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.
So many Americans freak out over "socialism" and too much spending, but have absolutely zero problems with our two wars, oh, and they want a war in Iran now, too. In addition, they seem to have no issues with Homeland Security, the War on (some) Drugs, etc. As well, they wouldn't want to get rid of Medicare or Social Security, which are definitely socialistic programs.
Socialism does not mean taking away people's personal property or their ability to make decisions about their life. Rather it means eliminating obstacles and expanding opportunities.
That is incorrect.
From the Communist manifesto:"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."
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.
What's wrong with collective ownership?
It abolishes INDIVIDUAL and absolute ownership - also known as PRIVATE PROPERTY.
“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
Since 1935, duly enumerated Americans no longer absolutely own. If they did, government could not take their property without paying just compensation (in lawful money).
Amendment V, US Constitution 1789
... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
What's the difference between post 1935 socialist America and pre-1933 capitalist America?
Pre-1933 Americans had:
[] Lawful money, to alienate title to private property;
[] Sovereignty, freedom and independence (not needing government permission / license to wed, fly, travel by car, operate a business, build a house, transmit radio, enter occupations, or own a dog);
[] The right to exercise natural and personal liberty;
[] The absolute ownership of themselves, their labor, their children, etc., etc.
Post-1935 Socialist Americans have:
[] No lawful money, and do not alienate title to private property;
[] Only qualified ownership of estate (real and personal property) and must pay a tax for that privilege;
[] Submitted to the State in all things;
[] The privilege of civil and political liberties, and not much else;
[] To get permission (which may be withdrawn) and pay a tax (fair share) to live, work, own, travel, even die (estate tax);
[] To obey, lest they lose their property, their children, and their access to charity from the public treasury (entitlements).
In short, pre-1933 Americans were free. Post-1935 Socialist Americans are voluntary slaves.
Slavery is never a viable solution to the ills of mankind.
From the Communist manifesto:"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."
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.
What's wrong with collective ownership?
It abolishes INDIVIDUAL and absolute ownership - also known as PRIVATE PROPERTY.
“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.â€
– - – 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. â€
– - -Black’s Law dictionary, sixth ed., p. 1106
Since 1935, duly enumerated Americans no longer absolutely own. If they did, government could not take their property without paying just compensation (in lawful money).
Amendment V, US Constitution 1789
... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
What's the difference between post 1935 socialist America and pre-1933 capitalist America?
Pre-1933 Americans had:
[] Lawful money, to alienate title to private property;
[] Sovereignty, freedom and independence (not needing government permission / license to wed, fly, travel by car, operate a business, build a house, transmit radio, enter occupations, or own a dog);
[] The right to exercise natural and personal liberty;
[] The absolute ownership of themselves, their labor, their children, etc., etc.
Post-1935 Socialist Americans have:
[] No lawful money, and do not alienate title to private property;
[] Only qualified ownership of estate (real and personal property) and must pay a tax for that privilege;
[] Submitted to the State in all things;
[] The privilege of civil and political liberties, and not much else;
[] To get permission (which may be withdrawn) and pay a tax (fair share) to live, work, own, travel, even die (estate tax);
[] To obey, lest they lose their property, their children, and their access to charity from the public treasury (entitlements).
In short, pre-1933 Americans were free. Post-1935 Socialist Americans are voluntary slaves.
Slavery is never a viable solution to the ills of mankind.
::huge sigh::
Socialists are not trying to take over private property.
Socialists believe the things that affect everyone (education, health care, manufacturing, etc.) should be owned by everyone.
Dan La Botz - Socialist for Senate 2010 (http://danlabotz.com/issues/issue.php?issue=socialism - broken link)
Quote:
Socialism means eliminating the corporation as the dominant institution of our society around which everything is organized and replacing it with collectively owned and democratically managed economic life.
Socialism means the nationalization of the "commanding heights of the economy," not the takeover of small businesses.
Socialism means the democratic and collective elaboration and implementation of a plan to meet the needs of society. A planned economy will allow us to eliminate the boom-bust cycle that brings us an economic crisis every few years wrecking the lives of tens of millions.
Socialism will allow us to transform the entrepreneurial impulse and competition so that they serve the common good rather than the individual acquisition of wealth and power.
Socialism does not mean taking away people's personal property or their ability to make decisions about their life. Rather it means eliminating obstacles and expanding opportunities.
Socialism means society taking control of the economy and providing housing, education and health care for all so that people-no longer worried about their economic survival-have more freedom in their personal and social lives.
Socialism means eliminating the corporation as the dominant institution of our society around which everything is organized and replacing it with collectively owned and democratically managed economic life.
Socialism means the nationalization of the "commanding heights of the economy," not the takeover of small businesses.
