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.
Oh, I agree with you, but what if The People of any country, even this one, freely choose it? Should they be denied that choice just because you and I don't like it? Wouldn't that be directly counter to the principles of the Declaration of Independence?
I may be as dumb as a bag of hammers, but I think that the vast majority of people would disagree with you.
The communists ask: DO YOU WISH TO SURRENDER YOUR BIRTHRIGHT TO ABSOLUTELY OWN?
I think that the resounding answer would be [expletive deleted] NO!
And since the vast majority aren't willing to surrender to communists, historically, they are slaughtered, terrorized, extorted, and persuaded to "go along"... or else.
I do not think anyone aware of the true nature of thieving communists / marxists / leftists would willingly surrender their property. But you can believe that "free choice" will win the world for communism if only given a chance.
Anyone who wishes to give away their property to the State can do so, without the necessity of voting for a collectivist system.
But that's not what collectivists really want to do... they want to compel others to surrender their property to the state. They love to use the illusion of popular consent, to hide their evil nature from the masses.
Collectivism = slavery.
"No one should suffer because they lack {fill in the blank}" should be prefaced with "No one should be compelled to labor for the benefit of another, so that..." because slavery is not an acceptable solution to the ills of mankind.
Voluntary charity is a blessing.
Compulsory charity is a curse.
A man who wants to share his wealth is admirable.
A man who wants to share your wealth is despicable.
"Thou Shalt Not Steal - even if the government is doing it for you!"
One has to wonder just what we were so afraid of. Could it be that we couldn't risk having someone show that Communism and Democracy ARE compatible?
You will have to name the Communist regimes in history that have offered something other than a one-name, one-party ballot, which is antithetical to democracy.
Because it doesnt.. Communism abolishes the means of production, not private property.. The Communist Manufesto might have called for the abolishment of private property, but many owned property in Russia prior to their move into capitalism, just like many own property in China today.
So much for that endless rant
Don't hit yourself too hard, your open mind might spill the brains.
From the Communist manifesto: "In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."
Property ownership can be absolute (as in private property) or qualified (as in collective ownership).
Under any collectivist system, the people only have qualified ownership - a privilege granted by government. But it's not private property ownership.
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 the STATE can take your property from you, without just compensation, your property is not private property.
In the USA, private property was abolished by voluntary participation in FICA, in 1935. (See the o.p. about what 'backs' the dollar bills)
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
One thing that I noted, Glenn Beck never tells you EXACTLY why Communism is incompatible with America.
He reminds us that violence is their hallmark, and they rely upon terror and revolution to impose their "benevolent" rule, but he dances far away from ever mentioning the ONE indisputable fact about 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.
Communism, Socialism, and Marxism abolish private property ownership and replaces it with collective ownership, with the superior rights in the State.
Why would BECK never, ever mention that Communism abolishes private property ?
Perhaps, the reason is that since 1935, there has been no private property in the USA.
"All the goods and services" YOU thought was yours - was stolen by Congress and pledged to the Federal Reserve Corporation.
Correction - surrendered by you - by your consent.
Your right to absolutely own private property (protected by the 5th amendment) was abolished when you signed up with Socialist InSecurity. Because the CONGRESS can tax away EVERYTHING from you to "back" their wastepaper notes.
So you no longer enjoy the blessings of your birthright to absolutely own private property, that if the government had to take, was still obligated to pay JUST COMPENSATION (in lawful gold or silver money).
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 this perspective, it's pretty clear that the U.S. Congress is acting like the no.1 advocate of collective ownership.
Because they're cranking out IOUs (dollar bills) that YOUR PROPERTY is backing.
Now, if I issued an IOU that was redeemable with my neighbor's property, without his consent, I think that's called theft, fraud, and a crime.
But when SOCIALIST GOVERNMENT does it, it's called "sharing the wealth".
Go READ the law - do not believe me.
The USA died in 1935, and was replaced with the United Socialist States of America, ruled under a perpetual "State of Emergency". And now, as it slides into collapse, we shall see the People's Democratic Socialist Republic of America rise from the ashes.
Makes one wonder why Beck wants you to pay attention to "Spooky dude" Soros, and not pay attention to the Collectivist Congress (partisanship notwithstanding).
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.
By these definitions, one can clearly see that capitalism has been dead in the USA for over 70 years. NO ONE ABSOLUTELY OWNS ANYTHING IF THE CONGRESS CAN TAKE IT ALL TO "BACK" THEIR NOTES.
