Socialism. What is it really?
brad
understand it socialism is basically an economic principle based on public
ownership of productive assets, and implements a democratic means of control
over those assets. I'm sure you guys will correct me if I am wrong.
Democracy in it's pure form only works up to the point where people figure
out that they can use their votes to gain wealth or power. It never works
for too long.
That is one of the main problems I see with socialism. As a concept it is
wonderful. Assuming everyone had a good work ethic, and a strong sense of
fair play, I would say it would be possibly the best way to go.
Unfortunately that is not the case.
With socialism, as with any other means of economy, there must be an
arbitrating body to settle disputes. There has to be a government or
document to preserve the original tenets of socialist economies from the
tyrannical rule of the majority. If this is not in place, I would argue
that the system would evolve with the whim of the public and therefore
evolve into something quite different than intended.
This presents a problem in my mind. In order to support a democratically
based economy one would need a democratic government as well. As I said
though, this will not work in the real world.
So the question is, how can socialism, as an institutionalized system, ever
be expected to work? What mode of government could ensure that it remains
untainted by either the governing officials, or the voting masses?
Obviously socialism works on a smaller scale, as was illustrated by tribal
and nomadic peoples. The problem arises when you have a population that is
distributed across a vast territory. People in largely industrial, and
generally more populated, areas have very little knowledge of what goes on
in agricultural areas and vice versa. With this inequity in population and
knowledge how can one expect a purely democratic process to represent those
in the less populated areas?
brad
Russ Rose
Government run socialism is one guy telling the three guys to work
together... or be shot.
It always looks great in theory since in the utopian mind it needs no
government.
Dan
>From: "Russ Rose" rs...@aol.com
>Date: 3/26/02 10:47 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <BK0o8.132810$uA5.1...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>
>
>Socialism is three guys agreeing to work together for some mutual benefit.
>
>Government run socialism is one guy telling the three guys to work
>together... or be shot.
This is communism. It's not the same thing.
>It always looks great in theory since in the utopian mind it needs no
>government.
Yes, but it's impractical in pure form, just like capitalism. A nice balance
of the two would be very nice.
Dan
aa #1617
Russ Rose
"Dan" <dannyb...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20020327021003...@mb-fh.aol.com...
Isn't that what we have already?
> Dan
> aa #1617
Dan
>Date: 3/27/02 10:41 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <2Llo8.119497$ZR2....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>
Hardly. We have enough capitalism that our society is largely undemocratic.
That's why corporations invest their money in lobbying for what they want
rather than the will of the vast majority.
Dan
aa #1617
brad
> Hardly. We have enough capitalism that our society is largely
undemocratic.
> That's why corporations invest their money in lobbying for what they want
> rather than the will of the vast majority.
> Dan
> aa #1617
The will of a vast majority is not always just. Some things should be done
whether that will exists or not. A lynch mob comes to mind. Very much a
democratic group, but not necessarily a good one to follow the whim of.
I do agree though, that corporations, as an entity, should have very little
stake in government. The individuals who comprise and run them should have
every freedom to exercise their right to protest, assemble, and lobby.
Corporations are not people, and therefore should have no voice by
themselves.
brad
Russ Rose
"brad" <ral...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nipo8.908$n83....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> > Hardly. We have enough capitalism that our society is largely
> undemocratic.
So the money is voting?
> > That's why corporations invest their money in lobbying for what they
want
> > rather than the will of the vast majority.
What are the corporations without the people that make it up?
> > Dan
> > aa #1617
>
> The will of a vast majority is not always just. Some things should be
done
> whether that will exists or not. A lynch mob comes to mind. Very much a
> democratic group, but not necessarily a good one to follow the whim of.
>
Which is why we have the laws in charge of the country and not men, i.e.
"the rule of law"
> I do agree though, that corporations, as an entity, should have very
little
> stake in government.
How about the reverse?
> The individuals who comprise and run them should have
> every freedom to exercise their right to protest, assemble, and lobby.
> Corporations are not people, and therefore should have no voice by
> themselves.
Again, what are the corporations without the people that make it up? You
both talk as if they would exist without people running them. If Congress
can pass a law that destroys an industry, who would best represent the
potentially displaced workers? Each of them on their own? Or together as a
group? Doesn't the corporation represent the interests of their workers by
staying in business?
>
> brad
>
>
brad
> > The will of a vast majority is not always just. Some things should be
> done
> > whether that will exists or not. A lynch mob comes to mind. Very much
a
> > democratic group, but not necessarily a good one to follow the whim of.
> >
>
> Which is why we have the laws in charge of the country and not men, i.e.
> "the rule of law"
>
> > I do agree though, that corporations, as an entity, should have very
> little
> > stake in government.
>
> How about the reverse?
Of course. Business and government never mix well.
> > The individuals who comprise and run them should have
> > every freedom to exercise their right to protest, assemble, and lobby.
> > Corporations are not people, and therefore should have no voice by
> > themselves.
