You don't think we are slaves in this capitalistic/oligarchy/plutocracy we call America?
These are good points
However the plight of the working class
in those days are well documented
it was the rise of worker's unions and SLSA
that allowed the American middle class to emerge
and the prosperity of the 50 and 60 and to blossom
the gutting of the labor movement by Reagan is
the start of the decline of the middle class
it bolstered the corporatism/fascism we see today
pure capitalism is a nasty as pure communism
the spectrum in the middle is where we are
and where we will stay
I prefer a little more left
you might prefer more right
so be it
debate and compromise is where it is at
the working class is being undermined by the fascist in the white house and congress, they are bringing in illegals for cheap wages, we are not slave to corportions, we have the freedom to quit any times, but how will we pay our bills, I am white don't have 10 kids, not illegal and get no benefits from our government never have. I like corporations some are bad and some are good, I would rather have compensation than and award they give to all people that cost them about 2.00 bucks. In capitalism everyone has the right to make as much money as they want, if you want to work less and take care of the kids you can, if you want to work more than 80 hours a week you can, if you want to work and go to school you can, its up to the individual to be all he can be.
what I don't support
is the gutting of workers rights,
or the treatment of derivative investments
as if they were the
same as capital investment
derivatives should be taxed at the same rate as gambling.
Socialism has never worked no matter where it's been tried.
But other than that only about 50 or 60 other socialist countries have better economies than the US
Maybe you meant "communism" has never worked [in the three or four places it has been tried] I will give you that, unless you count Cuba.
Yeah, and check out the accommodations at a typical Cuban hospital - SWEET!
And, let's not forget China where the Average annual income for a family in 2012 was 13,000 renminbi, or about $2,100 - They have it made, or what?
If only those stupid, gun-clinging, bible-thumping, mouth-breathing, inbred, bucktoothed, ignorant, racist, backwards redneck hick republicans would just get out of the way, the left could make life fair and equal for everyone. The large-government welfare state works in Scandinavia and it would work here too! [sarcasm intended]
The problem is that the success of Scandinavian socialism is a myth. It’s false. It doesn’t work for them and it wouldn’t work for us. There are holes in your socialist Scandinavian utopia Vic.
Perhaps those that think socialism works should pack their belongings and move?
Amen! Thanks for all the back up today Drue.
Thanks again for saving me from myself
You are turning out to be a real pal
Why didn't you add the U.S.?
Do you have to own your cousins?
If those who think Socialism is a good idea, that's cool. Just pack your stuff and move to a Socialist country. Don't let the door hit ya. . .
What have you got against Socialism?
Again, I think you are talking about communism here.
Marx is dead
Socialism (outside of the US) implies
strong social support systems, high taxes and many government provided services
The myth that it promotes laziness is just that, a myth
lot's of examples of
very productive socialist societies
all over europe and the rest of the world
and mostly free market and private ownership is encouraged
except for those services deemed "rights" by the people
(e.g., medical care,
fire and police protection,
One question: what about the multitude of studies that suggest the majority of people are motivated by non-monetary rewards such as public recognition? Some think that the notion that we are only seeking economic rewards is due to the lack of other incentive options
I will be the first to admit
that I don't know much
you seem fairly well schooled
I can't help thinking that we are using the word
"socialism" to mean two very different things
My understanding is that all of the countries
listed in my the top comment here
identify themselves as having
(or clearly more socialist than the US)
I thought the countries on that list
were all republics
whose citizens continually vote for
(whether they are called "democratic socialist"
or some other variant)
These are not the Russia
or even Cuba
these are free market economies
BUT with substantial social support systems in place
[although China is quickly becoming
a free market society from what I've read]
I am lead to believe these countries
have robust economies
with GDP growth rivalling that of the US
that yes, taxes are high,
but that the citizen enjoy the benefits
of the social support systems
at least enough to not "throw the bums out"
So help me here, are you saying
the people of those countries
are suppressed, or oppressed?
that creativity and drive are stifled
because of their socialism?
That these economies are somehow not viable
and that those governments deny
the motives of their citizens,
numbing them and
making them unproductive?
