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.
COMMUNISM - the ownership of property, or means of production, distribution and supply, by the whole of a classless society, with wealth shared on the principle of 'to each according to his need', each yielding fully 'according to his ability'.
- - - Webster's Dictionary.
SOCIALISM - A political and economic theory advocating collective ownership of the means of production and control of distribution. It is based upon the belief that all, while contributing to the good of the community, are equally entitled to the care and protection which the community can provide.
--- Webster's dictionary
Socialism and communism = COLLECTIVE ownership.
From the Communist manifesto:
"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."
But American law protects private property
Amendment V, US Constitution 1789
... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Communism, Socialism, and Marxism abolish private property ownership and replaces it with collective ownership, with the superior rights in the State.
Capitalist Principles
CAPITALISM - An economic system in which the means of production, distribution and exchange are privately owned and operated for private profit.
- - - WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY
PRIVATE PROPERTY - "As protected from being taken for public uses, is such property as belongs absolutely to an individual, and of which he has the exclusive right of disposition. Property of a specific, fixed and tangible nature, capable of being in possession and transmitted to another, such as houses, lands, and chattels."
- - - Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1217
If you concatenate capitalism with private property, you can see the "inconvenient truth".
Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production, distribution and exchange are absolutely owned by individuals and operated for their individual profit.
A farmer who absolutely owns his farm is a true capitalist.
A farmer who does not, is a tenant.
A worker who absolutely owns the fruits of his labor is a true capitalist.
A worker who does not, is a serf.
Insightful stuff.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
But if the man from Beijing turns up at the door of the Federal Reserve with all the American IOU's and says "Ben, I've decided to cash these IOU's in - please hand over the cash", I wonder what state your country would be in?
You'd probably have to hand over the deeds, I reckon.
But if the man from Beijing turns up at the door of the Federal Reserve with all the American IOU's and says "Ben, I've decided to cash these IOU's in - please hand over the cash", I wonder what state your country would be in?
Technically speaking, the collateral on those IOU's (pursuant to Title 12 USC Sec. 411) are the "volunteers" who signed up with national socialism.
If enough Americans withdraw their consent, those IOU's would suddenly lose their fungibility, as well as their value as an international medium of exchange.
The creditor's dilemma : the Federal government owns nothing in its own right. It is an artificial entity (corporation) created by its charter. If the U.S. Constitution was dissolved, Washington, D.C. reverts back to Maryland state.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indurain
You'd probably have to hand over the deeds, I reckon.
Tell me again who has the better system?
Those remaining obligated parties on the notes would certainly be "human resources" in default, and subject to "taking".
However, since 1935, and the transition to the United Socialist States of America, it would be hardly accurate to contrast the "democratic" USSA with the USSR or the PRC.
On the other hand, one can certainly compare the merits of the republican form of government, promised in Article 4, Section 4, USCON.
GOVERNMENT (Republican Form of Government)- One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. - - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P. 695
DEMOCRACY - That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy."
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P. 432
In the republican form, the people (individually) are the sovereigns.
In the democratic form, the citizens (collectively) are subjects of the sovereign government.
All Americans have the potential to be sovereigns, at age of majority. But they also can surrender that in exchange for participation in the democracy, as a citizen.
Coincidentally, there is only one nation on the planet, whose government recognizes that the people are the sovereigns.
God Bless the USA!
=======================
References:
At the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people and they are truly the sovereigns of the country.
Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 440, 463
It will be admitted on all hands that with the exception of the powers granted to the states and the federal government, through the Constitutions, the people of the several states are unconditionally sovereign within their respective states.
Ohio L. Ins. & T. Co. v. Debolt 16 How. 416, 14 L.Ed. 997
In America, however, the case is widely different. Our government is founded upon compact. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people.
[ Glass vs The Sloop Betsey, 3 Dall 6 (1794)]
Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.
[Yick Wo vs Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886)]
CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE
SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATE
Div. 1
§181. Original and ultimate right to property
The original and ultimate right to all property within the limits of the State is in the people thereof.
§100. (a) The sovereignty of the state resides in the people thereof...