>
> Again, what are the corporations without the people that make it up? You
> both talk as if they would exist without people running them. If Congress
> can pass a law that destroys an industry, who would best represent the
> potentially displaced workers? Each of them on their own? Or together as a
> group? Doesn't the corporation represent the interests of their workers by
> staying in business?
Russ, I think you misunderstand. I don't think the government should have
any stake in business and vice versa. As I said before. The individuals
that comprise a company have every right to protest whatever they deem fit,
so long as it is done peaceably.
If they want to band together as a group and use private resources to
achieve a goal then that is their right. They should not however be able to
leverage corporate assets for this goal. This creates an imbalance in the
system.
Corporate assets and individual assets are categorized differently in every
level of accounting. If an individual wishes to liquidate some of the
assets, or move them to another cause that is their choice. The problem I
have is the ability to write this asset expenditure off as expenses within
the corporation, or the ability to leverage non private assets to achieve a
goal.
If every member of a corporation wishes to donate 100% of their life savings
to a cause that they believe in, then that is fine. It's their money.
Within a publicly traded company though, those assets belong to
stockholders, and as such should be treated differently when it comes to
government.
I don't claim to support, or know what socialism is in its entirety. That's
why I started this thread. I've read the other threads, and there are still
a lot of questions I have that don't get addressed.
brad
Russ Rose
If government did not do so much to impede business, a corporation would not
have to defend itself.
> Corporate assets and individual assets are categorized differently in
every
> level of accounting. If an individual wishes to liquidate some of the
> assets, or move them to another cause that is their choice. The problem I
> have is the ability to write this asset expenditure off as expenses within
> the corporation, or the ability to leverage non private assets to achieve
a
> goal.
Corporations try to do things to enhance, or prevent damage to, their
business. To ignore what Congress does and hope that the employees will
organize and petition in time to make a difference would be suicide. The
dirty truth is that it is a protection racket, contribute to our campaigns
or we'll destroy you. Just ask Bill Gates.
> If every member of a corporation wishes to donate 100% of their life
savings
> to a cause that they believe in, then that is fine. It's their money.
> Within a publicly traded company though, those assets belong to
> stockholders, and as such should be treated differently when it comes to
> government.
>
> I don't claim to support, or know what socialism is in its entirety.
That's
> why I started this thread. I've read the other threads, and there are
still
> a lot of questions I have that don't get addressed.
>
> brad
>
>
Socialism is a generic term for a set of beliefs which a society shares in
order to get along with each other cooperatively. Every civilized society
requires it to exist. The key to its success is that it must be voluntary.
There are those who do not have faith in their fellow man to be generous
enough so they commission a government to force generosity from those that
have more. This violates the voluntary nature of socialism and the system
fails.
Alex Vange
http://stormfront.org
www.spearhead-uk.com
"Russ Rose" <russ...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:WRro8.138994$702.26191@sccrnsc02...
> Socialism is a generic term for a set of beliefs which a society shares in
> order to get along with each other cooperatively. Every civilized society
> requires it to exist. The key to its success is that it must be voluntary.
> There are those who do not have faith in their fellow man to be generous
> enough so they commission a government to force generosity from those that
> have more. This violates the voluntary nature of socialism and the system
> fails.
>
If there are no laws to help people and everything is voluntary then it
is not socialism. The majority of people are pretty nice. The reason we have
laws is for the people that are not. There are greedy and selfish people who
would not give one thin dime to help the poor any anyboby. We should make
the bastards pay. Having a welfare system means we are all supposed to pay
our fair share to help the poor. What is the author of the above post
complaining about unless he does not want to pay his fair share?
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
Check out our new Unlimited Server. No Download or Time Limits!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! ==-----
Dan
>Date: 3/27/02 2:44 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <nipo8.908$n83....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
>
>>
>> Hardly. We have enough capitalism that our society is largely
>undemocratic.
>> That's why corporations invest their money in lobbying for what they want
>> rather than the will of the vast majority.
>> Dan
>> aa #1617
>
>The will of a vast majority is not always just. Some things should be done
>whether that will exists or not. A lynch mob comes to mind. Very much a
>democratic group, but not necessarily a good one to follow the whim of.
Given the time to stop and vote, I'd say most lynch mobs would not actually go
through with whatever the were reacting to. Democracy is about voicing you
wants through voting, not through lobbying or mob "consensus".
>I do agree though, that corporations, as an entity, should have very little
>stake in government. The individuals who comprise and run them should have
>every freedom to exercise their right to protest, assemble, and lobby.
>Corporations are not people, and therefore should have no voice by
>themselves.
Well, I'd also say that if the money of the major corporate investors was at
stake, they'd do business much differently. (Only that which is put in is at
stake as things are now, even if you run the business into the ground and leave
the majority of stockholders and workers with nothing.) As for government, I
agree. Corporations can't vote, so shouldn't be able to lobby.
Dan
aa #1617
Russ Rose
"Alex Vange" <va...@i1.net> wrote in message
news:3ca252d2$1...@news.newsgroups.com...
