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.
Yep, anyone who has common sense knows that you never allow too much power in the hands of a few because the few will surely abuse that power.
For some reason liberals think that politicians care about them yet ignore that these same politicians did nothing for them but they sure amassed a fortune for themselves.
No politician cares about any of us regardless of party. They are all bought and paid for by lobbyists.
When the Pilgrims first landed in America, their governor William Bradford writes that they set up an economic system very similar to socialism, where everything they produced went into a common pools, and each person was allowed to take only what he needed to survive. Inevitably, some produced little, and even stole from others to get enough to eat. Other complained that they were being required to produce for the ones that didn't and their families. The result was that little was produced, and many starved.
After a few years of that, Gov. Bradford abolished their socialistic system. He gave each family their own land, and each was allowed to keep whatever they produced. And starvation quickly stopped, with far more produced that in past years.
Today we still have a number of people who are ignorant of the results of their desired socialistic systems, and who are determined to force all of us to repeat them.
Made up nonsense.
socialism in a pure form has hardly ever been advocated by anyone in the world since the early 1900s.
but what does work is socializing services in capitalist nations.
Which is why every nation socializes most services to benefit all of the people. The underlying issue here is a few extremists trying to pretend national healthcare for everyone would be like communism. meanwhile the rest of the world has socialized medicine and benefits greatly from it...
Those of the OPs ilk are continually trying to imply that their liberal opponents are promoting and practicing some sort of socialist/communist policy or ideology. This is not true at all. Compassion for others and a willingness to share essentials, with those who are in need, is not at all of that type of social or economic system.
If that compassion and willingness were sufficiently prevalent, then government laws forcing people to turn over their own resources to others would not be necessary.
But once the govt starts pretending "compassion" (actually a cover for vote-buying), the compassion and giving from private people inevitably decline, partly because people have less to give (more is going to forced government wealth transfer), and partly because they can sit back and say "well, the govt is taking care of it so now I don't have to".
Quote:
Compassion for others and a willingness to share essentials, with those who are in need, is not at all of that type of social or economic system.
That's true, compassion and willingness to share are not that type of economic system. But that's not what we're seeing from the left. We are seeing government coercion and forced wealth transfer that amounts to little more than theft and distribution of stolen goods. It is, in fact, exactly the kind of economic system described in the OP. And there isn't anything "compassionate" about govt-forced transfers.
TRANSLATION: I can't refute any of it. So I'll call it names and hope somebody believes me.
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.