You've been conned by the world's greatest propaganda ministry.
I must ask you a couple or three questions about this OP. First off, what in hell does Glenn Beck have to do with all this crap? He has talked about all of it especially the main part about the Federal Reserve and its money.
2. Do you know who controlled the Presidency and the Congress in the two years mentioned so loudly on your link? Just so you can see some of the truth that you seem to have ignored like you blame Beck for it was Woodrow Wilson, the first of the real progressive Presidents and FDR who really tried hard to insert all of his progressives thoughts and would probably have made it if not for the Japanese in Asia in 1937 and the Germnans in Europe from 1938 to the beginning of the war. He managed to get in a lot of his crap but couldn't get his Congress interested in war soon enough to stop them before they got going good.
My second question has to do with just how you manage to get your post to really talk about the link you posted. Somehow I wonder where you are getting all this information since so much of it was not in that link or in the Communist Manifesto. In case you haven't heard many are talking about the fact that the states are getting ready to take some of the most recent crap from the Democrat Congress to task. Somehow those people seem to think that we have no Constitution left. Why not? I see that you want to think that a law of Congress killed off part of the Constitution. I also saw that you want to think that although non-enemies of government just don't see many of the things you seem to see.
I think it is time for us to get a link to where you are getting all these ideas you occasionally post.
There are plenty of people who confuse Communism, the theory and economic system, with the tyrannical governments which have followed wherever it's been adopted. They aren't necessarily one and the same.
It's always been claimed that Communism and Democracy can't co-exist, but the only time a nation freely and openly elected a Communist government, we (the US) killed the newly elected President before it could be proven one way or the other. That was Allende' of Chile.
One has to wonder just what we were so afraid of. Could it be that we couldn't risk having someone show that Communism and Democracy ARE compatible?
I think that too many people who lean very far left fail to ever use the term Dictatorship of the Proletariat when talking about Communism. According to the Manifesto since people weren't educated enough to allow Communism to rule them they would have to be ruled by this Dictatorship of the Proletariat until people could learn how to live in a communist system. The first real attempt at a communist government began about 1917 in Russia and resulted in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. They got as far as the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and never any further till the dictatorship got in deeper than they could afford by trying to coexist with the US and other capitalist states. In other words, after about 70 years of dictatorship in the USSR the people just plain rebelled and the government had to appear to be Democratic and not a dictatorship any more.
I have always loved seeing communist supporters fail to discuss the Dictator of the Proletariat since it failed so completely when it tried to compete with the US and its capitalist friends. Admittedly in Russia today they aren't far from that dictatorship but they still claim to be democratic.
How about telling me why I never see any of you people mention and then defend the Dictatorship of the Proletariat?
Did you see Beck today? No, well I didn't think so but I think that you should join all those that did and you can do it at several sites tonight if you want to find out how near we are to being something I don't think any of you left leaners want for us.
Again, a left leaner comes out screaming anti-Beck crap that he picked up from some far left blog thinking it is truth. Try Beck yourself from today and see him doing what he has been accused of not doing on this forum today.
I must ask you a couple or three questions about this OP. First off, what in hell does Glenn Beck have to do with all this crap? He has talked about all of it especially the main part about the Federal Reserve and its money.
Today's BECK SHOW included an expose on the left, including his SHOCKING reaction to the audacity of the communists, and his point that they were evil. But in this show, as in others, he NEVER states why communism is anti-American.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy
2. Do you know who controlled the Presidency and the Congress in the two years mentioned so loudly on your link? Just so you can see some of the truth that you seem to have ignored like you blame Beck for it was Woodrow Wilson, the first of the real progressive Presidents and FDR who really tried hard to insert all of his progressives thoughts and would probably have made it if not for the Japanese in Asia in 1937 and the Germnans in Europe from 1938 to the beginning of the war. He managed to get in a lot of his crap but couldn't get his Congress interested in war soon enough to stop them before they got going good.
The only thing I blamed Beck for doing was not telling "the whole truth" about communism. And it's a simple "BIG TRUTH"... abolishing private property rights.
Are you disputing that the State of Emergency, declared in 1933, didn't happen?
And that we are not still under it?
Didn't you notice that Congress hasn't declared war since 1945?
Did you check out the treasury site wherein they state that dollar bills are backed by "ALL" the goods and services in the country?
