RE: Socialism

RE: Socialism (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

seeksfemslave -> RE: Socialism (2/14/2008 6:47:56 AM)
The Royal family are large landowners. In the UK which is further down the road to Social Democracy than is the US, thank goodness, it is inconceivable that a family with children would lose their home due to failure to pay a locally levied property tax. They would have to account for that failure and if possible re arrange their life style so it could be paid. In theory anyway. In the current phase of home reposessions those disposessed, with children, will be allocated housing by the local authority. Those without children I am not sure what happens but I know that they have to compete with homeless immigrants who do have children Single seasonally employed immigrants are allowed in, bring over their family and then get priority on a housng list. I arsk ya.!!!

MsBearlee -> RE: Socialism (2/14/2008 6:51:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 You could really parse terms and say the Confederate states invaded and held parts of the United States. I would suppose Indian tribes incuring into the US proper, would technically qualify also. ... <bolding is mine> WHAT? Native Americans invaded the US? Good lord... are you not into reality, either? Please tell me I somehow missunderstood your comment!!! Beverly

Loveisallyouneed -> RE: Socialism (2/14/2008 7:27:07 AM)
out of the blue ... Isn't capitalism the economic theory that expects humans who are unable to earn an income should starve to death quietly and without disturbing their neighbours? Isn't socialism the economic theory that expects humans will commit crimes rather than starve to death, thus it provides for the poorest in society to avoid placing them in that predicament? Is it really surprising the most capitalist nation on the planet has the highest crime rate? Just too many people refuse to follow theory and quietly starve to death.

SugarMyChurro -> RE: Socialism (2/14/2008 9:41:27 AM)
Loveisallyouneed: I think you put the issue into an interesting context that I've never run across before. Pithy! Sure, I've read and seen "Les Miserables" but your comment certainly gets right to it. What is fair? What allows for a modicum of dignity no matter what should befall one?

luckydog1 -> RE: Socialism (2/14/2008 10:10:21 AM)
MS bearlee, I said it was a very parsed post. But technically, after there was a USA tribes from the West (having not been conquered yet) would attack and hold territory for short periods. Don't intend to imply that they started the wars, but that they periodically held parts (lands that had not been thiers) of the USA, is technically true.

mnottertail -> RE: Socialism (2/14/2008 10:14:12 AM)
A horrid misuse of 'parse', and I will let it go at that. Ron

luckydog1 -> RE: Socialism (2/14/2008 10:24:41 AM)
Ya finally got me Mnot, I did misuse the word parse.

mnottertail -> RE: Socialism (2/14/2008 10:38:27 AM)
LOLOLOL, Luckster, I ain't out lookin' to get ya, you have your comments and viewpoints and I have angular differences, is all. You happen to post on alot of the same threads I do, so we butt heads a great deal. No more, but no less. Go get 'em tiger!!!! Ron

thompsonx -> RE: Socialism (2/14/2008 11:34:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 MS bearlee, I said it was a very parsed post. But technically, after there was a USA tribes from the West (having not been conquered yet) would attack and hold territory for short periods. Don't intend to imply that they started the wars, but that they periodically held parts (lands that had not been thiers) of the USA, is technically true. luckydog: I would suggest that your understanding of American history as well as the use of the word parse is somewhat different than mine. thompson

DedicatedDom40 -> RE: Socialism (2/14/2008 11:40:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord The idea of the student is that the student later comes back and contributes. That his studies are part of his work. Now, it's true that if he doesn't do anything with it later, it's wasted and just even more of a drain. I fail to see how a mother on welfare who needs a few months of food stamps as financial breathing room to get on her feet is any different from you as a student in the context of this debate. She too comes back later and makes a contribution. Or a 30-something who would have died without insurance that is cured of cancer by a socialist medical program who comes back and works again, contributing to society and paying the bills. Or is socialism only bad in those areas where it donest have you as an active player? As someone who leans libertarian in the context of our 2 major power grabbing, property stealing, debt offloading, rights surpressing, dysfunctional political parties, I was sorta on board with you, until I read your lame rationale regarding your own predicament. Now I know you are simply interviewing for Rush Limbaugh Jr's job (and doing a lousy job at it). And yes, even being Libertarian leaning, I think Rush is an idiot. All smoke, and no heat.....part of the propaganda problem. quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord Still, where would this world be without higher education? Certainly not with on a message board on computers that use electricity! And how much of that was created by what one would consider socialisitic policies? If it all came down to profit and population stats, we would still have a dozen states without electricity, phone and internet (basically existing outside of our country's economic engine) if it wasnt for some of the better executed socialistic-minded programs that our capitalist companies got on board with in the past. Neither would we have affordable student loan programs. The problem is we just got really bad at the execution part as we went further along. Really bad.

seeksfemslave -> RE: Socialism (2/14/2008 11:45:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Seeks: Perhaps things are different in the UK but here in the U.S. the government is not a business. Consequently it can have no economic interests to uphold or support to the detriment of another sovereign nation. Not even if that other nation decides to steal, err sorry take under control massive US hi tech investments that they themselves had no chance whatsoever of implementing. This applies to fruit farms but especially and absolutely to Oil facilities. quote: Do you really believe that private business should rightfully expect the government of the U.S. to support its avaricious and predatory practices either at home or abroad? I think its the "horse thieves" who are being avaricious and predatory.

