U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Do you oppose slavery (involuntary servitude)?
YES 28 96.55%
NO 1 3.45%
Voters: 29. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-02-2010, 06:58 PM
 
9,912 posts, read 12,443,423 times
Reputation: 7280

Advertisements

Pack up your bases then and no more bees.

Good luck.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-02-2010, 10:02 PM
 
1,842 posts, read 1,494,924 times
Reputation: 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
Why Socialism is Evil

We know, or should know that socialism is evil, unAmerican, and devoid of any ethics.

Robbing St Peter to pay St Paul is not "Christian charity".

Voluntary charity is a blessing.
Compulsory charity is a curse.

Socialism denies the right to absolutely own - land, labor, and even one's self.

So does Communism.
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.

"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

"OWNERSHIP - ... Ownership of property is either absolute or qualified. The ownership of property is absolute when a single person has the absolute dominion over it... The ownership is qualified when it is shared with one or more persons, when the time of enjoyment is deferred or limited, or when the use is restricted. "
- - -Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p. 1106
Recapping: private property is absolutely owned by an individual. Any other type of ownership is qualified (limited). Communism seeks to abolish absolute ownership by individuals, and replace it with qualified ownership by the collective State.
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
Both communism and socialism advocate COLLECTIVE ownership, which, by definition, abolishes INDIVIDUAL ownership. Whoever controls the collective controls everyone and everything. Your inalienable rights to life (and all harmless actions is support), liberty (natural and personal), and private property ownership are eradicated. In the New Socialist Paradise, your life, labor, and liberty is a privilege, as permitted (or withdrawn) by the State.

No matter what cause is championed by the left wing, socialist / communist / liberal, you can not ignore that they advocate SLAVERY.

For it may be tragic that "someone" may suffer / die because they don't "have" something that YOU have, it is a greater tragedy that they use government to ROB you so that they may enjoy it at your expense.

Slavery (involuntary servitude for another's benefit) is never a viable solution to the ills of a society.

No one should be enslaved, so that someone else won't suffer / die / be unhappy.

Just say "NO!" to socialism.

Uh oh... since 1935, the United States of America has been a VOLUNTARY socialist nation, by virtue of Social Security / FICA. You do know that there is NO LAW compelling participation, nor punishing those who do not participate. It is 100% voluntary - voluntary servitude under national socialism.

Yet millions believe that there is a law that requires them to get "the number" before they can work in their own country.

So why did "THEY" have to use fraud to get Americans to sign up?

BECAUSE no one in their right mind would voluntarily surrender their Creator's birthright of sovereignty, freedom and independence in exchange for lifelong servitude and "entitlements" from the public treasury.

Socialists are pirates, thieves, liars, slavers, and predators.
The only rights they recognize are their rights to take YOUR PROPERTY.

All "Collectivists" are pirates, thieves, liars, slavers, and predators.
The only rights they recognize are their rights to take YOUR PROPERTY.

Now you know why they hate religion on principle because "Thou Shalt Not Steal" condemns them for what they truly are - lying thieves, cloaked in bafflegab and subterfuge.

If you fail now, you or your children will waken in the People's Democratic Socialist Republic of America. For if you don't pay or obey like a good socialist, the Collective State will take your property, your liberty or even your life... for your own good.
[Sarcasm flag off]
If you want to look at the closest thing to working Socialism Take a look at what the mormons did in what was to become Utah back in the 1850's and up to 1900. That was the closest thing to working socialism anyone has ever had.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2010, 10:04 PM
 
Location: San Francisco, CA
13,908 posts, read 10,867,933 times
Reputation: 12657
I came from a former socialist country subjugated by the Russians back before the Velvet Revolution odf 1989. Most of you right wingers wouldn't know socialism if it came up to you on the street and bit you in the a$$.

Anything that doesn't fit within your Republican views = "socialism"...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2010, 01:04 PM
 
Location: Prepperland
13,696 posts, read 9,790,232 times
Reputation: 9728
Quote:
Originally Posted by newonecoming View Post
If you want to look at the closest thing to working Socialism Take a look at what the mormons did in what was to become Utah back in the 1850's and up to 1900. That was the closest thing to working socialism anyone has ever had.
I do not know of any Mormon teaching that abolishes private ownership and replaces it with collective ownership. Can you elaborate further?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2010, 01:07 PM
 
Location: Prepperland
13,696 posts, read 9,790,232 times
Reputation: 9728
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambient View Post
I came from a former socialist country subjugated by the Russians back before the Velvet Revolution odf 1989. Most of you right wingers wouldn't know socialism if it came up to you on the street and bit you in the a$$.