>
>
>
> http://stormfront.org
> www.spearhead-uk.com
> "Russ Rose" <russ...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:WRro8.138994$702.26191@sccrnsc02...
> > Socialism is a generic term for a set of beliefs which a society shares
in
> > order to get along with each other cooperatively. Every civilized
society
> > requires it to exist. The key to its success is that it must be
voluntary.
> > There are those who do not have faith in their fellow man to be generous
> > enough so they commission a government to force generosity from those
that
> > have more. This violates the voluntary nature of socialism and the
system
> > fails.
> >
> If there are no laws to help people and everything is voluntary then
it
> is not socialism.
If there are laws to enforce it, it is government run socialism.
> The majority of people are pretty nice. The reason we have
> laws is for the people that are not. There are greedy and selfish people
who
> would not give one thin dime to help the poor any anyboby.
> We should make the bastards pay.
Proving the point in my original post "Government run socialism is one guy
telling the three guys to work
together... or be shot."
> Having a welfare system means we are all supposed to pay
> our fair share to help the poor. What is the author of the above post
> complaining about unless he does not want to pay his fair share?
>
One who has no faith in his fellow man is destined to be a tyrant.
brad
it
> is not socialism. The majority of people are pretty nice. The reason we
have
> laws is for the people that are not. There are greedy and selfish people
who
> would not give one thin dime to help the poor any anyboby. We should make
> the bastards pay. Having a welfare system means we are all supposed to pay
> our fair share to help the poor. What is the author of the above post
> complaining about unless he does not want to pay his fair share?
So what is one's "fair share"? A truly fair share would require the "poor"
to be productive and earn what they get. Before anyone gets on their high
horse and tells me about how hard it is to be poor, and how the evil rich
exploit them, let me say this. No one can tell me what it means to be poor.
I lived it for 24 years. My family never asked for a dime from any
government agency for help. My mom made around 15k a year, raised two kids,
and was never late on a house payment.
Does that mean anybody owes me something because they succeeded? Not by a
long shot.
I don't believe you are talking about socialism though. Since, as I
understand it, socialism requires everyone's contribution. Not charity.
If you are talking about taking from one group to give to another then that
is not fair. That is stealing.
brad
brad
> business. To ignore what Congress does and hope that the employees will
> organize and petition in time to make a difference would be suicide. The
> dirty truth is that it is a protection racket, contribute to our campaigns
> or we'll destroy you. Just ask Bill Gates.
It would just tickle me to death to see Bill Gates hold a press conference
and say, in his best Cartmen impression, "Screw you guys. I'm going home.".
Then just get up and walk out. The whole industry would be screwed if
Microsoft liquidated everything and closed up shop.
It would be rough going for me as a web developer, but it would be worth it
to see all these big government types shaking in disbelief at the mess they
made.
That's one of the things that I don't get about socialism. You don't have
leaders in industry. If everything is public anyway, where is the incentive
to do research and development to produce a better product? It seems to me
that unless someone is in the lead everyone will just slow down.
brad
Alex Vange
http://stormfront.org
www.spearhead-uk.com
"Russ Rose" <russ...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:lGwo8.140941$702.26732@sccrnsc02...
> > If there are no laws to help people and everything is voluntary
then
> it
> > is not socialism.
>
> If there are laws to enforce it, it is government run socialism.
Fine, if you insist on quibbling over semantics.
>
> Proving the point in my original post "Government run socialism is one guy
> telling the three guys to work
> together... or be shot."
Well, we should have some laws. Of course some other laws might be
bad. I wouldn't tell three guys that they have to like each other, no.
There are two schools of thought in the world, the right and the left.
The right is guided by what was known as Christian principles. It is for
outlawing homosexual perversion, prostitution, abortions, heroin, and other
bad things. It puts the good of the nation first and ahead of the freedom
of individuals to corrupt the culture of the nation.
Leftists believe in the Rede of Witchcraft which states-- If it harm
none, do what will you will. This sounds nice, but like the apple that the
witch gave to Snow White it has poison within. The Rede of Witchcraft is the
Bible of liberalism. It would legalize the homosexual perversion,
prostitution, drugs, etc.
The right is for building a great nation. Leftists care only about
individual freedom and are opposed to any laws that would make the nation
better. There are beaches where normal families will not go because
homosexual perverts practice their perversion on the beach. This is fine
with leftists. This is what they want. They are like children who only care
about their individual selves and are oblivious to what should be done to
make the nation great. Their philosophy for example would not allow the law
that drivers have to stop at the red lights. Their philosophy would result
in chaos and degeneracy.
Today there are some libertarians who pretend to be rightists because
they are for the freedom of the Ebenezer Scrooges to be as greedy as they
want. That group has a lot of money and they can pretend to be right wing
on TV, but what they really do is serve mammon (money). The real right wing
was not for legalizing drugs, or for using this same liberal philosophy of
the Rede of Witchcraft to legalize greed. People should not be side-tracked
into serving money if they really want to fight liberalism. Fighting
homosexual perversion with libertarianism is exactly the same as fighting a
fire with gasoline. Most libertarians know they are liberal. Anyone who
would legalize prostitution and heroin is a leftist.
