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.


To the Socialists.

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 07:41 PM
a reply to: luciddream

I wish i could give you a millions stars my friend.

posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 07:41 PM
a reply to: dukeofjive696969

Who do you think deregulated the banks and bailed them out? Who was behind Fanny May?

Social Security was never supposed to become a retirement program, and in my opinion is an illegal tax. If the gov't would leave the schools alone, it would be so damn expensive. Military is a legitimate government function. Unless you want to talk about privatizing it. Personally I think military should be controlled by the states.

posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 07:46 PM

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: darkbake

I am part of the working class, and I help those who are medicare, medicaide, and va recipients try to get what they need for a living.

That's what it's meant to do. You see, we shouldn't leave people out to dry if they have have medical issues. Same goes with education, nutrition, basic societal infrastructure, national defense, economic hardship, etc.

The need for these social programs, I would argue, are a testament to the inherent failures of capitalism. If capitalism offered a more reliable alternative to fixing these issues society would've moved in that direction. There's a reason it hasn't.

The whole reason medical costs are sky rocketing is because insurance companies eliminate competition between doctors and pharmacies. Why lower the cost of your services when you can just jack up prices and let the third party payors pick up the bill? Well, now they won't pick up the bill, so its pass on to the working class.

This is a crony capitalism issue, not a socialism issue. Maybe you should direct your anger towards the insurance and pharmaceutical companies who lobbied the government for the ability to have so much say in how the ACA would look like once it passed.

The same principle applies to wages. We are over taxed to support the poor, and now its falling into the hands of lazy degenerates.

You are overtaxed to support the working poor. In essence you are subsidizing big companies who refuse to pay a living wage to their employees.

Not everybody who is on government assistance is a "lazy degenerate". A big portion of these people work 40 plus hour weeks and still aren't getting their basic needs met. You can use this narrative as much as you want, but it won't make it true.

It's rather interesting how the working poor are demonized as being at fault for most of the economic ills. You know, the contingent that has almost no real say in how things turn out. While the faults of big business are completely ignored. You know, the contingent that has the most say in how things turn out.

posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 07:48 PM
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

So the bank bailout was really a socialist agenda, id love to see some proof but im guessing you cant find any.

Social security has helped millions of americans over the years. How evil.

A pension is a social program, but your ok with soldiers getting a pension.

edit on 6-11-2015 by dukeofjive696969 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 07:54 PM
a reply to: dukeofjive696969

How is social security socialism? People pay into that all their lives and get a pittance from the government. Social security is a tax and a Ponzi scheme wrapped in a lie to give the impression that the government cares about you.

posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 07:56 PM
a reply to: GD21D

A pregnant single mom who keeps pushing out kids to remain eligible for medicaid, while spending money on IPhones and tatoos is not the "working poor", and people like this are the majority of welfare recipients in my area.

The government should not be involved in the private sector. If such a separation existed, there would be no opportunity to lobby.

Crony capitalism is what happens when government gets in bed with industry. That is Socialism.

posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 08:04 PM
a reply to: dukeofjive696969

Well yes, the banks that should have filed for bankruptcy and faced legal consequences were instead bailed out by the government with American tax dollars. That kinda makes it a Socialist plot, especially when two separate administrations were involved.

Social Security will ensure that you will be in debt to the government until the day you die.

Actually, no. I don't support military pension programs. I think we should go back to a state militia system and defense of our nation should be a duty, not a career. I realize that is unpopular, but if the states had control over military, Bush's illegal wars would never have happened.

posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 08:27 PM

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: GD21D

A pregnant single mom who keeps pushing out kids to remain eligible for medicaid, while spending money on IPhones and tatoos is not the "working poor", and people like this are the majority of welfare recipients in my area.

Do you have proof of this, or are you just throwing out gross generalizations to support you're nonsensical position?

Granted, there are people who abuse the system. However, there are people of every economic status that abuse the system. This is a ongoing human issue we'll have regardless of the political and economic systems we use.

The government should not be involved in the private sector. If such a separation existed, there would be no opportunity to lobby.

If we instituted a law limiting or abolishing campaign donations there would be no opportunity to lobby. This is elementary from a pragmatic standpoint.

The governments inherent connection to the economy will always require it to be involved with the private sector to one extent or another. This also is elementary.

Crony capitalism is what happens when government gets in bed with industry. That is Socialism.

