Socialism is the best ideology

I have friends in Norway, where their government is quite socialist, and they tell me it's a decent living. Sure the prices are mega expensive, but it all goes toward government medical care and other programs.

Then again, what do I know as a National Socialist?

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Stealing from the productive and giving to the unproductive is 'fair and most equal'?? :shk:
Nope.
You do not have a right to take my earnings simply because you breath air and exist.
That's theft. Nothing more

It is not stealing if given freely. Look at it another way, isn't caring for the weak and the needy a Christian virtue? Or similarly, doesn't the US army have a policy of leaving no man behind?

You call it inhuman to care for those who need care, personally, I consider that to be what makes us most human.

Oh you mean like everyone doesn't mind if the State confiscates half our paycheck for it's operations because we know that our taxes are going to pay for little Jimmy's operation? Is that what you mean? Because that is still confiscatory, not voluntary. Truly voluntary means you look at your paycheck and you still have some money left over after your bills and decide to give a donation to a local charity. That is voluntary. Not all this hokey pokey business of govt giving themselves and their union friends raises and perks then saying oops we overspent now we have to raise taxes....but but but it will only be on those evil wealthy people making more than $250,000(nothing like an arbitrary amount set by our benevolent dictatorship eh), which somehow in the wash comes out to be more like....oh pretty much everybody.
But then who's being realistic here?

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


This is the very point though, the US, and certainly the UK government are not socialist governments, they merely employ socialist tactics. Socialism requires, not taxation for the purpose of supporting the populace, but the active involvement of the populace in providing support.

Primarily, we should be moving our governance towards, not a 'two-party state', whereby one winner assumes control, but at the very least, a system of proportional representation whereby all interests are factored into decision and policy making. In such a system the purchase of compliance, and lobbying, become obsolete, or impotent.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Oh you mean like everyone doesn't mind if the State confiscates half our paycheck for it's operations because we know that our taxes are going to pay for little Jimmy's operation? Is that what you mean? Because that is still confiscatory, not voluntary. Truly voluntary means you look at your paycheck and you still have some money left over after your bills and decide to give a donation to a local charity. That is voluntary. Not all this hokey pokey business of govt giving themselves and their union friends raises and perks then saying oops we overspent now we have to raise taxes....but but but it will only be on those evil wealthy people making more than $250,000(nothing like an arbitrary amount set by our benevolent dictatorship eh), which somehow in the wash comes out to be more like....oh pretty much everybody.
But then who's being realistic here?

I agree, but as I have said, you are describing models which are not socialist, they are merely applying socialist tactics for the purposes of strategic appeasement.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Since when is caring a responsibility hoisted onto the unfortunate few, instead of a quality of character demonstrated by the offices we're supposed to trust most?

Since when do you approve of dictating one's moral beliefs onto others via the state?
Sounds like what the pro-life crowd tries to do with their attempts to outlaw abortion.
Same/same.

reply to post by fadedface


A socialism that embraced religious freedom, embraced economic freedom were the state was solely in control of the infrastructure but allowed some social mobility. the problem is when people feel like they are trapped they will inevitable seek to overthrow the system no matter the philosophy behind it.

In Russia they could not even wear jeans under Stalin as it was seen as too western and the west was seen as decadent so Communism failed, only the socialist reforms of the 1950's in Britain that have now been sadly corrupted and lost or otherwise sabotaged by the wealthy class's and the Kibbutz model of small shared social community work so I am afraid though the ideology is beautiful it is unobtainable in practice until we can create an incorruptible governance of some kind.

reply to post by FlyersFan

Since when do you approve of dictating one's moral beliefs onto others via the state?
Sounds like what the pro-life crowd tries to do with their attempts to outlaw abortion.
Same/same.

Gay marriage, abortion, discrimination, women's rights, black rights, etc. Do you have a problem with any of those moral beliefs being forced upon the people by the state?

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
You call it inhuman to care for those who need care, personally, I consider that to be what makes us most human.

No ... I call it inhuman to FORCE people to give their hard earned money to the government to have corrupt politicians decide what to do with it ... for corrupt politicians to give it to people who refuse to work. Not those who CAN NOT work .. but those who refuse to work. And there are plenty of them.