I don't disagree with any of this
My first problem with unbridled Capitalism
is "labor reserve"
In an unregulated market you "must" allow
people to starve
"triangle shirtwaist" factories
So for me,
(which is more viable than must people think),
socialism represent a moderation
between command economy (on one hand)
and the excesses of capitalism
that lead to class riots (on the other hand)
So either do away with government (completely)
or let them feed to poor and house the homeless
No ethical government can allow their citizen
to starve in the name of "progress"
2) Establish governments which protect the rights of each and every individual to care for him or herself.
Explain how that works for the infirm?
Fortunately you are wrong
the government DOES have the right to force us
if it did not America would look like Calcutta or Dickinsonian London.
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare..."
right there in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1
can't miss it, even if your eyes are closed
1) Regardless of how they got the power,
they have it, until SCOTUS takes it away
or until they themselve legislate it out of existence.
Don't hold your breath.
"They" are not forcing anyone to be charitable,
they are taking money from everyone
based on a formula they invented
and distributing that money as they see fit.
No one holds a gun to my head and
says "give money to the poor,"
they hold the gun to my head
and say, "give money to me,"
then "they" give that money
to whomever they darn well choose
fortunately it is some of the same people
I would choose to give it to.
2) This is just Interpretation.
To me it is in the general and common interest
to provide welfare.
Ask Marie Antoinette's
or Czar Nicholas' ghosts,
"if you could do it over,
would you consider feeding the poor?"
That is the problem with the labor reserve concept
the unemployed and underfed get restless if you don't at least toss them some bread.
3) I am not sure what "fans" of the government think, not being one myself.
However, I personally am not yet fed up enough
to take up arms against them.
So for now I find it more peaceful to acquiesce
to their whims,
especially considering that the current
administration is doing pretty much what I would do if I was in charge
namely: feeding the poor,
keep our troops off the ground,
and being nice to our neighbors.
That is what I do in my personal life
and that is what I expect a "government of me, for me and by me" to do.
Ahh, no, they don't.
I do agree with you, in principle.
I am not a scholar
so I re-read some of my favorite books
and in particularly I noted these two passages:
So yeah, I thinking about this today
so first off,I strongly suspect we do not need any government.
But we have one.
We have many.
If the government does not "force"
us to do anything, it is not a government.
Thinking out loud here...
No force and no government = best but unobtainable
force and no government = chaos (undesirable)
government and no force = pointless
government and force = what we have
so it comes back to this,
if you are going to have a government ,
[which it seems we are]
"it" is going to force us to do
that can be either:
what "it" thinks is in "its own" best interest
or what it thinks is our best interest
or something else.
If government it is going be,
I want it to "think" the way I do.
I personally think it is my best interest
(and all the data I see supports this)
to redistribute income.
Therefore I am a socialist
and I support liberal government
if and only if I cannot eliminate government
On the other hand,
I understand that some people
do not want to redistribute income
they believe that doing so would
disincentivize the best and most creative minds
It suspect it disincentivizes only
the most greedy members of society
those members who are altruists
do not care if their money is redistributed
if I am forced to have a government
I choose one that does what I think serves the
best interest of the citizens
and that is tax and spend
and I would need to see some pretty
convincing hard economic data
to change my mind
but sadly inevitable
Yeah if you don't like it here, no one is forcing anyone to stay. BTW is that a selfie Goat?
I did not think Murica love it or leave it is a creepy weird loser, but I do think you are.
again creepy weird loser. You seem to think your opinion means something to me, you are wrong.
Where has socialism ever worked?
Texas Tech figured it out.
The way I see it, Capital is defined as the “means of production.”
All systems of governance support the means of production (manufacturing, farming, utilities, etc). Therefore, all governments are essentially capitalist. The difference is, ownership and/or control (via regulations, taxes, etc) of the capital.
In free market systems the capital is privately own. On the other end of the spectrum, communism owns all of the capital and they also include people as capital. Therefore, under communism the people are in bondage (“enslave”) to the government.
Socialism (at least in the modern European sense)
is a nice mix of both
Of course the US has "socialism" too
but we can't call it that
The government owns the infrastructure (e.g,)
the roads and bridges
the fire trucks
the prisons (but that is changing)
I regret to say, I’m not sure what the US is today.
Over the last hundred years the US slowly morphed from a republic to some system of governance controlled by a set of “rich” ruling-class oligarchs in DC, and this system of governance is still in the process of “fundamental change.”