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy
My second question has to do with just how you manage to get your post to really talk about the link you posted. Somehow I wonder where you are getting all this information since so much of it was not in that link or in the Communist Manifesto. In case you haven't heard many are talking about the fact that the states are getting ready to take some of the most recent crap from the Democrat Congress to task. Somehow those people seem to think that we have no Constitution left. Why not? I see that you want to think that a law of Congress killed off part of the Constitution. I also saw that you want to think that although non-enemies of government just don't see many of the things you seem to see.
I think it is time for us to get a link to where you are getting all these ideas you occasionally post.
Communist Manifesto: THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.
It's a direct quote.
Then you can read the legal definition for private property to see exactly what communists wish to abolish.
And if you're wondering HOW Congress has operated "outside" the limits of the USCON, read about the State of Emergency.
STATE OF EMERGENCY //www.city-data.com/forum/16580353-post3.html For 40 years [1933-1973], freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency.
As I have repeatedly stated: GO READ THE LAW.
The world's greatest propaganda ministry can only win if you stay apathetic and ignorant of the truth, in print, in any county courthouse law library.
Don't hit yourself too hard, your open mind might spill the brains.
From the Communist manifesto: "In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."
The communist manifesto was a book, its not the bible for Communism. Communism has several various degrees, none of which abolished ownership of property.
Even Hitler allowed ownership of property.. So while you can focus on my hitting of the head, maybe you can focus on how YOU ARE WRONG...
You asked why Beck doesnt discuss the abolishing of private property, its because ITS NOT A MANDATE FOR COMMUNISM.. Communism is central means of PRODUCTION.. Not ownership.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
Property ownership can be absolute (as in private property) or qualified (as in collective ownership).
So why are you asking why Beck isnt discussing how property is absolished when clearly it isnt under Communism? Just more fake liberal outrage over ridiculous wrong arguments..
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
Under any collectivist system, the people only have qualified ownership - a privilege granted by government. But it's not private property ownership.
qualified ownership of MEANS OF PRODUCTION.. i.e. warehouses, factories, companies.. Homes are not means of production..
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
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 the STATE can take your property from you, without just compensation, your property is not private property.
The state cant take from you your private property without compensation, so I'm really not following along with your rambling
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
In the USA, private property was abolished by voluntary participation in FICA, in 1935. (See the o.p. about what 'backs' the dollar bills)
Ooh please, private property was not abolished in 1935, it simply gave the government rights to borrow against the accounts receivables of that property.. Such as property tax, sales tax etc..
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
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
And? under both absolute and qualified ownership, one receives private ownership.. I no way shape or form is this even close to communism. Communism the PROFITS go to the federal government, so unless you are sharing the profits of home ownership with the federal government, its all gibberish conspiracy talk..
Because it doesnt.. Communism abolishes the means of production, not private property.. The Communist Manufesto might have called for the abolishment of private property, but many owned property in Russia prior to their move into capitalism, just like many own property in China and Cuba today.
So much for that endless rant
Well one group of people from the Soviet Union that has been mentioned in this thread already this evening lost their property from the beginning when they thought Communism would be good. The farmers lost all their property and when they determined in the 1920s that their land and animals had been taken by the government they started to fight back. Do you know about the period of time when most of the hogs in the Soviet Union were thrown in rivers and nearly all of the lost to drowning? How about later on when they killed nearly all the cows in the nation?
One of my favorite stories about the farmers of the Soviet Union came from a university professor who managed to stay several months in the USSR supposedly learning farming techniques. He learned that by 1970 the farmers had stopped producing grain like in the Ukraine they couldn't accept the sharing of farm machinery with assigned times for community owned farm equipment. For instance, they told him that when they got the collective tractors they were usually in need of repair and sometimes when they got them repaired it was time for another collective to get them. Military force was used to force them to share that way. They drove trucks to elevators without end gates in them over roads so rough that most of the load was in the road or ditch by the time they got to decent roads. So much more they told him but let me just close this rant with the fact that eventually the government had to give each farmer (tenant serf) a small piece of ground for them to raise food crops on. They worked hard on those pieces, took the food to the cities and sold them directly to residents. Of course, I have already pointed out that they didn't give a damn whether they got any of the grain to town. All that grain was considered the property of the collective and therefore no individual got any of the money from that.
Do you want to know where that money for those crops went? Well now it was used to support the city people and keep them going much better than the farmers could. That is much what will happen when the progressives here manage to take over, as I see it.
Farmers are considered the lowest end of society in the countries you mention and all their property is taken away and belongs to the government, the commune or whatever you want to call it. The city people are allowed to own property but they are also allowed to live on the backs of the farmers.
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.