The Communist were leftist and they said they were fighting for
freedom. In Spain they sided with the anarchists. The Communists and the
anarchists were the same people or the same type of people. The Communists
were for having government but only temporarily. They said that their
government was necessary only until the whole world was Communist. After the
world was Communist they wanted to disolve the government and have an
anarchy.
What liberals want to be liberated from is Christianity, or what used
to be Christianity. Capitalists want freedom for their greed, other liberals
want freedom for degeneracy, and Communists wanted to be free to burn down
churches. They had their differences but they all joined together to fight
against the real right wing during World War Two.
The right wing cares about the future. Leftists only care about the
present. If their philosophy results in a nightmare future like in Soylent
Green or some other futuristic nightmare they are not interested and insist
that nothing could be more important than the freedom of individuals to be
as decadant as they want. They are like the children in the old black and
white movie "Lord of the Flies".
>
> > Having a welfare system means we are all supposed to pay
> > our fair share to help the poor. What is the author of the above post
> > complaining about unless he does not want to pay his fair share?
> >
>
> One who has no faith in his fellow man is destined to be a tyrant.
>
Anyone who doesn't realize that there are some men that we should not
have faith in is not living in the real world. We must have laws because of
these kinds of people. Good people are not bothered by the laws in anyway.
They are naturally good and would not come into conflict with the law.
Alex Vange
http://stormfront.org
www.spearhead-uk.com
"brad" <ral...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:_gxo8.460$Xu6....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> So what is one's "fair share"?
We pay taxes now. If it isn't fair enough we can make improvements. But
the fair share should be equal to the tax.
>A truly fair share would require the "poor"
> to be productive and earn what they get.
I am for "workfare" rather then "welfare". I should have mentioned that.
They should work. But people should not starve if they can't find a job or
have some other misfortune.
>Before anyone gets on their high
> horse and tells me about how hard it is to be poor, and how the evil rich
> exploit them, let me say this. No one can tell me what it means to be
poor.
> I lived it for 24 years. My family never asked for a dime from any
> government agency for help. My mom made around 15k a year, raised two
kids,
> and was never late on a house payment.
>
> Does that mean anybody owes me something because they succeeded? Not by a
> long shot.
>
> I don't believe you are talking about socialism though. Since, as I
> understand it, socialism requires everyone's contribution. Not charity.
Everyone should be required to contribute.
>
> If you are talking about taking from one group to give to another then
that
> is not fair. That is stealing.
>
We should live in a nation where no one who is willing to work goes
hungry. We can certainly do that when there are people with billions of
dollars which they could not possibly ever use. Maybe to you that is not
"fair" but it is right and good. If people don't want to live in a good
nation like that they should be free to leave and live somewhere else.
brad
>They should work. But people should not starve if they can't find a job or
>have some other misfortune.
I do agree for the most part. No one should receive something for nothing.
I think the best plan is to set up apprenticeships with businesses so the
people can gain a job skill, a living wage, and I would even go so far as to
provide them with three square meals and a cot. Once the apprenticeship is
over with they have the dignity of knowing no one gave them anything but a
hand up, and they have job skills to boot.
I'll quote a homeless man I let stay the night at my place one night on this
one. "Anyone in this country who is starving is either an idiot or
undeserving. The soup kitchen serves soup at 2, and the mission serves
sandwiches at 3."
> We should live in a nation where no one who is willing to work goes
> hungry. We can certainly do that when there are people with billions of
> dollars which they could not possibly ever use. Maybe to you that is not
> "fair" but it is right and good. If people don't want to live in a good
> nation like that they should be free to leave and live somewhere else.
Let's talk about those billions of dollars that never get used. You ever
take out a loan, or go to a bank? Well you probably received some of those
millions of dollars when you did it.
I agree that you should work for what you earn with a few exceptions. If I
do work hard, and am able to leave an inheritance for my family, then no one
should be able to take that away from them.
Personally I can see the benefit of having some social programs, but
taxation would be much less if we quit trying to pay artists who otherwise
can't sell their work, and we quit doing silly things like spending $2
million on soundproofing schools for the deaf.
As it is now, the taxation is VERY unfair. Those in the top income brackets
(6 digit plus annually) pay roughly 50% percent of their money in payroll
taxes while the lower income earners pay much less, or no income tax. That
is not fair, never will be, and never was. I could maybe, and I repeat
maybe, agree with a flat percentage rate income tax.
brad
Bernard Curry
>dannyb...@aol.comnospam (Dan) wrote:
This thread, like most discussions of "socialism," is mostly
quibble and cavil about who gets to say how the word is
used. That is not the way to look at the problem of what is
socialism.
Look at it from the other side and fill the blanks:
The belief or attitude of coming together in a community
with other men for reciprocal satisfaction, mutual
protection, stength in numbers, and ease, effectiveness, and
synergy in production is "___".
The belief or attitude of coming together in such a
community but where force and deceit are used overtly or
covertly (through the power of the community) to control
production, and through it the community, is "___".