The sad thing is, most US citizens think we are a “democracy,” they don’t have a clue we are supposed to be a republic, and many are delusional about their “Liberty,” a part of life’s Unalienable Rights, which the former president Woodrow Wilson declared as “nonsense.”
Compliments to our government controlled educational system. All educational institutions should view the following video, something the ruling-class masterminds throughout the world would not want their serfs to understand.
First Jefferson was a deist, not a christian
Second that document had 5 authors, not one
Third the D of I is not a legal document
the constitution (the legal document)
does not mention "god"
Lastly, thanks for the science lesson
but Neil Degrasse Tyson
and Bill Nye beat you to the punch
I don’t recall the video said anything about Jefferson being a “Christian.” True, Jefferson was a deist, one who believes in a God, hence, “a man of faith” as stated in the video.
As for the Declaration of Independence, Congress picked a committee of five to the project. The committee of five then picked Jefferson to write the declaration.
True, the Declaration of Independence “is not a legal document,” where the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution embraces and protects our Unalienable Rights. Those Rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.
As for the “science lesson,” I would appreciate any references where Tyson and Nye argued about life’s Unalienable Rights being a manifestation of the Constructal Law. Thanks!
I don't buy that the rights of
"life, liberty, and pursuit" are
manifest in the bill of rights
but as this is an opinion site
I call a truce
and apologize for being a dick earlier,
I was sleepy, but I was wrong to snap at you
Relative to your reply:
“I don’t buy that the rights of “life, liberty, and pursuit” are manifest in the bill of rights…”
The “Bill of Rights” in the US Constitution gave us no rights at all. If you were to read the Bill of Rights they are actually ten restrictions on the Federal government, where most Amendments having such phrases as: “Congress shall make no law,” “shall not be infringed,” “shall not be violated,” “shall not,” “shall not,” and so on. Just like the Ten Commandments, with a set of “thou shall not(s).” Again, the Bill of Rights was to instruct the government to embrace and protect the individual’s Unalienable Rights from the crimes of others and from the crimes of government; no more, no less. The State governments did all the rest, compete with each other for the best and brightest (the Tenth Amendment).
As for our Unalienable Rights of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness,” in Amendment 5, Clause 3:
“nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law;”
Since “due process of law” cannot be defined for “pursuit of Happiness” the default of “Happiness” are its prerequisites. That is, you cannot have “pursuit of Happiness” without pursuit of survival, you cannot have survival without “property,” aka food, shelter, etc.
On a previous note, please send reference where you stated “… Neil Degrasse Tyson and Bill Nye beat you to the punch.” Perhaps, such a reference will help me understand your point.
Yes it pretty much does.
Deist deny all the
supernatural aspects of religion,
such as belief in virgin births
and raising from the dead.
They would reject the idea of a messiah.
So they might support the
"ethics" of the man named Jesus
but they would not call him "Christ".
When I studied "ism" in
a college philosophy class
I was told that
Deism was the belief that God has created the universe. That God then "went away" and permits creation to administer itself through natural laws.
That the complexity of the universe is enough to require a "creator" but that the randomness shows he does not intervene
What you are describing we called "theism"
back in the day.
I'll let Simon and Schuster know so they can edit Russell's "A History of Western Philosophy"
and maybe the Nobel folks in case they want
to recent Russel's prize posthumously for
having made such a grievous error.
At any rate, thanks for setting the record straight.
Where do these people come from? Are they oblivious to their surroundings? America is a socialist country. They are complaining about something that does not exist.
Too broad a brush... people aren't so easily boxed in. Course, I think favoring either as a definitive social doctrine is a mistake.
Hey, there's an avvy I'm happy to see. How the heck are you man?
Good to hear, man I began to wonder if I'd see you again. lol
Is it cool to use names here? Was wondering if you've seen a few people?
FeedFwd, TyVig, or Cognito... are they on this site?
I saw a lot of familiar faces as I was perusing the questions on the front page.
Sweet! Well, I guess I'll have to make some time to read the tos tomorrow and start finding people.
I'm wicked discombobulated on the site. May take a bit of getting used to. Thanks for helping me out. I'll see ya around soon, I'm sure :)
That's one of your best attributes, imho. lol
I noticed that, most posters her seem super cordial. Not even comparable to the SH-zoo. Amazing.
Fascinating... seems like such a familiar story ;)
Thanks for that heads-up.