Who you see guiding the ship in the relationship between government and big business will be the determining factor in how you see things. In my opinion, the ones who govern have very little say in what happens. They are subject to the wills and wants of their big donors.

posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 08:37 PM
there is only one truly free market in the world, there's only ever been one, and it's the same one. it's the black market. every state in history has imposed some sort of regulation on the markets to maintain a livable society.

no purely communist market has ever existed, although a few tribes may have practiced totally shared ownership, an anthopologist could probably tell you. pure communism isn't scalable.

every economic system is a mix of the two, allowing free trade in some areas and regulating trade and ownership in others. the question is, how much regulation is necessary, and what should be regulated? what should be owned by the public, and what should be owned by indibiduals and companies. where should governments get their money, and how much?

PLEASE stop painting this as a black and white, us and them issue. here's my take on the u.s. today:

it's socialism (bailouts) for the extremely poor and the extremely rich, and it's putting an unlivable burden on the lower and middle classes. many of the programs touted as socialism (like obamacare) again bailout the extremely poor and the extremely rich at the same time. it's an unsustainable system, as more of the middle class continues to lose economic freedom and more people fall into the poorer categories (look up real wages in the u.s. over time, they stopped growing in the 70's). multiple large systemic problems contribute to this (offshoring manufactuing jobs, privatizing services that should be public, public taking burdens that should be private). remember, a healthy middle class is a cornerstone of a healthy democracy.

i think any service that does not benefit from competition, anything that requires large, consistent infrastructure, should be public. that includes national parks, roads and utilities, prisons, fire departments (watch gangs of new york for corruption in private fire departments in early u.s. history, then read up on it. fascinating stuff.) anything that should be tailored to individual choice and benefits from a wide variety of totally different goods and services should be private. food, clothing, shelter, technology, etc. there should be a safety net for the elderly and disabled, and the poor as well (particularly when, like now, high poverty rates are driven by a lack of jobs and a low median wage). but there should NOT be a safety net for too-big-to-fail ANYTHING. that's what antitrust laws are for (do we still have any of those left?).
how much of a safety net? that's why we need to be able to have these discussions without blasting eachother. government revenue should come from taxing places where money isn't helpful. "sin taxes" like taxes on alcohol and cigarettes work great because they discourage behaviors that burden society. a functioning democracy would be able to toggle tax rates for things like sales tax, income tax, payroll tax, esate tax, etc and vary rates to find the best outcomes for everyone. unfortunately, we don't have a functioning democracy. you can't increase tax on someone who has $0.00, and the wealthy have been libbying for less taxes for decades, so the burden falls on the middle class. i think we should eliminate socialism for the rich.

even that doesn't address so many other systemic problems. we need to create a dialogue that addresses all these problems. do i think this will ever happen? no.

posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 08:43 PM
a reply to: GD21D

I disagree with most of that. What I said about welfare recipients, specifically medicaid, comes from 7 years of working in the medical system. There are some who need help, and the welfare system always seems to crush them, because they try to work and actually generate an income so Medicaid penalizes them. The vast majority of Medicaid recipients that I deal with in my area are as I described them..."lazy degenerates".

I do agree, that corporations should not be funding campaigns.

I don't see any reason whatsoever why government should be involved in the economy. Its not responsible for job creation, it should not be receiving even a tenth of our earnings, and it should not be telling private workers what to do. We have a Bill of Rights, and that should be our primary focus. Personally I think the Arricles of Confederation should have been Amended rather than replaced, but thats a different subject.

I don't see the private sector guiding our country. I see the Feds bailing out who they deem to be useful, and those entities reciprocating.
edit on 6-11-2015 by BELIEVERpriest because: typos

posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 08:49 PM
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

I would read your rant,but since dad died I have to shove mom out on an ice flow so she isn't sucking up resources.
No one complains when they retire and file for SOCIAL security. As a society we pay in on certain things together because we all benefit from them. I just love the "we work harder so you don't have to" crowd that thinks it is being so put on having to support others. Let me tell you something,you want to keep your costs down? Cut the damn war budget and use the money to fund social security.Would be about darn time the money got paid back. Stop looking at everyone in the same light.

posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 08:56 PM
a reply to: Dimithae

No one complains when they retire? Boy thats a lie. No, they blame the healthcare workers who's hands are tied rather than realizing that it Medicare standing between them and the therapy they need.

If your mom's on Medicare and Social Security, she might as well be on an ice flow.

posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 09:03 PM
a reply to: anotheramethyst

I think fire fighters and police should be on a volunteer basis. Especially police. Right now the cops are so unionised, that its impossible to stop the corruption.