Anything that doesn't fit within your Republican views = "socialism"...
I would agree that most Americans, since 1935, do not know they live inside a socialist regime. The difference between American national socialism and other systems, was that the voluntary nature was disguised.

There is no law compelling all Americans to enroll into SocSec, nor is there any law punishing any American who does not participate. It is 100% voluntary - voluntary servitude. Yet millions believe that there is a law that requires them to get "the number" before they can work in their own country. And private sector employers are convinced they have to comply, despite the lack of any law requiring such an unconstitutional obligation.

[Excremental expletive deleted]
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2010, 01:08 PM
 
770 posts, read 745,864 times
Reputation: 608
I'm not a committed Socialist, but I'm sympathetic to its ideals in some applications. It's not my goal to see Socalism in America, but if we were to start from scratch, it would be more hospitable to the goals of a moral society.

The OP's post is a representation of a hypothetical in which a Socialist Regime literally overtook The States, and just assumes there would be no nuance involved in the allocation. It's a retarded hypothetical as it would never happen, and if it did there (and again: it wouldn't) there would be a more considered approach to resource allocation. More to the point: his scenario(s) don't describe Socialism as a nuanced political philosophy, they describe a governmental takeover.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2010, 01:13 PM
 
770 posts, read 745,864 times
Reputation: 608
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
I would agree that most Americans, since 1935, do not know they live inside a socialist regime. The difference between American national socialism and other systems, was that the voluntary nature was disguised.

There is no law compelling all Americans to enroll into SocSec, nor is there any law punishing any American who does not participate. It is 100% voluntary - voluntary servitude. Yet millions believe that there is a law that requires them to get "the number" before they can work in their own country. And private sector employers are convinced they have to comply, despite the lack of any law requiring such an unconstitutional obligation.

[Excremental expletive deleted]
The Constitution is a framework. Using your justication for the validity of law in The United States, virtually all laws in the United States are invalid, as they are not laid out verbatim in the Constitution. Again: brilliant men have spent their lives trying to understand the Constitution. It's interpretation involves a myriad of complex issues. It's not as cut and dry as you seem to think it is.

There is nuance in the world. What you're doing is seeing bends in a very tightly-ridged square, and calling it a circle.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2010, 01:18 PM
 
Location: Prepperland
13,696 posts, read 9,790,232 times
Reputation: 9728
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkin about it View Post
I'm not a committed Socialist, but I'm sympathetic to its ideals in some applications. It's not my goal to see Socalism in America, but if we were to start from scratch, it would be more hospitable to the goals of a moral society.

The OP's post is a representation of a hypothetical in which a Socialist Regime literally overtook The States, and just assumes there would be no nuance involved in the allocation. It's a retarded hypothetical as it would never happen, and if it did there (and again: it wouldn't) there would be a more considered approach to resource allocation. More to the point: his scenario(s) don't describe Socialism as a nuanced political philosophy, they describe a governmental takeover.
Since 1935, duly enumerated "Human resources" have lacked the legal standing to absolutely own - anything. Since the definition of private property (protected from being taken by government) is absolute ownership by an individual, there is no private property ownership at this time.

The government routinely takes property for public use, and does not pay just compensation. It even goes so far as to "arrest" property, and deny the owner any recourse. This is further evidence of the devolution of the people's status into subject socialists.

Do not pay your socialist taxes, and observe who TAKES your property and will not pay compensation.

If you check the historical record, before 1933, and the bankruptcy, you should find many examples where stubborn individuals would not surrender their private property under any circumstance.

I stipulate that the average "educated" American is kept in the dark about his history and legal system. I was in my late 30's before I was "re-educated" and started to read the law, myself.

But to save you some time, here's a small nugget that illustrates the thinking of that generation that founded these united States of America.
Virginia Constitution, 1776.

SEC. 6. That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people, in assembly, ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community, have the right of suffrage, and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for public uses, without their own consent, or that of **their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assembled, for the public good.
All men ... cannot be taxed without their own consent.
All men ... cannot be deprived of their property for public uses without their own consent.
All men ... cannot be bound by any law that is not for the public good.