seeksfemslave -> RE: Socialism (2/14/2008 12:16:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave The problem here is that Socialism requires the transfer of economic control to the state ( by that I mean the national government.) That in the ultimate can only be achieved by Law based on force if say a business owner declines to sell on the state's terms. An extreme example of this was the transfer of control of agriculture from private to state control in the Soviet Union. Many 1000s were murdered. quote: Thompsonx Seeks: I am sure you will correct me if my understanding of the situation is faulty. Did not these thousands of dead land owners hold title to their land at the pleasure of the Czar? Did not the Czar hold his title at the pleasure of God? Did not the clergy (which existed at the sufferance of the Czar)verify that it was "Gods Will" that the Czar should rule? So what functionally is the difference between one group imposing its will by force as opposed to another group imposing its will by force? Unless,of course, you still believe that God appoints earthly rulers. thompson Confusing reasoning here. First the Czar a vicious wretch I believe had long been disposed of. Are you approving of Communist/Socialist appropriation of resources because historically those resources had been appropriated from other groups ? Have a care Sir for it is my intention to assemble two cavalry groups one to enter Sacramento and the other Austin where under my leadership I expect, no demand, that that land which rightfully belongs to Mexico be returned at the earliest opportunity to its legitimate owners. As an example of the seriousness and inherent natural justice underlying my campaign I have as of this date issued the following..... Executive order number 1: Ransack Barstow, if it can be located, and spare no one or thing. . Executive order number 2:Any Native American who can be found to be reasonably sober is to be recruited into a regiment to be known as the Red Eagles whose objective will be to return by force those lands that rightfully belong to them. We cannot fail , right is on our side. God Bless my hardy troops and what remains of America.

thompsonx -> RE: Socialism (2/14/2008 12:28:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Seeks: Perhaps things are different in the UK but here in the U.S. the government is not a business. Consequently it can have no economic interests to uphold or support to the detriment of another sovereign nation. Not even if that other nation decides to steal, err sorry take under control massive US hi tech investments that they themselves had no chance whatsoever of implementing. This applies to fruit farms but especially and absolutely to Oil facilities. These are investments by individuals and corporations and not of the U.S. If Exxon/Mobile or United Fruit wants to get into a pissing contest with those whom they are trying to rape then they should hire and equip their own army and not expect the U.S.taxpayer to do it for them. quote: Do you really believe that private business should rightfully expect the government of the U.S. to support its avaricious and predatory practices either at home or abroad? I think its the "horse thieves" who are being avaricious and predatory. I would suggest that you are being willfully ignorant of the true facts of who is fucking whom. If you come into my back yard and invest in a facility to extract some product what percentage of that product would you think is your share after you have recouped your investment in the facility? In an adjacent thread we were discussing a 600,000 barrel per day refinery that was going to cost about 6 or 7 billion dollars. At $100 per barrel how long does it take to recoup the investment in the refinery? thompson

mnottertail -> RE: Socialism (2/14/2008 12:33:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Have a care Sir for it is my intention to assemble two cavalry groups one to enter Sacramento and the other Austin where under my leadership I expect, no demand, that that land which rightfully belongs to Mexico be returned at the earliest opportunity to its legitimate owners. As an example of the seriousness and inherent natural justice underlying my campaign I have as of this date issued the following..... Executive order number 1: Ransack Barstow, if it can be located, and spare no one or thing. . Executive order number 2:Any Native American who can be found to be reasonably sober is to be recruited into a regiment to be known as the Red Eagles whose objective will be to return by force those lands that rightfully belong to them. We cannot fail , right is on our side. God Bless my hardy troops and what remains of America. Oh, for fuck's sake Seeks, you people are too proper to even use the word ass in a sentence. We would kick the dogshit outta you, same as last time. General Mayhem

thompsonx -> RE: Socialism (2/14/2008 12:42:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave The problem here is that Socialism requires the transfer of economic control to the state ( by that I mean the national government.) That in the ultimate can only be achieved by Law based on force if say a business owner declines to sell on the state's terms. An extreme example of this was the transfer of control of agriculture from private to state control in the Soviet Union. Many 1000s were murdered. quote: Thompsonx Seeks: I am sure you will correct me if my understanding of the situation is faulty. Did not these thousands of dead land owners hold title to their land at the pleasure of the Czar? Did not the Czar hold his title at the pleasure of God? Did not the clergy (which existed at the sufferance of the Czar)verify that it was "Gods Will" that the Czar should rule? So what functionally is the difference between one group imposing its will by force as opposed to another group imposing its will by force? Unless,of course, you still believe that God appoints earthly rulers. thompson Confusing reasoning here. First the Czar a vicious wretch I believe had long been disposed of. Are you approving of Communist/Socialist appropriation of resources because historically those resources had been appropriated from other groups ? Have a care Sir for it is my intention to assemble two cavalry groups one to enter Sacramento and the other Austin where under my leadership I expect, no demand, that that land which rightfully belongs to Mexico be returned at the earliest opportunity to its legitimate owners. As an example of the seriousness and inherent natural justice underlying my campaign I have as of this date issued the following..... Executive order number 1: Ransack Barstow, if it can be located, and spare no one or thing. . Executive order number 2:Any Native American who can be found to be reasonably sober is to be recruited into a regiment to be known as the Red Eagles whose objective will be to return by force those lands that rightfully belong to them. We cannot fail , right is on our side. God Bless my hardy troops and what remains of America. seeks: I thought I made that pretty clear in my post...I am sorry I was not more clear. The "communist/socialist took from the Czar and his thugs what the Czar and his thugs took from their predecessors. Just as your Queen and every other thug who claims that God says they are divinely ordained to rule. Your cavalry attack on the American southwest would differ in what functional way from how it was acquired by the U.S. As for finding Barstow it is where the railroad tracks cross the sewer. After you cross Death Valley you will notice the stench just follow it south till you find the rail line. thompson

