Reply With QuoteAlready debunked as crap. Ignore, everyone.
(Adapted from an earlier thread. The "Hows" and "Whys" deserve their own examination.)
----------------------------------------------------------
Socialism and communism are not identical, but the differences between them are far less important than the similarities.
Both feature schemes where a central government (which isn't in communist plans but is always brought in when someone actually tries to run a communist government) judges how much people should be paid. The pay is usually based on what the govt decides they need rather than by how much they contributed.
This results in workers realizing after a few years, that working harder won't benefit them much. Some work harder anyway, others decide to slack off and/or spend more time with family etc. Then as time goes on, the harder workers see the others' example, and while most keep working hard, a few more slack off. They cycle keeps repeating with a few more reducing their effort, then later a few more etc.
Socialist or communist societies usually wind up deteriorating, because there is little incentive to work hard, aside from personal work ethics. And even those with good ethics, tend to deteriorate over a long period of time, for similar reasons.
The long, concentrated periods of difficult work, effort, and sacrifice that advance a society, come more and more from only the diminishing number who maintain their hard-work ethic and loyalty in the face of increasing indifference and lack of material reward. While those people are rightly regarded as heros or pillars, there is far less incentive to do what they do, in socialistic or communist societies. The incentive is greater in free-market societies where people can work for the chance of great rewards in addition to great moral satisfaction.
So socialistic or communistic societies invaribly lose, in competition with free-market societies. For that reason, they abhor competition, and often expend great effort to crush it or isolate themselves from it... only to lose even more from its lack.
American congressmen and other political animals, often lost track of their real jobs - protecting people's rights and defending them against theft, fraud, and coercion. And they take the easier road of getting re-elected by taking things from small numbers of the more affluent, and giving them away to larger number of the less affluent.
As this scheme gets enacted into law, it quickly deteriorates to a pattern similar to what I said above: deciding what pay people get based on what they "need" rather than what they earn. In some countries, this is done by making the government, the official employer. In others (such as the U.S.), it's done by letting the government take money out of people paychecks (with far more taken from those who earn a lot), and simultaneoulsy set up programs to pay out to those who earn less. The result is the same: Government decides who gets paid how much, usually according to what they "need" rather than what they earn.
The politicians who set this up, often didn't intend to implement socialism. But what they wind up with, isn't much different from it. More importantly, the ultimate results are no different, either.
"The social contract exists so that everyone doesn’t have to squat in the dust holding a spear to protect his woman and his meat all day every day. It does not exist so that the government can take your spear, your meat, and your woman because it knows better what to do with them." - Instapundit.com
Already debunked as crap. Ignore, everyone.
Show us not the aim without the way, for ends and means on earth are so entangled
That changing one, you change the other too; each different path brings other ends in view
i wouldn't worry about it LA, a real socialist or a real communist would have no chance of being elected in the US.
Heck in Ireland, of our 166 TD's (our lower house), there are 5 real socialists (out of 166) and in our seanad, there are none.
e. e. cummings is my hero.
Yeah.Originally Posted by Archaix
Go tell this to the Scandinavians.
Do we Westerners need to next be sold on Operation Enduring Scandinavian Freedom to liberate them from a lack of homelessness, lack of poverty,, UHC, etc?
Archaix (04-13-2012), Corrigan (04-18-2012), Malcolm Wright (04-16-2012)
Welfare isn't socialism. Socialism is state ownership of the means of production. Just FYI.
"All that stuff I was taught about evolution, embryology, Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell [the bible] teaches us how to run all our public policy and everything in society." Rep. Paul Broun (R)
"I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won't have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be!" -- Jerry Falwell
Like the mythical dwarves they created...aside from personal work ethics.
Wasn't our welfare model based on the Swedish model in the beginning? The men (Swedes), at the time, would NEVAR! think to shirk their duties and responsibilities. They made sure their wives and children would be provided for (medical, education, etc) if they died in a whaling accident, logging, etc.
Different people have different work ethics. I recently read an online book authored by this British bloke, who developed their sniper school for the British military, about Haiti. Real man's man of the time. Lots of world traveling into dangerous places. In the 1800's, there was this saying that the only thing that works in Haiti were white men, black women and asses. Just saying, we working historical here. Apparently, the black males like being Generals. So much so, there was 1 General for every underofficer and common soldier. And there were no white women there, so they couldn't see your work ethic or lack thereof. Good book.
I Pledge Resistance, to the Nazi Flag, of the United Police States of America, and to the Private Federal Reserves for which it stands. One Corporation, under Goldman Sachs, unaccountable, with poverty and slavery for all.
