Is America becoming Socialist ?

[ginnyfizz]

Species, you can't carry on and on about the slavery of Capitalism and then just dismiss the abuses under Socialism/Communism with a blithe

 

"The arguments aren’t compelling enough to me. History is showing us right now, the faults in Capitalism"

 

Of course, history has never shown us any faults in Communism, has it? You are probably far too young to remember Jan Palach setting himself on fire in Wenceslas Square, in protest at the Russian tanks rolling into Czechoslovakia to crush the liberties unleashed by the Prague Spring, but I am not. He really must have had a very serious problem with Socialism/Communism.

 

"Indentured labor is no better than forced.

 

It is of course, easy to defend a system of abuse, when you are the abuser. Rapists tend to enjoy the act of violating their victims, because they derive enjoyment from satisfying primal needs through superiority."

 

Indentured labor, dear lady, was once an accepted way of learning a trade and was called an apprenticeship. A few years for little pay then a dramatic leap up when you qualified as a carpenter, plumber or mechanic. The lack of apprenticeships is what brings a lot of my clients to my door without skills. And as for the second part of your argument, comparing capitalists with rapists and abusers, that is just offensive.

[species5478]

I will protect my liberty as i protect my life. For they are both given to me by God, and it is in no man's power to go against Him. What I sow I will reap, and what I say i shall stand behind. I live by my word, and I shall back my word with all that I can do.

 

If you fall, I will offer my hand, if you are hungry I will share my bread, but when your feet are tired I will not carry you, for mine are blistered too.

 

We should refrain from using talk that may seem religious, since that's not allowed on these forums.

 

It is the responsibility of the strong to protect the weak, of their own free will. To force a man to use his strength, unless in reparation of past wrongs, is criminal, and a theft of time and life. If one does not help where they can then they fail the gifts they have been given, but that is their choice, and their failure, and it is the place of none to force one to do right, for each must bear the consequences of their own actions.

 

This seems agreeable.

 

Socialism works fine, until they run out of other people's money to spend.

 

Remember that those Chinese people are slaving under a communist regime.

 

I could say the same about Capitalism. And those people in China are slaving under a Communist regime, making products for us. Disreguaring them...there's people in many democratic nations, who slave for us.

 

I in no way support such abuse, i believe the government should stop such things, however in regard to Mexicans, many are illegal, however that is no excuse to abuse them. Also, the U.S. was started because we got tired of being told what to do by a king across an ocean, we were being mistreated by our then government. We had all rights to tell them we did not want to listen to them, and I believe the whole declaration of independence thing gave them plenty of opportunity to let us go peacefully, any fool can tell you it is hard to hold something so far away from your troop base. I also do not agree with what we are doing in foreign country's, let's keep our nose in our own business.

 

To me, the term to describe Mexicans as illegal, is relative. This land originally belonged to Mexicans. (we call them Native Americans) Yes, the U.S. was started because they didn't like being told what to do, and because they were mistreated by their government. So what did they do? They crossed the seas, and did something a thousand times worst to other people. Declaration of Independence, indeed. And what has Capitalism done since? America is a history of war. One war after another war...after another war...after another war...

[MetalDragon]

The entirety of human history is filled with war. Would you say that humanity should be done away with because of that?

 

And there is no need to point out my religious talk, it is part of who I am, there is no need to debate it, and I do not wish to start a religious debate. That would just lead to bad feelings and bans. Just accept that it is part of my world view and move on. I understand why it is not allowed here in some ways, and believe it is holding back a very important topic in today's world in another way. However it is a site rule, and I will do my best to obey.

 

This land did NOT originally belong to Mexicans, if I understand it right Mexico was set up by the Spanish, out of the ruins of the conquered Aztec empire, which I do not believe extended to the area I live in now, and we have illegal Mexicans here. Illegal immigrants are still in violation of the laws set by the current government of this area, and thus they are illegal. I have no problem with legal immigrants, I just don't like people completely disregarding our borders, and then not paying taxes but using things we pay for.

 

Again, I in no way support such abuse of power, in many ways I am ashamed of what my government does, but to say that is capitalism's fault is ridiculous, capitalism is not a method of government, just a economic system. Socialism is both. It is very possible for a government that rules in a socialistic manner to be capitalistic, and to be essentially an extremely large business that makes it's money by crushing lives.

 

Look at China.

 

On a side note, the reason capitalism is an economic system and not a government, is because it needs controls. Look at the practices of the Wal Mart corporation. they are essentially a communist business, and in need of a government crackdown (which hasn't happened yet, ugh) the problem with a socialist government is that there is nobody in a position to crack down when things get out of hand.

 

I know I am handing you ammo here, but still. Wal Mart needs to be revealed to the masses. It is capitalism gone wrong.

[Aurielius]

Ok, here I am once again, where I said I would no longer tread. Are either one of you fine gentlemen suggesting that if the government were to turn socialist (which I will once again state emphatically I do not believe will ever happen) it would then become "ok" to shoot it up because we have the right to keep and bear arms under the U.S. Constitution. Aurielius, as a strict Constitutionalist,can you really mean to say that you believe that was what was meant by those words?

