State of Jefferson (to live, health, area)

[.highnlite]

Originally Posted by leonard

Oh it goes back further than that and as he is a relative of mine I am quite familiar with Teddy and (Franklin's) thoughts. As a student of history I know, but do you?

Curious, I find it difficult to believe that any student of history could think that Conservatism has ever done anything for the good of man.
Apparently in your haste to inform me of your relationships you failed to spend a little bit of time finding out, not his thoughts but his actions.

As Theodore himself said, it wasn't the thoughts of a man that are important, it is the actions;

The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds;

As the last surviving member of the Bullmoose party, let me assist your research. Conservative businessmen hated Theodore Roosevelt, the question you must ask yourself is, why?

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by BlackShoe

How was the quality of life in the old Soviet Union for the common person and for those in the Soviet bloc of Eastern Europe under Socialism? How has life been for citizens of Cuba, Venezuela, Vietnam, and Red China under Socialism?

Probably similiar to an alarming number of Americans -- and growing rapidly -- as our capitalist system / culture continues its oppressive march into intensive oligarchy with the wealth concentrated in the top 10% -- a quality of life that relies on annihilation of the resources and environment on which our children will have to try to find scraps to survive after consumer-capitalism collapses under its own Ponzi-weight. But that's just a minor issue in the scorched-earth policies that sacrifice the many for the short-term luxuries of the few.

Originally Posted by BlackShoe

In the trashbin of history forever.

Sadly, "forever" will be fairly soon ended. Of course, if you are in the top 10% bracket, with no children and grandchildren to concern yourself with, then it doesn't matter much, do it?

[Leonard64]

Originally Posted by .highnlite

Curious, I find it difficult to believe that any student of history could think that Conservatism has ever done anything for the good of man.
Apparently in your haste to inform me of your relationships you failed to spend a little bit of time finding out, not his thoughts but his actions.

As Theodore himself said, it wasn't the thoughts of a man that are important, it is the actions;

As the last surviving member of the Bullmoose party, let me assist your research. Conservative businessmen hated Theodore Roosevelt, the question you must ask yourself is, why?

Please give historical evidence for your claim, where Socialism, not acts of social responsibility, have ever worked on a National level with the exclusion of Capitalism from the equation?

[Leonard64]

Originally Posted by nullgeo

Probably similiar to an alarming number of Americans -- and growing rapidly -- as our capitalist system / culture continues its oppressive march into intensive oligarchy with the wealth concentrated in the top 10% -- a quality of life that relies on annihilation of the resources and environment on which our children will have to try to find scraps to survive after consumer-capitalism collapses under its own Ponzi-weight. But that's just a minor issue in the scorched-earth policies that sacrifice the many for the short-term luxuries of the few.

Sadly, "forever" will be fairly soon ended. Of course, if you are in the top 10% bracket, with no children and grandchildren to concern yourself with, then it doesn't matter much, do it?

Hi,

You do know the hunter gatherers you like, were Capitalists not Socialists?

[Leonard64]

Originally Posted by Fontucky

Soviet Union: That wasn't socialism, it was a Marxist totalitarian slave state.

And that is what Socialism without Capitalism eventually leads to.

Both fail when each exists in a solitary state, which is why EVERY pure Socialist State (or as "pure" as you can get) ends up a totalitarian State.

Can you list one that hasn't?

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by Leonard64

Hi,

You do know the hunter gatherers you like, were Capitalists not Socialists?

No, I do not know that hunter-gatherers were either capitalist or socialist ... because capitalism and socialism are economic / political systems ... hunter-gatherers were [generally egalitarian] bands without economies or politics. They were / are socially cooperative in efforts, but had no ownerships of property.

[Fontucky]

Originally Posted by Leonard64

And that is what Socialism without Capitalism eventually leads to.

Both fail when each exists in a solitary state, which is why EVERY pure Socialist State (or as "pure" as you can get) ends up a totalitarian State.

Can you list one that hasn't?

I was addressing the blanket statement by whatizname. If you're looking to spar with someone who is anti-capitalism, you're barking up the wrong tree.

[BlackShoe]

Originally Posted by Fontucky

Soviet Union: That wasn't socialism, it was a Marxist totalitarian slave state.

Originally Posted by Leonard64

And that is what Socialism without Capitalism eventually leads to.

Both fail when each exists in a solitary state, which is why EVERY pure Socialist State (or as "pure" as you can get) ends up a totalitarian State.

Can you list one that hasn't?

"The goal of Socialism is Communism."
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

[Fontucky]

Still waiting for the Scandinavian descent into Communism.

Or Canada.

[Leonard64]

Aside from small family groups, actual "tribes" were primarily economic Capitalists with a social conscience. ALL either hunted, gathered or later farmed. What they had was theirs and they used it in the family and only shared with other tribal members if such were genuinely in need. If someone did not work, he starved. If he could, he had to. What a man gathered or killed was his and no one else' unless he chose to share. Mind you, based on the histories we actually have not ideas of what it might have been like 10,000,000 years ago, where we have no true records. This was the norm for centuries; think American Indians, as examples.

Over time tribes grew and looked at a certain area as theirs. There were exceptions like the Bushmen of Africa, but even they were Economic Capitalists with a Social conscience.

Next was Political Capitalism as leaders arose who controlled the group, They did not share, they were given a share. Think feudal England where a man worked a field and gave a major part to the "Lord". Ditto Mid East, Greece, etc. The capitalist ruler did not share he only took. The people, who were also Capitalists to survive, were the ones who gave as they chose. This would be political and economic Capitalism with a recognition of Social needs by some.

The first genuine Social "political" activities, at least in Europe, were instituted by the Church as they gave alms, sheltered the poor, rendered medical aid and generally helped travelers and those in need. However, again it was voluntary gifts to the Church that supported this. Political Socialism is really rare and in virtually every case I am aware of it degenerated into tyranny.

In fact in some cases a Social conscience even allowed for abandoning the elderly when they could no longer contribute, to die. Think some American Indian tribes. Kinda what happens with Socialized medicine, as it is rationed.

Brief overview but based on history, this is generally how it worked.