seeksfemslave -> RE: Socialism (2/14/2008 12:44:21 PM)
To be issued to the the Commander of the Red Eagles, after he has sobered up. Executive Order No 3: A special detachment is to be assigned to find the CM troublemaker and general purpose ne'er do well who goes under the name of Mnottertail. When located he is to be interrogated and then scalped All his horses to be appropriated to be used in furtherance of our glorious cause.

ShaktiSama -> RE: Socialism (2/14/2008 1:16:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord Sigh. Since arguing history is so prone to interpretation, I'm trying to pick history we can all agree on. History is somewhat prone to interpretation, but there is still a minimum command of facts and definitions that are required before you can call it "arguing history" and not "peddling historical fantasy". The problem here is that you do not seem to have that minimum command of the facts. One of the prime fallacies of post-McCarthy America, for example, is the notion that aggression and defense are synonymous. It was a very, very bad sign when our government changed the named of the Department of War to the Department of Defense, a sign that we were ushering in an age of delusion. America did not defend her own people and rights by attacking Japan in the Pacific: what we did was defend our imperial interests. An empire, like a plantation staffed with slaves, is not a morally defensible piece of real estate. Even if it is fun and profitable to be the Massa, the people you intend to exploit in your imperial domain are not citizens who pay taxes and have legal rights. What is truly frightening and childish about modern Americans is that they can have military bases which span the globe, soldiers stationed in countless countries which should be sovereign states, and they still behave as they are fighting within their own home territory when they lose a soldier in Iraq. Guess what? We don't live there. It is childish to pretend that soldiers lost during acts of imperial aggression are morally identical to those lost defending one's home territory from attack. Defending an empire is not the same, morally or militarily or economically, as defending our own country and its borders. It isn't the same now and it wasn't the same in World War II, either; Japan was not fighting us for our own homeland, and they never intended to. Nor is it conceivable or even useful to posit that America could not defend her own borders, now or ever, from Japan. We could have held them off in World War II with less than a quarter of the military and economic output it took to achieve victory in both Europe and the Pacific. THIS is the kind of math that you are not able to grasp. There is a huge difference--at least an order of magnitude--between the force necessary to defend a country from outsiders, versus the force necessary to impose your imperial will on countries across the globe. And the reason that this math is important is that the obscene and unecessary money spent on US imperialism is what keeps the US tax base from being spent on the health and collective wellbeing of actual US citizens living within the 50 states. Again. 440 BILLION DOLLARS in Iraq alone. To achieve what good? How many students could be educated, how many hospital bills could be paid, how many roads and bridges could be repaired, how many space programs could be re-vamped and re-vitalized, how many homeless could be sheltered, how many mentally ill could be kept in treatment rather than turned out on the streets...how much GOOD could be done at home, rather than harm done abroad? What if the American people spent their money taking care of themselves, rather than hurting and destroying others? These are the "socialist" questions. And condemning people who dare to ask them as "pot-smoking hippies" is incredibly stupid. You want to cut off your support from the ugliest, fattest, laziest Welfare Momma in the history of the planet Earth? Cut off the US military-industrial complex. They're the ones spending 90% of your tax dollars, not the impoverished woman with the squalling brats at the supermarket.

kittinSol -> RE: Socialism (2/14/2008 1:21:08 PM)
That was fucking awesome.

LaTigresse -> RE: Socialism (2/14/2008 1:25:27 PM)
I was on welfare for a few months once, even had a couple of those brats (but they didn't scream in the grocery store...manners and all) and look what I have managed to accomplish 7401 posts in just over a year!

NorthernGent -> RE: Socialism (2/14/2008 1:29:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster ShaktiSama: "East Germany was not a "socialist" country. They were a "communist dictatorship"." I would use the term "State Capitalist" myself. The notion the Socialism requires an authoritarian governmental structure is a fallacy. Look up "Libertarian Socialism" on Wikipedia. That, btw, is the political philosophy with which I most closely identify. What you describe above is Social Anarchism. There's a not so subtle difference: Social Anarchism rejects hierarchy; Socialism embraces hierarchy, albeit as a stepping stone towards Communism.

Page: << < prev 7 8 [9] 10 11 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125