@Grannywils

No Granny as a strict Constitutionalist I support his right to exercise his 2ND Amendment rights, my loyalty and my oath is to the the constitution not the government in power, if the government proceeded to violate the terms and conditions of it's mandate under the Constitution then my loyalty would be to the Constitution. The US military oath is to defend the the Constitution, which is to protect and defend it against all enemies foreign or domestic. So my choice would be clear. The government if socialist and conforming to the laws of the land will still be the legal authority that would have to be obeyed. If however the government exceeded it's authority that is another question entirely , you are not required to obey an illegal order under the code of military conduct. An illegal government has no authority to issue orders. I believe sincerely in civilian government control of the military as set forth by our founding fathers, but the 2ND Amendment was put in place as a check on the governments use of unbridled exercise of power. And this is far off topic since we have debated the 2nd Amendment at length before until the the point of topic lock.

[grannywils]

Ok, here I am once again, where I said I would no longer tread. Are either one of you fine gentlemen suggesting that if the government were to turn socialist (which I will once again state emphatically I do not believe will ever happen) it would then become "ok" to shoot it up because we have the right to keep and bear arms under the U.S. Constitution. Aurielius, as a strict Constitutionalist,can you really mean to say that you believe that was what was meant by those words?

@Grannywils

No Granny as a strict Constitutionalist I support his right to exercise his 2ND Amendment rights, my loyalty and my oath is to the the constitution not the government in power, if the government proceeded to violate the terms and conditions of it's mandate under the Constitution then my loyalty would be to the Constitution. The US military oath is to defend the the Constitution, which is to protect and defend it against all enemies foreign or domestic. So my choice would be clear. The government if socialist and conforming to the laws of the land will still be the legal authority that would have to be obeyed. If however the government exceeded it's authority that is another question entirely , you are not required to obey an illegal order under the code of military conduct. An illegal government has no authority to issue orders. I believe sincerely in civilian government control of the military as set forth by our founding fathers, but the 2ND Amendment was put in place as a check on the governments use of unbridled exercise of power. And this is far off topic since we have debated the 2nd Amendment at length before until the the point of topic lock.

 

The debate on the 2nd Amendment was probably before my time; but I just wanted a little clarification on your response to Metal Dragon's comment. And you provided it quite clearly, as usual. Thanks. I appreciate it.

[species5478]

Although the entirety of human civilization is filled with war, not all cultures thrive on war. Monks for instance, do not exist in a perpetual state of combat. My point about Capitalism, is that it uses most anything to generate profit…including war.

 

I too, am a deeply spiritual person. That’s why it hurts the depths of my soul to see people suffering around the world. Needlessly.

 

The land that I’m standing on, (Arizona) was a part of Mexico not too long ago. So was southern California, New Mexico, etc. Native Americans descend from Mexico. They didn’t mysteriously appear here out of nowhere. They migrated north from Mexico (and probably Central and South America) to become Native Americans, and even Eskimos. There were five million “Native Americans” here before Columbus arrived. Today, there’s less than five hundred thousand. Europeans embarked on one of history’s bloodiest genocides in order to take this land from its inhabitants. This would not have occurred under a socialist system. I hear every day on my local news, arguments against “illegal” immigrants. It’s strange…we obviously didn’t care about their rules, or laws when settling here. We simply did as we pleased. So I find it ironic that now, people like you are offended because some immigrants don’t respect our laws. Would you if the foot was on the other shoe?

 

I’m advocating a system that will most likely never be enacted in America. There has never been a time when socialism was even considered here. We’ve instead, spread Capitalism around the world. Europeans…Russians…Japanese…Australians…Canadians…South Americans…Africans…so this is why China is so important. This is why you don’t REALLY want them to become a democratic nation. If the Chinese had rights like most other nations in the world, we wouldn’t be able to abuse them. So you WANT them to remain Communists because if they weren’t, then we’d have to find another “slave” labor force to create our goods. Failing to do so, would mean spending 2000.00 dollars for a 16 gig IPad, for instance. Everything then becomes SO expensive, that the general population would be unable to afford half of what they own. So you need Chinese people to remain Communists even more than they do. If you want to maintain your lifestyle, that is.

 

But as I stated a few times in earlier posts, I don’t believe in using any one system in its entirety. Socialism should only incorporate giving people a place to live, food, and healthcare. The absolute basics. For people who want cars, or computers, or HD TV’s, vacations, clothes, etc…they’d have to work for these items. Yet, for all the talk, nobody, since this post has started, has given me a solution for what happens when we run out of resources, or out of people willing to do the "slave' labor. And are you really OK, with Americans owing a Communist nation BILLIONS of dollars? What then happens, if they decide to call in their dept, or to stop making goods for ridiculously low prices? America has become dependent on a Communist nation. And how for instance, do you stop the economy from collapsing every ten to twenty years?