It's inhuman to steal from the productive to support the lifestyles of those who choose to be unproductive. It goes against a healthy human herd. Evolutionary history proves it.

If you want to end something .. tax it.
If you want to encourage something .. subsidize it.

Mega-taxing the productive discourages people from being productive.
(Why work when my earnings are just going to be stolen from me?)
Subsidizing the freeloaders discourages people from being productive.
(why work when I can sit on my butt all day and get paid to do nothing).

reply to post by FlyersFan


Sorry I am with the pro life except were a underage or otherwise girl has been raped otherwise it takes two too tango and that means the innocent should not be thrown away for the FUN of the selfish self righteous fool's.

A child is a child and life is sacred I have never forgiven my sister for her abortion as my mother has also not so why would I or any other pro lifer allow someone to get away with MURDER.
They are not animal's they are an entire person deprived of the right to exist for the selfish and heartless attitude of the Amoral whom will not even take precaution's or the morning after pill.

Originally posted by LABTECH767
reply to post by fadedface

 

A socialism that embraced religious freedom, embraced economic freedom were the state was solely in control of the infrastructure but allowed some social mobility. the problem is when people feel like they are trapped they will inevitable seek to overthrow the system no matter the philosophy behind it.

In Russia they could not even wear jeans under Stalin as it was seen as too western and the west was seen as decadent so Communism failed, only the socialist reforms of the 1950's in Britain that have now been sadly corrupted and lost or otherwise sabotaged by the wealthy class's and the Kibbutz model of small shared social community work so I am afraid though the ideology is beautiful it is unobtainable in practice until we can create an incorruptible governance of some kind.

Stalinism was NOT socialism, it was totalitarianism.

Socialism is only possible with the involvement of the population as a whole, otherwise it is not socialism. It has and will fail due to the complacency of said populace. Capitalism has and does offer soma to the masses, and the masses are so very easily swayed...just so long as there is someone to look down upon and hate/pity they will keep accepting the constraints of their own existence. Tried and tested, works for so long, but eventually, demands some suppressions. Repeat prescribed models with some tweaks. The proof is the pudding that is our current model.

Originally posted by fadedface

I've seen a retrospective documentary about the Soviet Union which was broadcast by the BBC which interviewed people from former East Germany who stated they preferred life under a communist system than the capitalist one they now have.

When I visited East Berlin, it was without a doubt, the worst place I have seen in Europe. The people, the shops, the food, the architecture...everything. It made Detroit look like a vibrant City and I live in Detroit!!! It was by far the dreariest place I had visited in my 2 trips of backpacking through Europe for about 3 months each time.

If life under East German Socialism was so good......how to you explain the discrepancy between quality of life in West Germany vs. East Germany. You could extend it to the quality of life in South Korea vs North Korea....same comparison. Even Taiwan vs Old School Socialist China, not new Capitialist Communist China (How did that happen btw???)

The only reason East Germans pine for the "old days" is that they didn't have to produce to be taken care of by their masters. It will take East Germans a generation or two to get the laziness out of their system. Seems like most of the rest of Eastern Europe seems to enjoy themselves more now then under Socialist regimes..........

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Gay marriage, abortion, discrimination, women's rights, black rights, etc. Do you have a problem with any of those moral beliefs being forced upon the people by the state?

Marriage equality, womens rights, black rights, whatever ... none of that is the state forcing morality, it's just the state acknowleding basic rights. It is NOT a 'basic right' for the state to steal my paycheck under the guise of 'morality' and hand my paycheck over to corrupt politicians so they can dole it out as they see fit. They claim it's the moral thing to do, but in reality that theft is immoral.

reply to post by LABTECH767

I am also pro-life.

I was showing the person that their arguement about stealing other peoples paychecks being the 'moral' thing to do means that they are doing exactly what they complain about the pro-life groups doing .. pushing their morals onto others via the government.

Those who want socialism .... pushing their morals on others via the gov't.
Those who are pro-life ... pushing their morals on others via the gov't.

