by nature, post haste. The only natural law involving exploitation is this: "it's yours for as long as you can hang on to it". There is no ignoring it, and no appeal process. It is self-enforcing... that's why it's "natural law".

posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 04:16 PM

Originally posted by XPLodER


A chance to work for enough money to survive and not work for nothing but a handfull of gruel

you really are selfish and greedy arent you.

read it again,

a livable wage,

why should any man work for the benifit of an "owner" if their wages will not pay for the basics human need to survive.

They really shouldn't.

If anyone is doing that, it seems they probably have a flaw in their logic circuits. They should sort that out, because in doing so they are permanently depressing their own wages. Here's how it works: if a person refuses to work for someone who isn't paying them enough to live on, then the employer loses that employee. If EVERYONE gets wise, and refuses to work for that employer, then in order to stay in business, he has to increase the wage.

As long as people are selling themselves short, and not demanding that they be paid at least enough to live on, if not what they are worth, then the employer has no end of useful idiots to choose from, all of whom will starve themselves to death.

It seems odd to me that anyone could blame that on the employer, rather than the people who are agreeing to starve themselves to death by working for him. Why not just put him out of business or force him to increase the wage by starving HIM out, and not working for him?

posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 04:24 PM

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by seabag

to do their own work quietly and to earn their own living.

n this Gospel episode Jesus and his disciples travel to Jerusalem for Passover, where he expels the money changers from the Temple, accusing them of turning the Temple into a den of thieves through their commercial activities.[1][2] In the Gospel of John Jesus refers to the Temple as “my Father’s house” thus in some views making a claim to being the Son of God[3] though it is common in the Abrahamic religions to refer to God as God the Father.


"Den of thieves through their commercial activities" Jesus was indeed a Socialist.
You can't see it because you refuse to understand Socialism. There is nothing more self reliant than Socialism.

Socialism is by definition NOT "self reliant" - it's reliant on everyone else in the system.

You may benefit from reading that passage in the Bible, rather than trying to grasp it from a wiki blurb. For instance, you need to gain an understanding of what it was, what sort of "commercial activity" was being engaged in that was construed as "thievery". Hint: it was not "production". Whomever owned the means of production would not have made any difference in the situation (because there was no production going on in the "commercial activity"), so it's really a piss-poor example for someone to use in support of socialism, especially considering that by their own words, the ONLY definition of socialism they will accept is "worker ownership of the means of production".

posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 04:35 PM

Originally posted by Tw0Sides
reply to post by seabag

Weren't you Seabag , Employed in a Socialist Organization, the US Military.

Cruising the World, while I paid your Wages?


Seabags did not own the means of production, so it was not a socialist organization. He was, essentially, an indentured servant. Now, if you're trying to make the argument that all of the workers in a socialist system are actually indentured servants, we may be able to work with that.

edit on 2013/2/2 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 05:07 PM

Originally posted by Ghost375

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by Tw0Sides

The US military is the one true responsibility of the constitution, defense of the country.

You need to read the constitution and the federalist papers, not take some commie teachers word for what it means.

um it's split between the military and the economy. And I'm fairly certain the economy is talked about more often.
The constitution gives Congress the duty(not the right, the duty) to protect the general welfare of Americans. Those commie bastards!
edit on 30-1-2013 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)


Originally posted by Ghost375
reply to post by timetothink

They say "general welfare." GENERAL. How are you going to try to narrow it down? We're supposed to try to lift up the weak in our society.

Methinks you might not be real clear on the phrase "general welfare" - if it meant "state supported welfare payments" as so many claim it does today, why was such welfare not instituted back then by, you know, the people who wrote it to begin with?

In other words, if that's what they meant why is it not what the DID? Why did 150 years pass before it was done?

edit on 2013/2/2 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 04:00 PM
reply to post by timetothink

at this point, all i am sure of regarding the situation is that government has nothing to give until it first, takes something away ... and, if ppl kept that thought forward in their brains, much of this mess would start making a whole bunch of sense.

posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 04:08 PM
reply to post by nenothtu

on this note, i'm still wondering why we aren't hearing about the Red Hook residents in NY

and why there hasn't been a 'body count' shoved down our throats from the Sandy storm.
i know ppl died but where is the 'count' of all those lost in the subways (cause they weren't warned) ... where is the count of all those from Staten Island that was devastated ?

why are we beraded with the lost "police enclave" solely ???

new topics

top topics

<< 12  13  14   >>

log in