What about citizens?
"The term citizen as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term "subject" in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government and he who before was a "subject" of the King is now a citizen of the State."
State of North Carolina v. Manuel, (1838)
"CITIZEN - ... Citizens are members of a political community who, in their associative capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of government for the promotion of the general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as collective rights. "
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed. p.244
"SUBJECT - One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by his laws.
...Men in free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws. The term is little used, in this sense, in countries enjoying a republican form of government."
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1425
Who are the American people who are NOT citizens?
"The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these states,... shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states; ...."
[Article IV of the Articles of Confederation (1777)]
In the 50 titles of U.S. code, 1992 edition, I found only ONE citation that explicitly mentioned "American nationals":
Title 8, U.S.Code, Sec 1502. Certificate of nationality issued by the Secretary of State for person not a naturalized citizen of the United States for use in proceedings of a foreign state.
The Secretary of State is authorized to issue, in his discretion and in accordance with rules and regulations prescribed by him, a certificate of nationality for any person not a naturalized citizen of the United States who presents satisfactory evidence that he is an American national and that such certificate is needed for use in judicial or administrative proceedings in a foreign state. Such certificate shall be solely for the use in the case for which it was issued and shall be transmitted by the Secretary of State through appropriate channels to the judicial or administrative officers of the foreign state in which it is to be used.
Michael Moore covered all of that in his documentaries. He has been making the same documentary for the past 25 years and nothing has changed. It goes to show how much corporations pay attention to him. So this is no big surprise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mooseketeer
Once again perfectly spot on !
But then again reason and moderation are never going to be that popular with the "all or nothing crowd" .
It is as for some people the idea of Capitalism with checks and balances to prevent obscene excesses is somehow terrifying.
Communism and pure Capitalism are both extreme forms of tyranny . Both undemocratic and both extremely damaging to society. What is so hard about the concept of a more benevolent form of Capitalism where one can strive without having to step and spit on others on the way to the top ?
No countries are perfect but personally I prefer a German model which favours a Capitalism with a smaller C. Still not ideal by a long way but having lived in Germany many years I saw some extremely wealthy individuals with great financial success but also a much narrower gap in terms of social disparities.
There is poverty in Germany and like all countries it certainly has its fair share of socio-economic issues especially since the reunification but on the whole it has a much wider middle class and both extremes of poor and rich are more limited than in the US.
What is wrong with wanting to expand the middle classes ? I will never understand the rabid opposition to a little more social justice and a more level playing field. The mind boggles. I lived in Frankfurt for a while , the financial capital of Germany and the taxes did not seem to frighten German entrepeneurs. Same in Sweden and Norway.
I went to school in France with the grand-son of one of the richest man in France ( armaments tycoon Mr Dassault - 56th richest man in the world according to "Forbes" ) and he is still employing a heck of a lot of French people to produce his weapons of mass destruction .
He has also been implicated in financial scandals so he seems like a pretty regular exploiter to me... French or not. His views on taxes are just as right wing as most American CEOs and somehow he still employs a lot of people in France despite all those niggling issues ...
Maybe obscenely wealthy Europeans are more resigned to being simply being obscenely rich rather than super obscenely rich like Americans are... I'm not sure.
My school years were spent with the sons and daughters of some of the richest European ( and non European) men and women. Very few of them were in tax exile ( though of course tax loopholes are no doubt used to great effect... ) and the vast majority employing their own compatriots in their various enterprises ( as well as abroad of course, one does not have to be exclusive of the other).
Two Swedes, One German and one French entrepeneurs make it to the top 15 of the richest people in the world , all those with pretty high taxes and tougher financial rules in many ways. Only 5 Americans.
Capitalism is the only system which can work IMO but it needs to be modulated and moderated to be a little more benevolent.
We need to start cleaning the Stables of Augeas by closing ALL tax loop-holes as well as working with the International community to close ALL tax havens. That would be a start.
I do not see why a factory worker has to pay his/her full share of taxes when the richest of the richest get away with paying none ( such as Rupert Murdoch, a prime example of scum capitalism at its worst).
