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: Gothmog
a reply to: Azureblue
There is a good reason for that. Socialism by its very nature holds the common person down.In the Socialist world only the government could rise above.I know , Socialism coupled with Communism (true , absolute) would mean no one would have to. Way back in high school , I had a teacher that stated that in the case I described above, this would be the best form of government. Basically , a Utopian society.
However , as man is not perfect , we can never have this form of true societal bliss.(at least not in the childhood stage we are in now)
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: ForteanOrg
I see.
And if the majority of people decides that a segment of the population needs to die for the good of the rest?
originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: blood0fheroes
I'm not often in the habit of repeating myself, however you must have either misread my wording, or have argued this before, against a mind possessed of less clarity.
I’m not in the habit of repeating myself either, but the misreader is you, and a mind possessed of less clarity than one which mistakes an argument against Socialism for an argument in favour of Socialism would be hard to imagine unless one were to invoke some kind of developmental disorder.
involuntary taxation... Emphasis added, for clarity.
Sir or madam, I have to hand it to you. Utterances of such staggering brilliance can only come from the mind of a genius.
originally posted by: [post=20557621]burgerbuddy
If the people who say welfare for individuals is bad why aren't they making just as much noise in the media about the evils of corporate welfare?
just for the record, don't any one be silly enough to claim that corporate welfare creates jobs. why, cos that means you cannot escape admitting that welfare money for individuals also creates jobs.
When xyz millions or billions is spent into the economy by the federal govt and it bounces through the bank accounts of individuals and straight into the local economy, don't try n tell me that its not a form of economic stimulus and dont try n tell me that when xyz millions of dollars is pumped into the local shopping centers that that is not creating and or maintaining jobs in that shopping center (or local economy however you define it).
I just want to say that I completely agree with what you are saying...and have said the same at times. The bottom line is...welfare money ultimately ends up in the pockets of the elite...as well as doctors and lawyers and professors and teachers and almost every other employed person in the country. The sad part is, the people that have to resort to seeking financial assistance through welfare programs are made to feel like unworthy citizens and have to face the stigma of receiving these "handouts" and the people that ultimately end up with the money ( the one's previously mentioned ) get to spend it while looking down on the one's that made it possible for them to have it.
Now my own ideas regarding socialism verses capitalism. First of all...it cannot be argued that capitalism has lead to the greatest economy that the modern world has ever seen....but...it has also lead to the greatest amount of waste and destruction of land and resources that the world has ever seen. Just as an example...how much paper consumption is a direct result of capitalism? ie: advertising,catalogs, packaging ..etc ? I would dare say at least 75 %..... Capitalism leads to huge over production of goods and results in a huge waste of materials and resources. In an ideal system we would only produce goods that we actually needed...and we wouldn't need catalogs and sale flyers to tell us what we "need".
I don't know what the ideal system would be called but it would focus on only making the things we need and we would find our pleasure in making those things and in using them and in knowing that EVERYONE was secure and taken care of. I think the first step to creating this ideal system would be to come up with a new name for it...one that is not tainted by our preconceived ideas.
edit on 3-4-2016 by HarryJoy because: (no reason given)
edit on 3-4-2016 by HarryJoy because: oops !! messed up...
originally posted by: ForteanOrg
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: ForteanOrg
I see.
And if the majority of people decides that a segment of the population needs to die for the good of the rest?
One of the basic rules in a democracy, and one of the fundamental paradigms in socialism is dignity and respect. Murdering a segment of the population is against basic human rights, to begin with. it is undignified, it shows no respect and it kills (literally) the idea of solidarity.
Hence, it can't happen in a truly socialist system.
originally posted by: ketsuko
Let's take university as we see it in the US. Most public universities are stuffed with majors of dubious benefit to society as a whole.
Not much room to debate then, eh?
I cannot dispute it nor confirm it.
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Bluesma
And I would argue, for example, that some things people now consider "collective concerns" are of dubious benefit.
Let's take university as we see it in the US. Most public universities are stuffed with majors of dubious benefit to society as a whole. Does it really benefit the larger community to fund an endless stream of "studies" majors or other pure academics? When was the last time you life was tangibly improved by a Women's Studies major or a Latino Studies Major? How about a Theatre major give most of Hollywood's best never went to college at all?
And before you go on about teachers,
originally posted by: blood0fheroes
a reply to: Bluesma
The reason I asked is because from the opinions expressed here, it would seem most fine folks across the pond see our socialists as socialism lite.
Out of curiosity, do you feel that our lite version, of Europe's full flavored version could ever incorporate voluntaryism? I.E. participation is not mandatory. Or is socialism resolved to always use force to impose its will?
The obligatory taxes, which go towards things like the military, police, education, roads, etc. I personally like having these services, so don't mind paying for them.
If I have no power over how my taxes are spent, and particularly if I do not approve of how they are spent, then I do not consent to the taxation . Does this help to explain why I made the distinction?