Novel concept, right? FB had it in a personal way, but the groups all had mods. I never found a SH user so persistent that they couldn't be avoided using the block feature. And as it stood at lockout, I had maybe 10 people blocked. Most were reciprocated blocks, too.
did you see baltimore, they got rid of their police and they are doing such a good job at policing.
Ahh are you not aware of what went on with balitmore, whom are the communities that don't have municipal police.
are you from the USA.
yes they were complaining about the cops and took 12 of them to trial, so the cops in Balitmore decided that they would lay low and not go out on calls, now the people who hate cops, want the cops to help them and it takes them awhile to help the cop haters. So self policing are you serious, with all the no gun zones, they should make the whitehouse and congress a no gun zone.
Couldn't agree more Bozette! You know in all the time I was on SH I never once asked a moderator for anything, didn't even know who they were. I reported one post... it was beyond TOS violation, but even then I just hit the flag button and was done with it.
On a fb group I'm in, just this week, I felt so bad for the admin. She was so cool to setup the group so everyone could meet there and all she got in return was grief.
Indeed. Well put---per usual.
i'm a capitalist
I am sorry
hope you feel better soon
Liberty always has value. Government control, the opposite of liberty.
Pols have learned they can promise results that never come to fruition and even those negatively impacted by the false promises will often to come to their defense.
I've basically resigned to the fact that no economic system can produce results that benefit all. For me, the solution to scrutinize any push for an economic system predicated upon such, but rather upon the pretense of 'that which is just vs that which is unjust.'
Course, justice is another diversely defined word, but people are more inclined to agree on a basic set of 'givens' regarding justice than on the, seemingly nonexistent, results proffered by a particular economic system. jmho
Exactly. Course, we're working on multiple generations that have been predisposed to Corporatism under the brand-name Capitalism and thus don't recognize one from the other without actively seeking knowledge of the two. I've even noticed many changes in Libertarian sentiment as it relates to just this dynamic. Imagine that, those who presumably should be most opposed to Mercantilism becoming its staunchest defenders in some circles.
That was one of my biggest takeaways from my time at SH. On the whole, most people agree on the principle underpinning of certain practices despite political affiliation. Like: Self-Ownership, as one example.
It is only when these topics / questions are framed in loaded political terms, "justice" being just one of many, that people default back to ideologically-driven argumentation.
is their something wrong with working for what you own, I take pride in what I own.
As long as I can keep my guns..i don't really care about you alls bull crap ideas about anything.FIX this and that...never going to happen...regardless who is in the office...good luck
everybody should have their needs met before others get their wants met.
Everybody should be satisfying their own needs and wants.
I agree but some have quite the advantage
So, what's your point?
My point is that 1% of our population owns 95% of the wealth while lots of people go hungry. That part of capitalism is not okay.
You think everyone is fat and happy in socialist countries?
The hungry are lucky "us capitalist pigs' have resources to send worldwide, every day of the year to help all those hungry people.
There are lots of people in this country that are hungry. I think capitalism is the right way to go but all of the exemptions and caps for wealthy people have to stop.
There are a number of candidates pushing for 'fair tax' that could resolve your concerns.
you know who helps the most with hunger, wealthy people and faith based religions, yea I said it, now the two people you hate most are the ones that can help you in the long run.
Please name a "socialist" country
Name one that isn't!
well when 47% of the 95% don't pay taxes, then how can you get your government to do anything for you. Free Market capitalism is good, their are bad people and good people. You could be a 1% if you tried, go to work and continue to work. Obama is a 1% and he has done pretty much nothing.
freemarket is essential to stabalise any system even "communism" that we find today has it.
As far as money systems go, Socialism is hands down the best, however, if we want to evolve into something worthy of being called civilization, than we need to ABOLISH BOTH MONEY, AND BARTER!
In a population worthy of having the title civilization, everyone would have equal access to all resources, and you would not have individual ownership of every single thing, in fact in a true civilization, there wouldn't be any need for the legal distinction called property.
It's been done already read the story about the pilgrams, man you don't like our country get out.
Pilgrams, are you better now. I was not talking about patriotism I was talking about socialism it was already tried. The Pilgrams did it and it did not work.
Pilgrims better for you now.
You sir are my new hero.
I bow to thee!
but just as I don't believe there is a "god"
I also don't believe there is a "science"