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.
It's really too bad that capitalists decided to stop funding infrastructure improvements in the United States. If they had continued to provide for the nation as a whole, there is a good chance that the populace wouldn't be so pissed off.
You have that BACKWARDS.
The PROGRESSIVES (collectivists) took over the infrastructure, using taxpayer funds to buy it from the previous owners.
Government never misses a chance to excuse taking more revenue and exerting more power. That's job #1 - for democrazies.
New York City politics was not standing still, however. Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia, who had taken office in 1933, was no friend of streetcars, of elevated lines, or of private ownership of transit. He pressed relentlessly for “Unification,” the City takeover of the BMT and IRT. The IRT was happy to go out of business but the BMT fought almost to the last.
After taking over the private companies, not only did the innovations of the BMT end, but the City lost its taste for subway building. The IND “Second System” of 1929 remains unbuilt. The private lines that attracted IND competition were abandoned, several immediately and more as the years went on.
= = = = =
As any New Yorker can tell you, the conversion of the private mass transit to public ownership STIFLED improvements of the subway.
Who's to blame? PRIVATE ENTERPRISE !
[sarcasm flag off]
Technically, if one consents to socialism, that is true.
But no one can be both "sovereign" (under the republican form) and be "socialist" (obligated to work for the benefit of another).
And if one was TRICKED into consenting to be a socialist slave, then we have a problem.
But that's a very "I'm right and everyone else can **** off" way of viewing socialism.
Socialism is about providing utility and valuing labor. The utility is not a new concept; the constitution since it was first written said a post office and roads, payed by the government, are permitted. A private company could just as easily do that, but it a utility centered around convenience. You're taxes pay for it, rather you use it or not, and I've heard exactly 0 people bitching about it. A socialist simply believes that the natural progression of democracy and progress would result in more utility being provided, like healthcare.
Labor is actually a pretty big deal. Most people don't know his, but the concept of valuing labor was fathered, more or less, by Karl Marx. That's right everyone, Marx is a huge reason why things like labor unions and child labor laws exist. He valued labor, and rather or not you agree with his theories, you probably agree with his theories of labor rather you know it or not. If you believe people should be paid fairly for their work, you are at least partially a Marxist. If you believe the value of something is only determined by the final product and not the labor put into it, you are a materialist. Like Reagan, who started the trend of increasing productivity while wages stagnated (because he was a bad guy; sorry, but GDP means nothing if the people working to make it go up don't get any of the cut).
In a socialist system, you are not obligated to work. But those who work are valued based on their labor. It's not the just the business owners who make money based on final products. Those making the parts and putting the products together are given a good portion of the wealth because without them, the owner wouldn't have anything. People like Marx saw this and created the idea that those who are working should be paid a good amount since they are clearly necessary. Guys like Reagan ended that trend. Thus why minimum wage no longer gets people very far.
So, should only people who pay for roads be allowed to drive on them? You would be for toll roads only.
Should only people who pay for education be allowed to send their children to school? Then you would be for private schools only.
Should only people who pay for defense be protected? Then you would be for private mercenary armies.
Of course, the truth is that all of these are funded through redistribution based off taxes. Not everyone gets exactly what they put in, and that is ok.
The Constitution applies to the federal government. Education should be done at the local level. Military defense, and a role of the federal government in transportation are written into our Constitution. Neither myself or James Madison, the Father of our Constitution, could find anything in the Constitution giving our federal government the power to take from one individual and give to another individual for the sole purpose of benevolence.
The modern welfare state is blatantly unconstitutional by any rational reading of our constitution.
But that's a very "I'm right and everyone else can **** off" way of viewing socialism.
Labor is actually a pretty big deal. Most people don't know his, but the concept of valuing labor was fathered, more or less, by Karl Marx. That's right everyone, Marx is a huge reason why things like labor unions and child labor laws exist. He valued labor, and rather or not you agree with his theories, you probably agree with his theories of labor rather you know it or not.
Really, you actually believe Marx Labor Theory of Value holds any sway on economists or anyone with a few brain cells rattling around in his head? Furthermore you can find things in the Old Testament valuing labor. Please, enough crapola. Socialism devalues labor. It provides to those whether they work or not.
You can continue with your I am right and everyone else is wrong attitude but you are seriously delusional.
My capital investments or nothing more than stored labor. Every cent this capitalist has invested has come directly from money earned from my labor.
Except it's not theft. It's really not that ****ing hard to get. Taxes are made by congress. We elect representatives to serve in congress. The constitution very clearly states that congress can collect taxes and use them for anything so long as it does not directly conflict with the constitution.
If you don't like taxes, vote for someone else.