So if someone is defending socialism, then they had best NEVER complain about the pro-lifers going into government and trying to get abortion made illegal. Because those socialists are pushing their own morals onto others just like they complain about pro-lifers doing.

It's hypocrisy.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
You call it inhuman to care for those who need care, personally, I consider that to be what makes us most human.

No ... I call it inhuman to FORCE people to give their hard earned money to the government to have corrupt politicians decide what to do with it ... for corrupt politicians to give it to people who refuse to work. Not those who CAN NOT work .. but those who refuse to work. And there are plenty of them.

It's inhuman to steal from the productive to support the lifestyles of those who choose to be unproductive. It goes against a healthy human herd. Evolutionary history proves it.

If you want to end something .. tax it.
If you want to encourage something .. subsidize it.

Mega-taxing the productive discourages people from being productive.
(Why work when my earnings are just going to be stolen from me?)
Subsidizing the freeloaders discourages people from being productive.
(why work when I can sit on my butt all day and get paid to do nothing).

Again, I do not disagree. However, as I said, you are not describing socialism, merely the application of socialist tactics for the purposes of appeasement. Added to that, as I further have mentioned, you have a created a class system, that while you do not reside at the top, you are sufficiently elevated to have enough scope to look down on others, who for the purposes of your argument, are 'freeloaders'...a term, interestingly enough, coined by those who oppose the free market economic model.

For the sake of argument, we can look at it this way, if there were people suffering and in need around you, would you, as a matter of choice, reach into your own pocket to help them? Or have you considered that your government forces you to help because otherwise you would likely just sit back and watch them die? Socialism recognises the need of the individual to contribute to the whole, in whatever capacity they are able, capitalism, simply forces the individual to contribute to caring for those who do not contribute? In socialism contribution is relative, and not merely an economic factorisation.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Sorry I misunderstood, I think tank girl put's the argument in a nutshell though as long as there is someone worse off we accept the constraint's put upon us, As for abortion there are some acceptable circumstance (though none from a religious point) were for instance the mother would die or Rape but not as a form of post sex contraception.

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
you have a created a class system, that while you do not reside at the top, you are sufficiently elevated to have enough scope to look down on others, who for the purposes of your argument, are 'freeloaders'...

- I am where I am (middle class) because I went in the military and so got a (relatively free) college degree; and went to work to earn money; and because I'm careful with what I earn and don't live beyond my bank account.

- I don't 'look down upon' those who make less. I look down upon FREELOADERS (which is different) ... welfare queens .. those who have NO RIGHT to my hard earned money but who want it anyways.

if there were people suffering and in need around you, would you, as a matter of choice, reach into your own pocket to help them? .

I do. But I do it of my own free will. And I don't have a corrupt politician as middle man.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Again, you are responding to your current system, not a socialist model of governance. You are clearly missing the point. You are merely a reflection of the system which you have been conditioned to accept, and while criticising it, you are, in the same breath, and words, defending it.

There is such thing as social programs which can be a good thing to help people and then there are dictators who run an entire government off socialism and communism which bankrupts every single country that does it and turns into wars and violent revolutions and are built off lies.

reply to post by KilgoreTrout


reality

mises.org...

frontpagemag.com...

reply to post by TheToastmanCometh


I Agree about Norway but after the Nazi's of Germany the concept of National socialism has been forever tainted, remember that also Spain and Italy had fascist government's (Spain's had no democratic right as the majority had no wish for franco to rule but hitler assisted his takeover with weapons training and the condor legion and only Mussolini whom proved how weak he was after siding with hitler after hitler had assisted the abassynian's in fighting the Italians in Ethiopia and even arming them with mauser rifle's was actually democratically elected other than hitler, indeed only franco survived the war and he was no loved leader as most Spaniards were relatively poor. National socialism despite the name socialism is not in any way a socialist system but rather a class entrenching and social hierarchical structure that is tied to a racist and blind rhetoric so it is utterly misguided in a great many way's.

I do agree with protecting race and country but not as far as the murder of innocent people or the use of minority's as scape goats for a nations problems, limiting immigration and deportation of illegal immigrant's do meet my approval as well as protecting the indigenous culture of a country that only Switzerland has so far implanted in Europe.