The belief or attitude of coming together in a community
where force and deceit are _not_ used overtly or covertly
(because so doing is outlawed through the power of the
community) to control production, and through it the
community, is "___".
Bernard Curry
P.S.
I realize this message is posted to the wind because
participants in the thread are probably either communist or
fascist and are simply jockeying for verbal status.
BC
************************************************************************
The eternal vigil that is the price of liberty is a vigil against
authority that begins within ourselves as individuals and within
the groups to which we belong.--Bernard Curry
************************************************************************
Email : bc...@rovin.net
******************************************************
brad
> I realize this message is posted to the wind because
> participants in the thread are probably either communist or
> fascist and are simply jockeying for verbal status.
Perhaps, but Bernard I started the thread, and I am honestly looking to
understand what it really means. I am like many people in that I don't
really know what the people that define themselves as socialists believe.
If I offer an argument that disputes what was said, that does not mean that
I don't want to know. It only means that this is a point where my beliefs
conflict. If someone makes a valid point then I am willing to accept it,
and adjust my beliefs accordingly.
I would love to hear from people who define themselves as socialists, but
please understand that I will challenge those beliefs based on my own. I
don't do it in order to prove someone wrong, but to further understand these
thoughts, and challenge my own as a result.
brad
Dan
>Date: 3/28/02 5:51 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <3ca39...@news.newsgroups.com>
>
>
>
>
>http://stormfront.org
>www.spearhead-uk.com
>"Russ Rose" <russ...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:lGwo8.140941$702.26732@sccrnsc02...
>> > If there are no laws to help people and everything is voluntary
>then
>> it
>> > is not socialism.
>>
>> If there are laws to enforce it, it is government run socialism.
>
> Fine, if you insist on quibbling over semantics.
>
>>
>> Proving the point in my original post "Government run socialism is one guy
>> telling the three guys to work
>> together... or be shot."
>
> Well, we should have some laws. Of course some other laws might be
>bad. I wouldn't tell three guys that they have to like each other, no.
Actually, by US law, it is a crime to interfere with mercantilism. This means
that strikes are technically illegal, even if tolerated. The law is not often
invoked, but was done at least as recently as the Reagan era.
> There are two schools of thought in the world, the right and the left.
>The right is guided by what was known as Christian principles. It is for
>outlawing homosexual perversion, prostitution, abortions, heroin, and other
>bad things. It puts the good of the nation first and ahead of the freedom
>of individuals to corrupt the culture of the nation.
Was heroin mentioned in the Bible?
> Leftists believe in the Rede of Witchcraft which states-- If it harm
>none, do what will you will. This sounds nice, but like the apple that the
>witch gave to Snow White it has poison within. The Rede of Witchcraft is the
>Bible of liberalism. It would legalize the homosexual perversion,
>prostitution, drugs, etc.
Drugs are the only one I'd have issue with. They _do_ harm people, and not just
those taking them. As for the rest, you're talking about victimless crimes.
There shouldn't be any of those.
> The right is for building a great nation. Leftists care only about
>individual freedom and are opposed to any laws that would make the nation
>better. There are beaches where normal families will not go because
>homosexual perverts practice their perversion on the beach.
Where do you come by these twisted ideas? Yes, there are plenty of gay men who
engage in public sex. There are also plenty who don't do so. I don't approve
of sex in any setting where it might be viewed by people who don't wish to see
it. And I'm gay. So how do you reconcile your falsehood with reality?
This is fine
>with leftists. This is what they want. They are like children who only care
>about their individual selves and are oblivious to what should be done to
>make the nation great. Their philosophy for example would not allow the law
>that drivers have to stop at the red lights.
Really? I'm a leftist, but I'm all for stopping people who drive through red
lights and speed. I am, however, opposed to the requirement of seatbelts for
adults. If I wish to stupidly risk my life, that's my business.
Their philosophy would result
>in chaos and degeneracy.
Not even. I live by rather strick ethical codes that finds a chaotic society
to be unworkable. As for degeneracy, it's a matter of opinion as to what this
is. Is covering up priest pedophilia good? How about ministers cheating on
their wives with other women? What about gay conservatives?
> Today there are some libertarians who pretend to be rightists because
>they are for the freedom of the Ebenezer Scrooges to be as greedy as they
>want. That group has a lot of money and they can pretend to be right wing
>on TV, but what they really do is serve mammon (money). The real right wing
>was not for legalizing drugs, or for using this same liberal philosophy of
>the Rede of Witchcraft to legalize greed.
The "real" right wing? Hmm...I don't know of any rightwingers who are
pro-legalization of drugs. Greed, though, seems to be the philosophy of those
people.
People should not be side-tracked
>into serving money if they really want to fight liberalism. Fighting
>homosexual perversion with libertarianism is exactly the same as fighting a
>fire with gasoline. Most libertarians know they are liberal. Anyone who
>would legalize prostitution and heroin is a leftist.
I would legalize prostitution but not heroin. So where do I stand?