Now of course money has corrupted out system. Too bad for you, the only guy who actually is going to even attempt to do something about that is a socialist.
But it's not theft. It would only be theft if the process were undemocratic. It's not. Things like welfare and Obamacare, while not without flaw, were passed democratically and through methods outlined within the constitution. Neither directly conflict with any constitutional rights. And the best part; you still get to ***** about it! Because that's your right.
Socialism is no way conflicts with republican form of government.
How do you come up with this.......show us were this is constitutional? Pelosi said "pass it to see what is in it" is this really your idea of "democratically" voted in?
Is it not the right of the people to know exactly where these taxes are being applied?
The lottery in California started out to help the schools, some how the schools never got this money, but hey it was put in place to help the schools, so stop asking questions!
What socialism shows us is money can't fix people and people never get the money they are promised.
How do you come up with this.......show us were this is constitutional? Pelosi said "pass it to see what is in it" is this really your idea of "democratically" voted in?
Is it not the right of the people to know exactly where these taxes are being applied?
The lottery in California started out to help the schools, some how the schools never got this money, but hey it was put in place to help the schools, so stop asking questions!
What socialism shows us is money can't fix people and people never get the money they are promised.
What about Obamacare is unconstitutional? The law was still drafted and anyone could read it before voting on it. Don't get me wrong, the law had too many hidden provision, as do many laws because there is currently nothing that requires laws to be at all transparent. It's why we got the Patriot Act, which was and remains to be the biggest assault on personal liberty passed in the 21st century. How that one got by still remains a mystery to me. Never the less, Obamacare is not exceptional in it's hidden provisions. It's extremely common it was just an issue that happened to draw more media attention.
You make the mistake of assuming I don't think the people should hold the governmetn accountable. Despite what you may think, I'm not some diehard socialist. I know what socialism is, which is far more than what most here can say truthfully, but I actually think socialism and capitalism require the same thing to be useful, which is for people to give a ****. When people know their government is scamming them and do something about it, socialism works fine. When people know that a company scams it's employees and customers, the libertarian model of a free market will work. It just so happens, however, the socialism is actually easier to regulate becasue the system backing it can be made democratic, while the free market is not.
Like with other topics, some folks obsess over theories, or "what if". I see that with so many threads about race, or taxes.
America is what it is. What should, could or need to, is a different topic. Let's live in reality and leave "purism" to the theory classes in college. Inventing new " names" to prove your point (government taking from one and giving to another) is...pointless. You pay income tax and the government funds thousand of activities, including defense. Some folks who pay tax, don't want their money going to the armed forces. Well, you live in a society and that's what this society decided. On a different point: if someone pays SS for 20 years and then collects unemployment, it is not welfare as some call it.
Like with other topics, some folks obsess over theories, or "what if". I see that with so many threads about race, or taxes.
America is what it is. What should, could or need to, is a different topic. Let's live in reality and leave "purism" to the theory classes in college. Inventing new " names" to prove your point (government taking from one and giving to another) is...pointless. You pay income tax and the government funds thousand of activities, including defense. Some folks who pay tax, don't want their money going to the armed forces. Well, you live in a society and that's what this society decided. On a different point: if someone pays SS for 20 years and then collects unemployment, it is not welfare as some call it.
I'm one of those people who doesn't want their taxes spent on defense.
Granted, my view is not that simple. As you said, giving technical names to things doesn't usually determine what it is. Toppling foreign country's states for our own economic need is not defense. It's imperialism. Never the less, I don't think our military is being used in a morally just way, and certainly not a way that defends the interests of American people. If the military fought for my freedom, the army would have marched on Washington and removed everyone who voted for the Patriot Act from office as it's the only law that directly violates the constitution (well, only high profile law that violates the constitution in an obvious way). That didn't happen, so I cannot logically connect my freedom to the military.
However, I do not think that my taxes going to the military is unjust. That's where I'm different from the 'taxes are stealing and I don't know what taxes actually are' crowd. I'll vote for people who will cut military spending and I will argue why that is the better option. If everyone votes for an imperialist like Ted Cruz, then that's what they want. Not that Cruz can actually declare war, but the constitution is limited to what he wants it to be, as that is how a psychopath thinks.
Yes, I called Ted Cruz a psychopath. It's not a joke. Trump would make a better president than Ted; at least Donald might just be joking. Ted Cruz means what he says and that's precisely why he should not be president.
The OP has an issue with social programs and welfare. He analyzed the situation and concluded that using taxes to help the needy (the government is taking from one, giving to another) is both immoral and contradicts the constitution and the intention of America's founding fathers. Like you, he emphasizes the moral (and legal) aspects. He thinks US government overstepped its boundaries and "we the people" were left with organized robbery.
What do you think about 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.