(** Only land owners who had paid their taxes could vote. Therefore not all Virginians gave consent to be governed by representatives so elected.)

So the question is : WHEN did you give consent ?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2010, 01:34 PM
 
Location: Prepperland
13,696 posts, read 9,790,232 times
Reputation: 9728
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkin about it View Post
The Constitution is a framework. Using your justication for the validity of law in The United States, virtually all laws in the United States are invalid, as they are not laid out verbatim in the Constitution. Again: brilliant men have spent their lives trying to understand the Constitution. It's interpretation involves a myriad of complex issues. It's not as cut and dry as you seem to think it is.

There is nuance in the world. What you're doing is seeing bends in a very tightly-ridged square, and calling it a circle.
You are presuming much, from little. The Constitution is not a "Framework" - it is a contract for specific performance.
"But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in Court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. The States are the parties to it. And they may complain...."
- - -Padelford, Fay & Co. vs. Mayor and Alderman, City of Savannah, 14 Ga. 438, 520 (1854) Supreme Court of Georgia

"The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government and not for the government of the individual States."
- - -John Barron v. The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 7 Peters 204, (1822).
The "People of the United States" in the Preamble, did not refer to the people of the United States of America. Remember, not all Americans could vote, and ratify that constitution. Those who could not vote, could not be presumed to give consent.

There is no implication that "all laws are invalid". The point is that many if not most laws are limited in scope and applicability to persons liable and to certain objects within the government's explicit domain. Don't believe me. Write a polite letter to the Congressional Research Service and ask for the venue and jurisdiction of a specific law. You may be surprised by their candor.

Since 1935, the "honorable" Congress has done much harm, by virtue of wholesale voluntary pauperization, under the guise of a "mandatory" national socialism program.

As part of that revolutionary change, much was eradicated from the public's collective memory. I, for one, was not informed of the following.
People are supreme, not the state.
Waring v. the Mayor of Savannah, 60 GA at 93.
The people of the state, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the king by his own prerogative.
Lansing v. Smith, (1829) 4 Wendell 9, (NY)

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)]

"In common usage, the term 'person' does not include the sovereign, [and] statutes employing the [word] are ordinarily construed to exclude it." Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe, 442 U.S. 653, 667, 61 L.Ed2. 153, 99 S.Ct.
2529 (1979)
(quoting United States v. Cooper Corp. 312 U.S. 600, 604, 85 L.Ed. 1071, 61 S.Ct. 742 (1941)).


"A Sovereign cannot be named in any statute as merely a 'person' or 'any person'".
Wills v. Michigan State Police, 105 L.Ed. 45 (1989)
If you do not believe that the government knows the difference between a subject person and a sovereign individual, read on. Coincidentally, when government wishes a law to be applicable to everyone, it uses the phrase, "Whoever ...". When the law is not applicable to everyone, it uses the phrase, "Any person who ....".
Title 18 USC 111. Assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain
officers or employees
(a) In General.-- Whoever--
(1) forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with any person designated in section 1114 of this title while engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties;
Contrast with:
Title 18 USC 228. Failure to pay legal child support obligations
(a) Offense.-- Any person who--
(1) willfully fails to pay a support obligation with respect to a child who resides in another State, if such obligation has remained unpaid for a period longer than 1 year, or is greater than $5,000
The average person (indoctrinated serf) would not know that the second law had limited applicability to subject persons who had enrolled into national socialism and thus gave their consent to be bound.

More info

Last edited by jetgraphics; 03-04-2010 at 01:43 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2010, 01:44 PM
 
Location: Prepperland
13,696 posts, read 9,790,232 times
Reputation: 9728
I can't speak for all Americans, but I strongly suspect that if they knew that their birthright and endowment from their Creator was to be a sovereign - the supreme power over their lives - and not submission to the government, I do not think they'd leap at the opportunity to surrender that blessing.


----------
SOVEREIGN - A person, body or state in which independent and supreme authority is vested...
Black's Law Dictionary Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1395.

SOVEREIGNTY - ...By "Sovereignty", in its largest sense is meant supreme, absolute, uncontrollable power, the absolute right to govern.
Black's Law Dictionary Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1396.

The American experiment in "self government" was not the election of a legislature. Each sovereign American had the absolute right to govern himself and his private property, and therefore was free and independent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:48 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top