> The Communist were leftist and they said they were fighting for
>freedom. In Spain they sided with the anarchists. The Communists and the
>anarchists were the same people or the same type of people. The Communists
>were for having government but only temporarily. They said that their
>government was necessary only until the whole world was Communist. After the
>world was Communist they wanted to disolve the government and have an
>anarchy.
The Spanish have a major socialist political party. So do the French, Germans,
Swedes, and many others. Democracies actually allow for this sort of thing.
> What liberals want to be liberated from is Christianity, or what used
>to be Christianity.
No, Christianity as it is now is something to be liberated from, too. However,
you're fooling yourself if you think atheism and leftist are synonyms.
Capitalists want freedom for their greed, other liberals
>want freedom for degeneracy, and Communists wanted to be free to burn down
>churches. They had their differences but they all joined together to fight
>against the real right wing during World War Two.
Leftists actually want equality, not degeneracy. You might try looking up both
words in the dictionary and making comparisons. You'll find that they aren't
the same thing.
> The right wing cares about the future. Leftists only care about the
>present.
No, not really. Environmentalists tend toward being leftists. Their concern
is with how short-term practices that are harmful to the environment will
affect the world in the future. Those who lobby for higher minimum wages do so
because they want people to have enough money to _continue_ to survive.
If their philosophy results in a nightmare future like in Soylent
>Green or some other futuristic nightmare they are not interested and insist
>that nothing could be more important than the freedom of individuals to be
>as decadant as they want. They are like the children in the old black and
>white movie "Lord of the Flies".
Hmm...I wish I knew what twisted doctrine you're reading from. I suspect I
might know what group you're part of but I can't think of the name off the top
of my head.
>> One who has no faith in his fellow man is destined to be a tyrant.
>>
> Anyone who doesn't realize that there are some men that we should not
>have faith in is not living in the real world. We must have laws because of
>these kinds of people. Good people are not bothered by the laws in anyway.
>They are naturally good and would not come into conflict with the law.
I get bothered by laws that I see as pointless. Does it matter if federal
agents scan my email? No, because there's nothing in it that is problematic.
Still, why should they have the right to impinge upon by privacy? Maybe I'm an
alcoholic and receiving al-anon info through email and I'm embarassed to let
anyone know about it. Maybe I'm sending an explicit love/lust letter to my
wife and don't want random strangers perusing it. There are any number of
reasons why I could object to certain laws without it being because I'm afraid
to be caught breaking them.
Dan
aa #1617
Einheit
What you're describing is Stalinism.
Einheit
--
Wacht auf, Verdammte dieser Erde...
.
> >
> >Government run socialism is one guy telling the three guys to work
> >together... or be shot.
>
> This is communism. It's not the same thing.
>
> Dan
> aa #1617
>
Dan
>Date: 3/28/02 9:55 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <i9l7au09dujnenat5...@4ax.com>
>
>>On 27 Mar 2002 07:10:03 GMT,
>>dannyb...@aol.comnospam (Dan) wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Re: Socialism. What is it really?
>>>From: "Russ Rose" rs...@aol.com
>>>Date: 3/26/02 10:47 AM Eastern Standard Time
>>>Message-id: <BK0o8.132810$uA5.1...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>
>>>
>>>Socialism is three guys agreeing to work together for some mutual benefit.
>>>
>>>Government run socialism is one guy telling the three guys to work
>>>together... or be shot.
>>
>>This is communism. It's not the same thing.
>>
>>>It always looks great in theory since in the utopian mind it needs no
>>>government.
>>
>>Yes, but it's impractical in pure form, just like capitalism. A nice
>balance
>>of the two would be very nice.
>>
>>Dan
>>aa #1617
>
>This thread, like most discussions of "socialism," is mostly
>quibble and cavil about who gets to say how the word is
>used. That is not the way to look at the problem of what is
>socialism.
>
>Look at it from the other side and fill the blanks:
Yes, very nice. I have a difficult time trying to articulate what I'm trying
to say, but your fill-ins worked quite nicely.
Dan
aa #1617
Ron Allen
> Socialism is three guys agreeing to work together for some mutual
> benefit.
Ron Allen answers:
Sounds OK. Socialism is people agreeing to work together
in association for their mutual/collective benefit.
Russ Rose wrote:
> Government run socialism is one guy telling the three guys to work
> together... or be shot.
Ron Allen answers:
Sounds like a good definition of state socialism -- also
known simply as statism.
Russ Rose wrote:
> It always looks great in theory since in the utopian mind it needs no
> government.
Ron Allen answers:
If people come together and work together, live together,
love together, then why would a state be necessary in order
to enforce this voluntary/anarchist arrangement, this
experimentalist and confederalist association of free and
equal persons?
Anarchism is not the absence of self-government, it is the
absence of state government.
<><><><><><><><><>
"The best mirror is the eye of a friend."
-- Irish proverb
Ron Allen
> The will of a vast majority is not always just.