Socialism means the democratic and collective elaboration and implementation of a plan to meet the needs of society. A planned economy will allow us to eliminate the boom-bust cycle that brings us an economic crisis every few years wrecking the lives of tens of millions.
Socialism will allow us to transform the entrepreneurial impulse and competition so that they serve the common good rather than the individual acquisition of wealth and power.
Socialism does not mean taking away people's personal property or their ability to make decisions about their life. Rather it means eliminating obstacles and expanding opportunities.
Socialism means society taking control of the economy and providing housing, education and health care for all so that people-no longer worried about their economic survival-have more freedom in their personal and social lives.
I am looking at these six bullet points. I have questions/comments.
Are "society taking control" and "collective ownership" polite terms for government takeover? What is a "collectively owned and democratically managed economic life" and how does it relate to bullet point 5?
If you look at bullet point #5 - it says you don't want to take over personal property or decision making abilities from individuals - but it is absolutely necessary to take over these things to achieve the goal you want.
If there are obstacles, someone put them there to enhance their business. So government would take away that person's choice in order to "benefit" others.
Bullet point 6 - he wants gov't to take over the economy and provide housing, education, and health care. To provide housing, the government will HAVE to take property. To provide education will force private educators out of business. To provide health care will force private health care entities out of business. How does that support bullet point #5?
Bullet point 4 - he wants to steer "entrepreneurial impulse and competition" towards serving the common good. How does that jive with interfering with people wanting to make their own decisions in #5?
If I want to start a business and make the most money for me and my 100 employees - that does not fit the socialist model. So the government steps in and tells me what to do with the money I make. How does that promote free will?
I could go own for about a couple pages on these bullet points, but hopefully my point is made. Free will and socialism can not co-exist. It is covered in friendly terms, but it is simply a government takeover. And the leaders and those whom they choose will live beyond the limits they set for the rabble.
I just saw the Sicko document and there were so many people (both democrats and republicans) in the Congress that were talking about a ''socialized healthcare'' as something absolutely inadmissible. My country is I think a little bit socialised. We pay 1.25 USD for doctors visit and we pay our private insurance. However, the insurance companies here are still willing to pay surgery to everyone no matter if they had yeast infection (as seen in Sicko) or anything like that.
Thanks,
Jay
Because socialism (onramp to communism) is incompatible with the values and ideals of the American Spirit (self-reliance, etc.).
Socialism, while possibley okay from some half-assed, back-water nations, isn't good enought for the U.S.A
I just saw the Sicko document and there were so many people (both democrats and republicans) in the Congress that were talking about a ''socialized healthcare'' as something absolutely inadmissible. My country is I think a little bit socialised. We pay 1.25 USD for doctors visit and we pay our private insurance. However, the insurance companies here are still willing to pay surgery to everyone no matter if they had yeast infection (as seen in Sicko) or anything like that.
Thanks,
Jay
Here's your answer: "Fear tactics"
Anything that helps the 90% lower class and hurts the top 10% is going to be demonized:
- Health care
- Government spending in infrastructure
- Government spending/investing to create jobs
The same people are 100% in favor of the government using our taxes to subsidize oil companies and factories that move to China and India.
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.
Jetgraphics. To say "socialism" takes away all private property isn't true IMO. I converse with people in Sweden, Switzerland, New Zealand, Britian and other places and those all have "socialism" like universal health care.
Yet those people also own plenty of private things and business. They own their house and everything in it, their car, their guitars. You can't just walk into a occupied house and say "hand me the car keys and the guitar, I got to go try out for a band tonight".
They do love their health care though, they all pay into it, they get sick and they get treated no matter what.
I just saw the Sicko document and there were so many people (both democrats and republicans) in the Congress that were talking about a ''socialized healthcare'' as something absolutely inadmissible. My country is I think a little bit socialised. We pay 1.25 USD for doctors visit and we pay our private insurance. However, the insurance companies here are still willing to pay surgery to everyone no matter if they had yeast infection (as seen in Sicko) or anything like that.
Thanks,
Jay
This experiment has been tried before several times and has always failed.
The mess we're in now is because of the social polices not because
capitalism and free market.
I'm sure you miss those old days when Czechoslovakia was under the Soviet Union oppression.
You didn't have to pay for your health care at all.
This experiment has been tried before several times and has always failed.
The mess we're in now is because of the social polices not because
capitalism and free market.
I'm sure you miss those old days when Czechoslovakia was under the Soviet Union oppression.
You didn't have to pay for your health care at all.
If the supporters explain it to us over and over maybe we'll "get it" and then jump for joy OHHHH HOW COULD WE HAVE BEEN SO BLIND!!!
NOT!
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.