Taxes, should a be flat fixed percentage on sales. If you can get by without buying, like a farmer, then congratulations, you don't pay taxes. They should be split 50/50 between State and Fed, and absolutely no increase. I budget for my expenses, so should the gov't.

posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 09:50 PM

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: GD21D

I don't see any reason whatsoever why government should be involved in the economy. Its not responsible for job creation, it should not be receiving even a tenth of our earnings, and it should not be telling private workers what to do. We have a Bill of Rights, and that should be our primary focus. Personally I think the Arricles of Confederation should have been Amended rather than replaced, but thats a different subject.

When the economy is bad who absorbs criticism from the public? It's the elected government. We don't look at Walmart and General Electric as being responsible when the economy tanks. The reason for this is that we "think" we have control over governance by way of voting. Democratic governance is supposed to allow us to excersize accountability towards the ones we elect. Now how much accountability we have control over is debatable, but nevertheless it is the primary function of any democratic system. We don't collectively vote in who leads companies like W.M. and G.E., therefore no accountability.

I don't see the private sector guiding our country.


The private sector spends billions of dollars every year lobbying our representatives, but somehow this doesn't translate to direct influence over policy? This position defies logic in my opinion.

You've been pretty civil in your discourse, so I'll avoid my usual sarcasm. We can just agree to disagree.

posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 10:23 PM
a reply to: GD21D

Well, our last major crash was due to deregulation, and the gov't stepped in to protect the banks, so while there were many corporations to blame, the gov't was encouraging all of it.

I see what you mean about the private lobby, and this is were you and I share some common ground, but think about this; who made it cheaper for businesses to take jobs overseas? Ronald Reagan played a large part in that. For that reason, there is no longer a living wage in America, because its all gone. We've exported our jobs and replaced our prosperity with credit.

So who initiated the trend? The private sector or the gov't? It doesn't matter. It simply must stop. But using socialism to stop socialized capitalism is ridiculous.

Gov't and private sector must be as separate as Church and State are supposed to be.

I believe members of the gov't and the private sector are conspiring to institute the NWO. Monsanto is a perfect example. So again, it doesn't matter which side started the trend, it just needs to be stopped.

The Federal Government is the natural Social Sector of the nation. We all pay them taxes to maintain checks and balances. That is their legitimate function. The Private Sector is naturally the Capitalist of component of our nation. Supply and demand fuels the economy. These two components (Social vs Private Sectors) are polar opposites. If they are allowed to make contact, our nation will short circuit, as the Government and Economy grows uncontrollably (post WWII boom). Now the economy is failing and the top heavey government's attempt to fix it is making the problem worse.

Just like a car battery in a short circuit: The Socialized-Capitalist system over heats and the nation explodes.

posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 11:28 PM
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Actually both my parents are dead. I was being sarcastic about the ice flow. And as far as people complaining about SS,sure they do because they don't get enough to live on. But they aren't complaining that they GET SS.

posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 11:34 PM
I find it strange that in this capitalist mecca of ours half our population is poor. However, in those vile socialist European countries, with their free education and medicine, not nearly the number of poor.

Democratic socialism means certain things, like roads, police, education, and medicine, things everyone needs, should be sponsored by everyone. A healthy, well educated people is best for society, and the workforce. ( if I were a CEO I would push for it, as I would have better educated workers that didn't call in or spread disease in the office by coming in sick)

I also find it strange that those that deny evolution advocate for economic survival of the fittest. No rules or regulations, winner take all capitalism.

posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 11:59 PM
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest


Do I really have to say this again?

According to social contract theory (SCT),

“morality consists in the set of rules governing behavior, that rational people would accept, on the condition that others accept them as well.”

(Rachels, p. 145) Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)

“A State of Nature” = anarchy Makes life “poor, nasty, brutish and short”

This is because of 4 features of the human condition:

· equality of need
· scarcity
· the essential equality of human power
· limited altruism

In a “state of nature”, there are no social goods… No

Education Housing
Technology Etc.

….because the social cooperation needed to produce these things doesn’t exist.

In order to avoid this fate,

(1) there must be guarantees that people will not harm one another, and (2) people must be able to rely on one another to keep their agreements.

Only a government can provide for (1) and (2). Therefore, we need a government. In establishing a government, people give up some of their personal freedom (the freedom of anarchy, such as it is) and give the government the authority to enforce laws and agreements.

Those living under a government are parties to a social contract. Each person agrees to follow the laws of the state on the condition that everyone else does the same. That way, we are all relatively safe from each other and we all benefit from the other social goods that will result.

According to SCT, “the state exists to enforce the rules necessary for social living, while morality consists in the whole set of rules that facilitate social living”. (Rachels, p. 144) Thus, government is needed to enforce the basic rules of social living (e.g. don’t rob people, don’t break agreements), while morality may encompass some rules that are important for social living but are outside the scope of the state (this might include, for example, “Don’t insult people for no reason”.)