Ron Allen answers:
No advocate of democracy believes the majority preference
is always just or right. We simply believe that what the
majority wills ought to rule as concerns public choice
decisions, or political decisions that will have an affect
on every person. No advocate of democracy believes that
private or personal choices ought to be democratically
decided.
By the by, the will of a minority is also not always just
or right.
Of course, in a minority rule politics, what is considered
good and just is precisely what will serve the perceived
interests of the ruling minority.
brad wrote:
> Some things should be done whether that will exists or not.
Ron Allen answers:
What does this mean or imply? When free people do some
act/action/activity, it is because the act/action/activity
was willed first that it can be regarded as being a free
act/action/activity.
brad wrote:
> A lynch mob comes to mind.
Ron Allen answers:
But before a lynch mob acts, there is a conscious will that
has determined upon the act. Those who advocate democracy
believe that every political/public act/action/activity
ought to be democratically decided, and that some measure
of open deliberation and free debate should precede the
final/formal determination of what act/action/activity will
be collectively taken.
brad wrote:
> Very much a democratic group, but not necessarily a good one to
> follow the whim of.
Ron Allen answers:
Do you believe that a democratic society will elect to go
around lynching fellow citizens, equal in dignity and in
rights?
brad wrote:
> I do agree though, that corporations, as an entity, should have very
> little stake in government. The individuals who comprise and run
> them should have every freedom to exercise their right to protest,
> assemble, and lobby. Corporations are not people, and therefore
> should have no voice by themselves.
Ron Allen answers:
Only an individual person is a natural person, but modern
capitalist law does give some rights to corporations.
<><><><><><><><><><>
"There are no riches that can compensate for lack of
character."
-- Publilius Syrus
brad
Ron Allen <ral...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:3CA4CF32...@bellsouth.net...
> brad wrote:
> > The will of a vast majority is not always just.
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> No advocate of democracy believes the majority preference
> is always just or right. We simply believe that what the
> majority wills ought to rule as concerns public choice
> decisions, or political decisions that will have an affect
> on every person. No advocate of democracy believes that
> private or personal choices ought to be democratically
> decided.
>
> By the by, the will of a minority is also not always just
> or right.
Absolutely. I don't believe the will of any group is always just. Whether
they be a minority or a majority.
> brad wrote:
> > Some things should be done whether that will exists or not.
>
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> What does this mean or imply? When free people do some
> act/action/activity, it is because the act/action/activity
> was willed first that it can be regarded as being a free
> act/action/activity.
Some things must be done whether any group deems them fit. Things such as
ensuring that all people have certain rights that can never be touched. In
a purely democratically run society the potential for abuse by an uninformed
or biased majority is more dangerous than in one that contains an overriding
document that says that there are certain things you cannot do.
For example, many welfare recipients have lived off the system for years.
Even teach their children how to get benefits from the system without
working. These people would presumably vote to expand the system to their
benefit. Regardless of the effects it has on other, working, people.
> brad wrote:
> > A lynch mob comes to mind.
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> But before a lynch mob acts, there is a conscious will that
> has determined upon the act. Those who advocate democracy
> believe that every political/public act/action/activity
> ought to be democratically decided, and that some measure
> of open deliberation and free debate should precede the
> final/formal determination of what act/action/activity will
> be collectively taken.
Sure, but the lack of a procedure and process defined to ensure they are not
just acting blindly is not there. That is where the danger lies as I see
it.
> brad wrote:
> > Very much a democratic group, but not necessarily a good one to
> > follow the whim of.
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> Do you believe that a democratic society will elect to go
> around lynching fellow citizens, equal in dignity and in
> rights?
Not necessarily, but the potential is there. I don't think it is something
that would happen one day out of the blue, but over time anything is
possible. I've found that putting too much faith in people as a group often
leads to problems.
The caveat "equal in dignity" is a sketchy one. There are many people who
believe, for one reason or another, that certain groups are not equal.
These unequals could be honest, good people. That doesn't mean that people
will necessarily perceive them as such.
brad
Alex Vange
http://stormfront.org
www.spearhead-uk.com
"Dan" <dannyb...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20020329031430...@mb-fm.aol.com...
>
> Actually, by US law, it is a crime to interfere with mercantilism. This
means
> that strikes are technically illegal, even if tolerated. The law is not
often
> invoked, but was done at least as recently as the Reagan era.
>
>
> Was heroin mentioned in the Bible?
>
I don't think so.
>
> Drugs are the only one I'd have issue with. They _do_ harm people, and not
just
> those taking them. As for the rest, you're talking about victimless
crimes.
> There shouldn't be any of those.
Well, that is because you are a leftist.
>
> Where do you come by these twisted ideas? Yes, there are plenty of gay
men who
> engage in public sex. There are also plenty who don't do so. I don't
approve
> of sex in any setting where it might be viewed by people who don't wish to
see
> it. And I'm gay.
end of discussion
Alex Vange
http://stormfront.org
www.spearhead-uk.com
"brad" <ral...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:lWPo8.2707$BT6.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >I am for "workfare" rather then "welfare". I should have mentioned that.
> >They should work. But people should not starve if they can't find a job
or
> >have some other misfortune.