Thr richest of the rich make it to the top by exploiting their workers and the system and need to be made accountable. This is the 21st century and we still in essence still have a Victorian "workhouse" mentality which is shameful and a disgrace to our humanity.
I can't even begin to understand how a billionaire can sleep at night having made his billions on the backs of kids in sweatshops in Asia for example.
I was brought up on the private boarding/finishing school /yacht/servant/ mansion system and it still makes me shudder that we are all supposed to aspire to abusing those who somehow have not had the same luck or advantages in life.
Personally I would rather everyone was comfortably off and middle class than having either extremes of the social spectrum.
Certain basics should be universally accessible , regardless of money, such as food, shelter, health care and education.
Anything else is barbaric, archaic and from a social point of view can only lead to great social ills such as crime and social unrest. We ALL have to pay the bill at the end.
A country where only the few have access to education because of costs for example can only breed inequality . As the saying goes "If you think education is expensive , try ignorance".
Not a pretty picture, this forum is a prime example of what happens when education is considered to be a drawback rather than a positive. I don't believe everyone should go to University that is a ridiculous notion. However I believe everyone who is intellectually "worthy" should have that option. Regardless of whether Mom and Dad are billionaires or Janitors. We need to value aptitute and talent over money.
I would also like to ensure that NOBODY no matter how wealthy and no matter how many endowments Daddy makes for a new Library can ever enter into Academia.
I also think that we should channel people's strengths a little more efficiently so that the less academic can still receive a form of education including more technical skills. We have got our priorities completely wrong by elevating Academia as the ultimate when some people's skills like in different areas.
We need to value manual workers as much as we value white collar workers.
There should be no shame in being a plumber or a builder and yet there is a definite hierarchy of professions which I find divisive and futile. Our society seems to value only money as a benchmark of "worthiness" , rather than skill, usefulness or even goodness.
Caveat : Apologies if this is a bit befuddled and ranty by the way but I have been suffering from insomnia recently so the little grey cells are a little atrophied at the moment !
wants to destroy capitalism and replace it with socialism? How about just destroying imperialism (the word that many anti-capitalistic people use for capitalism).
I ask these questions because it seems that Obama not only knows several of each kind but has surrounded himself in the White House with them. If you are a liberal don't even think about refuting what I just said unless you can prove that Van Jones is not an avowed communist or that Bill Ayers is a reformed anti-capitalist. Obama has appointed so many of those people that one has to think that he must have known who some of them were before he appointed them.
Today the Beck show was a conglomerate of those he did earlier this year and he had all the things I am talking about on the show. Watch it on the internet site that I am not allowed to say the link for and then get back to me with some of your best regutation or if you aren't a prog come back with some agreement.
In the United States, very, very few would be openly Communist. Especially due to the McCarthy "witch hunts" of the past. In other parts of the world, that maybe a different story...
I agree with many communist ideas, but I don't call myself a communist as so far communism has usually gone hand in hand with dictatorship, which I reject. The term has been stained by both proponents and opponents too much to be used.
wants to destroy capitalism and replace it with socialism? How about just destroying imperialism (the word that many anti-capitalistic people use for capitalism).
I ask these questions because it seems that Obama not only knows several of each kind but has surrounded himself in the White House with them. If you are a liberal don't even think about refuting what I just said unless you can prove that Van Jones is not an avowed communist or that Bill Ayers is a reformed anti-capitalist. Obama has appointed so many of those people that one has to think that he must have known who some of them were before he appointed them.
Today the Beck show was a conglomerate of those he did earlier this year and he had all the things I am talking about on the show. Watch it on the internet site that I am not allowed to say the link for and then get back to me with some of your best regutation or if you aren't a prog come back with some agreement.
I know many , they are artists ( harmless ) . I enjoy understanding the way they think . They are wrong but interesting .
I'm a Socialist:
I get a check from Social Security, I get Medicare, I get a Disability Pension from the Army and another retirement pension from my Government Job. I never meant to be a Socialist but it appears I are one
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.