The power of the government comes from the consent of the people. The majority of the people consent to the social contract of the United States. If you do not consent to this social contract, you are therefore in the minority -- and it is YOU that should go and create your own anarchic utopia.

Now, I know this will be brought up (if it hasn't been already):

A social contract doesn't mean social saftey nets and me paying for other people!

Why yes, yes it does. It is everyone's interest that participates in the social contract of a society:

(1) Some forms of government assistance are in everyone’s interest. Even the wealthy are advantaged by the existence of public education; they may not go to public schools, but they benefit from living in a society with a high level of education. (2) The wealth that people have now depends on the existence of society. When we ask, “What kind of contract would self-interest people agree to?”, we do not mean to ask what they would agree to right now, given that society already exists. Rather, we are asking what people who are on an equal footing would agree to. People in such a position might well agree that there should be a social safety net just in case they end up in need of it. (This line of argument is central to the liberal social contract theory of John Rawls)

And I know already there are those about to say, "But I never signed any kind of contract!"

Well, I would urge them to read the following:

There may not be a physical, signed contract, but there is still an implicit contract that we enter into when we willingly participate in society and enjoy its benefits. Also, even if a state of anarchy existed, it would still be true that it would be in our interests to form a social contract. Thus, the justification for the state, and for morally generally, would still exist.

Even among aboriginal tribes, consisting of just a few families -- hierarchies of order exist in which the strongest or smartest naturally become leaders who dispense law and justice. Any time more than one human being encounters another and decides to peacefully co-exist, a social contract is formed.

Under a "anarchist utopia" all personal property would be gone. That's right, you wouldn't "own" anything under anarchy. Nope, property ownership is bad. Why?

The statement "property is theft" is one of anarchism's most famous sayings. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that anyone who rejects this statement is not an anarchist. This maxim works in two related ways. Firstly, it recognises the fact that the earth and its resources, the common inheritance of all, have been monopolised by a few. Secondly, it argues that, as a consequence of this, those who own property exploit those who do not. This is because those who do not own have to pay or sell their labour to those who do own in order to get access to the resources they need to live and work (such as workplaces, machinery, land, credit, housing, products under patents, and such like

So say goodbye to your car, house, clothes...nope, you wouldn't get own any of that under an anarchist's vision of things. So free hardworking people are being used by the "haves".

It sounds to me that people are very confused, and have somehow been brainwashed into thinking that corporate masters and business owners are somehow justified in their wage theft -- after all property is theft, right?

posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 12:14 AM
Here's a prime example of something you guys can try to achieve yourselves!

Inside Denmark's Anarchist Paradise, Where Almost Anything Goes

Formerly a walled military area belonging to the Danish government, Christiana first came to existence when squatters took over the abandoned plot of land in 1969, in an effort to convert it into a playground and communal park.

For the next two years, there was an active tug-of-war between the squatters and the government, until finally, in 1971, the wall was torn down once and for all. It was then that journalist Jacob Lundvigsen published an article discussing the different uses for the now-open army barracks; one such idea was to convert it into affordable housing in the otherwise-expensive Copenhagen. Through his inspiration, self-deemed anarchists came to Christiania to live their lives.

Looks pretty cool:

A bit more info:

The central values are clear: living in a society where you are in complete control of your life.

It is governed by consensus democracy, which means that decisions are made based on the common agreement of all residents. Consensus is central to how Christiana governs itself, and it offers many different forums for residents to be involved in the community’s decision making.

So, they still do have some rules...

Remember how I said anarchists are against private property?

Christianites also reject the concept of individual ownership – perhaps a reaction to Denmark’s capitalistic society. It’s also a value that has created unique challenges for the community. At one point, this meant streets without cars, but after 41 years of existence, the community has had to find ways to evolve. Private property is rare today – with only 190 privately-owned cars in the community, according to the Danish Building & Property Agency. Those who do own cars are barred from keeping them within Christiana itself.

You can read the whole article HERE, it's actually pretty interesting.

So there you go -- others have done it, go right on ahead! Alternately, you can do what is called "seasteading" :

Seasteading is the concept of creating permanent dwellings at sea, called seasteads, outside the territory claimed by any government. Most proposed seasteads have been modified cruising vessels. Other proposed structures have included a refitted oil platform, a decommissioned anti-aircraft platform, and custom-built floating islands.


So while you may dislike socialist programs like public water works, highways, social security, police/fire services -- you are in the minority. I have now given you two options, *and* a specific, working example of what can be accomplished by people who want to start their own society free from government control.

posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 12:19 AM
Jesus is a socialist! .

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in