[Aurielius]

But as I stated a few times in earlier posts, I don’t believe in using any one system in its entirety. Socialism should only incorporate giving people a place to live, food, and healthcare. The absolute basics. For people who want cars, or computers, or HD TV’s, vacations, clothes, etc…they’d have to work for these items. Yet, for all the talk, nobody, since this post has started, has given me a solution for what happens when we run out of resources, or out of people willing to do the "slave' labor. And are you really OK, with Americans owing a Communist nation BILLIONS of dollars? What then happens, if they decide to call in their dept, or to stop making good for ridiculously low prices?

 

@Species

What I fail to understand is how socialism will solve these issues of limited resources, the entirety of your thesis is that socialism would be a more equitable redistribution of wealth for the social betterment of the underprivileged. Is it your contention that we are obligated to provide material equality in order to be morally just? What our balance of trade has to do with the viability of socialism I am at a loss to correlate. it seems that you view socialism as a more Utopian solution as a means of governing , there is no such animal as a Utopian government in the real world. Idealism is the virtue of the young because they have yet to see the resultant pitfalls of their proposed experiments.

[JimboUK]

@species Bill Gates is a good example, yes he is very rich but how many people are in employment because of his hard work? how much has he and his company paid in taxes? How much as he given away to the needy? Gates has done more for people than any socialist ever will. Capitalism isn't about making everyone rich, it's rewarding those who can be bothered to work with a reasonable return for their Labour. Socialism is the politics of envy and resentment.

[species5478]

But as I stated a few times in earlier posts, I don't believe in using any one system in its entirety. Socialism should only incorporate giving people a place to live, food, and healthcare. The absolute basics. For people who want cars, or computers, or HD TV's, vacations, clothes, etc…they'd have to work for these items. Yet, for all the talk, nobody, since this post has started, has given me a solution for what happens when we run out of resources, or out of people willing to do the "slave' labor. And are you really OK, with Americans owing a Communist nation BILLIONS of dollars? What then happens, if they decide to call in their dept, or to stop making good for ridiculously low prices?

 

@Species

What I fail to understand is how socialism will solve these issues of limited resources, the entirety of your thesis is that socialism would be a more equitable redistribution of wealth for the social betterment of the underprivileged. Is it your contention that we are obligated to provide material equality in order to be morally just? What our balance of trade has to do with the viability of socialism I am at a loss to correlate. it seems that you view socialism as a more Utopian solution as a means of governing , there is no such animal as a Utopian government in the real world. Idealism is the virtue of the young because they have yet to see the resultant pitfalls of their proposed experiments.

 

I never claimed adopting socialist policies is a remedy for our resource issues. I have no "thesis", as it were, either. I'm simply stating that helping one another with living, food, and healthcare, is the morally correct thing to do. Capitalism is the fastest route to physical wealth, and the surest way to become morally bankrupt. But again, you and supporters have failed to disclose how Capitalism will solve any of the real issues plaguing our planet. You haven't even explained how Capitalism will solve its own errors, such as collapsing the economy at regular intervals.

 

I know we like to think of ourselves as independent, but in reality, we are not. Our society only exists in part, because we help one another through tax payer money. If your house is burning, are you going to put the flames out yourself? No. You're going to call the Fire Department. If someone is trying to assault you, there's the Police Department. Foreign invaders? Call the Marines. Going to the park? Museums? Library? Festivals? Fairs? Need someone to pick up your trash? Do you travel on roads? Highways? Do you like manicured streets? Do you like stoplights? What about prosecuting and incarcerating prisoners? Lifeguards when you go to the beach? Bridges? Etc, etc…if you like or enjoy these things, then you like certain forms of socialism.

 

It might be true that I have yet to see the results of a socialized society. That's because, America has never been socialized in the manner that I desire. And comparing other forms of socialism is fautly. You would not, for instance, compare our democratic or Capitalist system with other ones, would you? America is unique. Nothing we do can be compared with the rest of the world. Even similar things are different. The pitfalls you speak of, are created by individuals similar to you...individuals who would prefer supporting Capitalism.

[ginnyfizz]

Talk about when in hole, stop digging...

 

It is thirteen years of Socialism rampant that collapsed the British economy (and several other European economies). Species5478, in your contempt for anyone who has actually had any real life experience of what your theories do in practice, you trip yourself up. Do you REALLY think that Socialism equates to either moral or economic rectitude? Silly question. Obviously you do. Once more, with feeling...the Socialist Chancellor of the Exchequer and subsequent Prime Minister Gordon Brown has tipped more people into poverty than any Conservative ever did. Not only by his unsustainable public spending binge, but by just WHERE he got the necessary tax take. Yes, he raided pension funds and is now aptly referred to by one of our newspaper columnists as "The man who stole your old age". The pension funds of ordinary workers were affected, not just of the seriously rich.

 

You even admit that you have yet to see the results of a socialized society, and yet STILL you want it imposing on America. You are told of the consequences of Socialism and bat it away with "And comparing other forms of socialism is fautly.(sic)" This is splitting hairs. Socialism ALWAYS boils down to the same thing, you can put whatever label on it you like - big state, suppression of individualism, disincentivising, silencing opposition by means that may even include imprisonment or a bullet in the neck.

 

God help America if, aided and abetted by Obama, you get your socialized society.