thompsonx
Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Archer
quote:
ORIGINAL: thompsonx
quote:
ORIGINAL: Archer
I feel so poorly represented until I get to Invisable Black's definition of socialism. then I feel a bit vindicated.
Socialism is efficient, at spreading the wealth, the assumption that spreading it according to the current electorate at any given time believes to be "fair" is where I part with socialism.
There is your first problem. You have given a faulty definition of socialism which you are correct to disagree with.
Actually I didn't give a definition I expressed a sympathy fo the definition that Invisable Black gave, but you seem to be on a tear with others so I kinda expect the adversarial crap rather than a real conversation.IIf by adversarial you mean that I disagree with you then you are correct. The definition you posted for socialism is the one I have disagreed with...whether it is your definition or someone elses it is what you posted.
BTW the irony of smacking someone for a lack English understanding combined with the Plane vs Plain word choice was hilarious even if unaddressed.
No irony at all. I question your understanding of a point and you would rather talk about a spelling error instead of addressing the question at hand.
My leaning towards capitalism isn't based on the pipe dream that I will actually be at the top (as mentioned earlier in the thread) but rather that my efforts make that at least a potential outcome, no matter how unlikely.
In the 200+ years of our republic would you please give us a list of those who have made that theoretical jump.
A list of self made millionaires in the past 200 years is simple enough to come up with all you need do is google.
If it was that simple then why did you not do it?
Some considerations to make before you call someone a "self made millionaire"
What Forbes means by "entirely self-made" is that the fortunes were not inherited but derived from business activity. Does this make the Forbes definition of "entirely self-made" reasonable? After all, if someone starts with modest resources, does well in business, and makes a fortune, isn't it fair to attribute that wealth to individual merit? Not really, though Forbes would like us to think so.
To see what's wrong with this idea, it's easiest to start with criteria that ought to disqualify a person from claiming to be "entirely self-made." After we've applied these criteria, we can see who's left in the pool. So, then, let us scratch from the list of the self-made anyone whose accumulation of wealth has been aided by any of the following:
Laws concerning property or contracts, and the public agencies that enforce such laws
Public schools or employees educated in public schools
Employees or customers who rely on public transportation
Roads, bridges, airports, sewers, water treatment plants, harbors, or other utilities built and maintained at public expense
Mail systems built and operated at public expense
Public hospitals and government-licensed physicians
Health and safety regulations created and enforced at public expense
Police and fire protection provided at public expense
Public libraries and parks
Any public amenities that add value to commercial or residential real estate
Government contracts
Government-provided business incentives
Regulatory agencies, such as the Federal Trade Commission or the Securities and Exchange Commission, that sustain trust in the stock market
A government-granted license permitting the exclusive use of a broadcast channel
The Internet
A form of currency legitimated and backed by a stable government
Social welfare programs that keep the poor from rebelling
The U.S. military
If we use these criteria to determine who can legitimately claim to be "entirely self-made," the Forbes number drops dramatically. It's not 270 out of 400. In fact, it's precisely zero.
If not for the legal and political arrangements that we create and maintain as a society -- with contributions from us all, costs to us all, and benefits to us all -- and if not for what we call "the public infrastructure," nobody could accumulate wealth. In short, there can be no private wealth without common wealth.
My averssion to socialism is based on the fact that nobody seems to define FAIR in a way that resonates with me when determining at the government level what is the fair way to divide wealth.
When one defines socialism in such a manner it is easy to disagree with it. Why don't you address your concerns with what socialism acutally is?
So let me see Socialism is not an economic system with the redistribution of wealth by force of government as a very central tenant? Now of course the fact that even the self proclaimed socialist have a wide range of subdivided schools of socialist thought to draw from so that anything short of a textbook would leave out enough for the motivated adversary to play gotcha with.
And as long as you keep posting bullshit definitions of socialism it will continue to be quite easy to disagree with your own bullshit definition.
I'm good with some small s socialism being in the mix, the difference is my preffered mix has a much smaller portion than the current government in many areas. I believe that the government taxing me to mandate a charitable giving situation works contrary to the spirit of charity as a human value. That the government taking over things that used to be the function of charity eventually works against the true benefit to both the giver and the receiver of assistance.
Perhaps you might want to read a little history before you say such assinine things. You clearly have no clue as to the plight of the not rich in this country until relatively recently. Private charity did not work and does not work. why? Because the rich could give a fuck less about the not rich.
Asnine OK Mr Burro, Charirty raises up both the giver and the receiver. What part of that statement do you have problems with? Forced charity raises up neither the giver nor the receiver. That is my point.
And my point was and is that private charity has never worked. When the government takes your money and hires cops or firemen that is socialism just the same as when the government takes your money and gives it to ADM,Microsoft and a slew of others. That does not seem to bother you but if the govt. gives your money to some poor person who could use a meal then you are opposed to that
The flaws of capitalism is not the point in debate here the flaws of socialism are part of the topic.
The fact that charity is forced when government taxes to provide for it, takes all the nobility out of the act.
I wouldn't argue that the level of charity has historically been sufficient, but that is not a matter of economic theories but the hearts of men not being right. Socialism does not change and cannot change the hearts of men.
For fucks sake I am not talking about the hearts of men I am talking about feeding hungry people
Support the general welfare and provide specific welfare are two very different concepts.
So welfare to the rich is ok because of "trickle down"? But welfare to the not rich is bad because?
quote:
Socialism is based on the idea that it is a legitimate government function to involve itself with how wealth is distributed, I find no supporting evidence for this function in the Constitution.
I am sure you would agree that the constitution gives congress the power to tax. The constitution does not list for what the congress may disburse these tax revenues
Since you quoted the relevant section earlier why is it so difficult to remember "Provide for the common welfare" now?
How about YOU quote the actual constitution rather than misquote it thompsonx,
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice and ensure domestic tranquility, PROVIDE for the common defense, PROMOTE the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America.
You sit corrected
OMG I said provide for the general welfare and the actual words are promote the general welfare...And the difference would be?
< Message edited by thompsonx -- 2/10/2010 8:21:35 AM >
|
RE: the new socialism - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread