Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Of course socialism encourages slavery. America used to have freedom, freedom to own your own farm, work at a company or quit and do something else, work for someone else. Freedom to own your own home etc. But in socialist countries, they take your money away and give it to someone else. So working people get to support themselves and other people also. That's the system we have now. The working people are enslaved to support the lazy, the old, irresponsible, etc. But eventually, the socialist system taps all the money available, and there's no more to distribute around, and the system dies. That's the direction we're headed with 19Trillion in Fed. debt.
You forgot the freedom to own other people like they own horses or dogs.
Of course socialism encourages slavery. America used to have freedom, freedom to own your own farm, work at a company or quit and do something else, work for someone else. Freedom to own your own home etc. But in socialist countries, they take your money away and give it to someone else. So working people get to support themselves and other people also. That's the system we have now. The working people are enslaved to support the lazy, the old, irresponsible, etc. But eventually, the socialist system taps all the money available, and there's no more to distribute around, and the system dies. That's the direction we're headed with 19Trillion in Fed. debt.
You do not understand freedom. You think that owning a farm and working like a mule to support yourself is freedom.
Do you know how hard it is to just eat a hamburger using your own farm resources? Eating a simple burger with your method is incredibly difficult.
You think that choosing to work for someone is freedom? That is just sophisticated enslavement, nothing more. And in the end you are obligated to do that to be able to survive and eat. That is not freedom.
Last edited by Julian658; 12-31-2015 at 09:03 AM..
Of course socialism encourages slavery. America used to have freedom, freedom to own your own farm, work at a company or quit and do something else, work for someone else. Freedom to own your own home etc. But in socialist countries, they take your money away and give it to someone else. So working people get to support themselves and other people also. That's the system we have now. The working people are enslaved to support the lazy, the old, irresponsible, etc. But eventually, the socialist system taps all the money available, and there's no more to distribute around, and the system dies. That's the direction we're headed with 19Trillion in Fed. debt.
And in capitalism they take your money and give it to the rich! I'd rather my money went to lift up the less fortunate than to give yet another silver spoon to the rich.
I don't think this is spoken about enough. But when we break down economic systems, it seems quite obvious to me that socialism seems to promote a slave mindset more so than any other economic system. How so, I'll explain...
A slave is subserviant, never questions authority, feels that is purpose is to serve a master, and has no say so about his path in life. The basis of slavery is basically lack of choice. Slavery will and will always be the absence of freedom, and the core property of freedom is most certainly choice. It doesn't matter how much that single option is, if you can't choose an alternative, then you are bound to it.
Slavery is a system that you can't really opt out of. And when I say "opt out" I literally mean that you can't really choose not to be a slave. It is your master that decides to free you or not. You can't "quit".
I want to be very specific of these guidelines, as people often try to extend the meaning of slavery, when it's fairly concrete what it is.
Socialism is a system in which allegedly the people control the means of production. This is the theory behind it, but the reality is that a group of people and organizations supposedly represent the "people". People opt into a system or service, but there is little choice in opting out. There isn't an alternative, there is just hope through a process that things may change. But people as individuals can't really influence the structure of the service in any meaningful way.
This is akin to slavery in some respect. But one has to look at examples of slavery. One will say that capitalism promotes slavery even more than socialism. But if we look at history, slavery is bound by laws. Laws that made it illegal for slaves to exercise any choice. Law and government was designed to keep slavery instituted. This means slavery, and the act of slavery was a central institution, enforcable by law. If slavery were the Will of the slave owner, an escape slave could not be punished because it could not be enforced. So law was a crucial part in sustaining slavery.
But structurally is slavery socialistic? I believe so. The more socialism you have, the less choice you have. To the point where on the spectrum of socialism, socialism is closer to slavery. The key is the lack of choice. And one can look at slavery in this way. Slaves generally had clothes, shelter, and food. But they were still slaves. The key is they never had a choice of food, a choice of clothes, or a choice of shelter. Nor could they never choose not to have these things. It was forced upon them.