>
> I do agree for the most part. No one should receive something for
nothing.
> I think the best plan is to set up apprenticeships with businesses so the
> people can gain a job skill, a living wage, and I would even go so far as
to
> provide them with three square meals and a cot. Once the apprenticeship
is
> over with they have the dignity of knowing no one gave them anything but a
> hand up, and they have job skills to boot.
>
> I'll quote a homeless man I let stay the night at my place one night on
this
> one. "Anyone in this country who is starving is either an idiot or
> undeserving. The soup kitchen serves soup at 2, and the mission serves
> sandwiches at 3."
>
>
> Let's talk about those billions of dollars that never get used. You ever
> take out a loan, or go to a bank? Well you probably received some of
those
> millions of dollars when you did it.
The banking system is corrupt.
The money system we have today is called the debt-money system. It
is evil and needs to be replaced. The only way money comes into existance
today is when it is borrowed. There is no fiixed money supply, but only
borrowed money that needs to be paid back to bankers with interest. If all
the money that was owed to bankers was ever paid back there would be no
money left in circulation and this would be a great depression. What makes
matters even worse is that when money is created only the principle of the
loan is created. The money needed to pay the interest is never created. For
this reason it is impossible to pay back the principle plus the interest on
all of the loans that make up our money supply. The extra amount of money
needed to pay the interest was never created and does not exist.
The United States government borrows money from the Federal Reserve
Bank. This bank is not federal but owned by private stockholders. Other
banks also create the money in our money supply. They are allowed to loan
out much more money then they actually have. Thus they create new money. No
one else is allowed to create money, only bankers have this privilege. All
of our money is debt-money and it is all owed back to bankers, plus the
interest.
In the U.S.A. money is created by the Bureau of Engraving and
Printing which is a unit of the treasury, but the orders to print come from
the Federal Reserve Banks. The money is created for and owned by the banks.
And the Federal Reserve Banks are not Federal, in spite of the name.
Privately owned commercial banks own the stock of the Federal Reserve Banks.
The Federal Reserve Banks give the newly created money to the government in
exchange for government bonds. To simplify: The United States does not make
its own money. Bankers create the money and loan it to the United States
with an interest charge.
The book War Cycles Peace Cycles puts it this way:
"If there is only $10 in existance, and you lend it to someone under
the condition that he repay $11, and if he agrees to this, he has agreed to
the impossible."
The book The Struggle forWorld Power put it this way:
"The Bank of England... was the first payment institution which was
legally empowered to issue state-authorized paper currency and , therefore,
the Government itself became its debtor. Thus the State not only renounced
its monopoly on monetary emission, but also agreed to borrow the
privately-created money from the bankers...Not only the thing being done,
but even the very name was a deliberate fraud and deception to conceal the
essence of the deed. To create money out of nothing is to make valid and
effective claim on all goods and services for no return, which is fraud and
theft, made worse by the circumstances that the money is lent out at
interest...it follows that those who have the power to 'create' out of
nothing all the money in each country and the whole world and lend it as
stated, have total power over all states, parties, firms, radio, press,
individuals and so on. Therefore the power of Parliment in general, and
especially with regard to money, is non-existant, and all the true
sovereignty is in the hands of those private individuals who issue all
money"
>
> I agree that you should work for what you earn with a few exceptions. If
I
> do work hard, and am able to leave an inheritance for my family, then no
one
> should be able to take that away from them.
>
> Personally I can see the benefit of having some social programs, but
> taxation would be much less if we quit trying to pay artists who otherwise
> can't sell their work, and we quit doing silly things like spending $2
> million on soundproofing schools for the deaf.
There is probably a lot of that kind of thing going on.
>
> As it is now, the taxation is VERY unfair. Those in the top income
brackets
> (6 digit plus annually) pay roughly 50% percent of their money in payroll
> taxes while the lower income earners pay much less, or no income tax.
That
> is not fair, never will be, and never was. I could maybe, and I repeat
> maybe, agree with a flat percentage rate income tax.
>
I am for a flat 10%
Russ Rose
> > Corporations try to do things to enhance, or prevent damage to, their
> > business. To ignore what Congress does and hope that the employees will
> > organize and petition in time to make a difference would be suicide. The
> > dirty truth is that it is a protection racket, contribute to our
campaigns
> > or we'll destroy you. Just ask Bill Gates.
>
> It would just tickle me to death to see Bill Gates hold a press conference
> and say, in his best Cartmen impression, "Screw you guys. I'm going
home.".
> Then just get up and walk out. The whole industry would be screwed if
> Microsoft liquidated everything and closed up shop.
>
Not true. The absence of new versions of software does not prevent our use
of current software. We may miss a few hundred service packs and security
updates, but what is out there is solid enough to do the required job. With
Microsoft out of the picture, Office and Windows would essentially become
freeware since no one would be there to enforce licensing. Also, if by
"liquidating" you mean selling source code, I guarantee IBM and Oracle would
be first in line to buy with hopes of taking over that portion of the
market.