I believe that it is economic miseducation that capitalism is often considered an enabler of slavery. Been in reality the power in slavery was due to it's centralize government enforced mandates.
Let's cut through the layers of baloney here and simply look at the historical facts. Who were the great slave holders in the US prior to the Civil War? The plantation owners. Were the plantations examples of socialism in action? HARDLY! They were a means of producing great wealth for the plantation owners.
Of course socialism encourages slavery. America used to have freedom, freedom to own your own farm, work at a company or quit and do something else, work for someone else. Freedom to own your own home etc. But in socialist countries, they take your money away and give it to someone else. So working people get to support themselves and other people also. That's the system we have now. The working people are enslaved to support the lazy, the old, irresponsible, etc. But eventually, the socialist system taps all the money available, and there's no more to distribute around, and the system dies. That's the direction we're headed with 19Trillion in Fed. debt.
Maybe you could elaborate on that little "etc" you added in at the last of your list, Bernanke and company weren't for handing off the treasury to those you so nicely called out as leeches in your rant, get real, the biggest leeches we have are wearing silk suits and laughing at your notions of redistribution. You obviously don't understand the game as it is being played out, please take the time to include the entirety of our redistribution schemes in your view of what's wrong in America, it's actually an inverted socialism that has the money flowing upward to those who, as you say, expect us to support them, in their luxury lifestyle.
I'm certain that you have read some about that so called quantitative easing, are you just confused as to the path taken by that money? Socialism for the top class can be as undesirable as it can be for the masses, I realize that fact is a somewhat inconvenient obstacle to your agenda, but no amount of denial can suffice against the evidence. This cherry picking one's way through the myriad of economic injustices is simply an old and tired tactic of those who choose to see only that which agrees with their world view.
You may have a great collection of guns at home, but if you must work for the boss to put food on the table you are not entirely free. Yeah, you have the freedom to find another boss (or master) to work for, but you are not truly free. If you don't toil everyday you will sink and drown. You must keep your feet and arms moving to keep your head above water. Do you truly believe that is freedom?
Yes I do. Life is a struggle. Adam & Eve had total freedom in the Garden Of Eden but they screwed it up for all of us.
If it's a system in which all production is collectively owned, then it simply doesn't exist. There is no such system, and never has been - not even all the systems that aspired to be communist.
If it's a system in which there is any collective ownership - you know, unequal taxation to pay for things like schools and roads and warships and parks and airports and police departments - then it's a meaningless word because every single government entity that exists meets that description.
The problem is that 'socialism' merely means 'more taxation and government than I want there to be'. And that's not an objective definition. This is why, for example, we get cries of "Socialized medicine!" over the Affordable Care Act from the same crowd that wouldn't touch Medicare - despite the fact that single-payer Medicare is far more socialistic than the ACA. See? The word 'socialism' is just a label selectively slapped in disapproved expenditures by people using nothing by their own subjective preferences to define it.
It's a relatively, and thus relatively meaningless, term.
Let's cut through the layers of baloney here and simply look at the historical facts. Who were the great slave holders in the US prior to the Civil War? The plantation owners. Were the plantations examples of socialism in action? HARDLY! They were a means of producing great wealth for the plantation owners.
The slave owners weren't socialist. But socialism and government was the only thing that could sustain a slavery system. If a slave could just escape, there would be no legal obligation for him/her to return to their master. Unless slavery itself was enforceable by law. So in many ways the government was able to keep slavery alive. Else anytime a slave escaped they could be free, and there would be no real backlash to them doing so.
The slave owners weren't socialist. But socialism and government was the only thing that could sustain a slavery system. If a slave could just escape, there would be no legal obligation for him/her to return to their master. Unless slavery itself was enforceable by law. So in many ways the government was able to keep slavery alive. Else anytime a slave escaped they could be free, and there would be no real backlash to them doing so.
Sorry, but in the "dog eats dog" world you envision the strong eats the weak and no one can prevent that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