As I pointed out, our present Congressmen are perfectly good at implementing something that takes on the bad parts of socialism, without ever becoming "real socialists", as you call them. In fact, they've been doing it for decades now.
There seems to be a notion that if it isn't "real socialism", absolute, picture-perfect textbook versions of socialism, then it must not be anything to worry about. That, of course, is laughable. It's also one of the more common dodges used by people who want to deflect the subject from whether the principal traits of socialism are at work in the U.S.
In fact, the overtaxation (and constant demonization) of the people who earn the most in our society, along with the increase of payments and goodies sent to those who earn less, does as much toward breaking down the desire for hard work and advancement, as any "pure socialism" could.
"Socialism" doesn't have to be "pure", to be destructive.
"The social contract exists so that everyone doesn’t have to squat in the dust holding a spear to protect his woman and his meat all day every day. It does not exist so that the government can take your spear, your meat, and your woman because it knows better what to do with them." - Instapundit.com
^^
Does Anyone Hate Freedom More Than An American?
March 18, 2012
By Adam Bilzerian
The United States of America was once renowned as the freest nation on the planet. Launched with a beautiful Constitution and Bill of Rights; the American people were guaranteed a level of freedom the world had never witnessed before. Since that founding, one generation after another have voted for politicians who set out to systematically destroy the very documents and principles that led to freedom and prosperity which propelled the country from a start up to the most powerful nation on the planet.
It is one thing to have no conception of freedom. If a person is born in an oppressive nation that does not allow the free flow of information, then he may not understand what is possible. Or he may legitimately fear the consequences of demonstrating against such a tyranny. A completely understandable position that does not necessarily mean a person or people hate freedom or disdain liberty.
It is an altogether different situation when one has a constitution which carefully and thoughtfully explains the dangers of governmental power, and provides protections that guarantee the ability to combat such power if it starts to become oppressive or intrusive. This Constitution and Bill of Rights also guarantee the ability to access and publicize information. In addition, most modern day Americans have an unlimited ability to research historical information on the internet, which would confirm the validity and truth of the Founding Father’s wisdom.
Americans had to ignore this information as well as their own Constitution and Bill of Rights in order to actively destroy their freedom by voting for politicians who legislate and nominate Supreme Court Justices who destroy their guaranteed liberties. Through Supreme Court rulings and legislation like the NDAA and Patriot Act, Americans now have only 3 of the applicable 8 amendments to the Bill of Rights left intact. And as a result, the government can now spy on Americans in their homes, on their computers, on their phones, and in almost any form they want without a warrant. In fact, the federal government is currently developing applications to monitor Facebook and Twitter and also building a spy drone fleet that will inevitably be used on American soil. With the passing of the NDAA, the government can detain and even murder American citizens without legal proceeding. If a citizen can be detained or imprisoned secretly by his government, then he has no rights.
With this expansion of federal power, the government has initiated an unconstitutional and illogical war on drugs, perpetrated undeclared wars in Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and unconstitutionally stolen resources from industrious Americans for socialist programs. The latter has only bankrupted the nation and will serve to harm far more than it has helped when these programs collapse. It has come to the point where Americans just accept warrantless searches, an overreaching IRS, and a government that inhabits their bedrooms and boardrooms.
Americans aren’t allowed to decide what to put in their own bodies (i.e drugs), how to use their bodies (i.e prostitution), when to end their lives, or even how to conduct their business. Americans now need permits to drive cars, register boats, travel, build on their own land, open businesses, invest for other people, teach in public schools, hunt, fish, skydive solo, scuba dive, carry firearms, etc… It’s hard to find an activity for which an American doesn’t need a permit.
There are also codes that Americans must comply with. They tell Americans how to dress, how to drive, how many people they can marry, and how to run their businesses. For example, many towns in Louisiana have enacted indecency laws that outlaw the exposure of one’s underpants. Almost every jurisdiction has restrictions on what level of nudity is legal. Businesses, restaurants, and builders have to comply with federal health codes, employment codes, and fire codes.
In the 1950′s, 1 in 20 occupations required a government permit, now it is 1 in 3.*The economic regulation has gotten to such an egregious level that four Americans were actually put in prison for importing lobsters in bags instead of boxes. The federal government used an obscure Honduran law to prosecute the case even though the Honduran government said they didn’t care. Complicated and expensive laws such as Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank increase the compliance costs for corporations, and ultimately hurt the consumer. These regulations have been proven to be completely ineffective by the 2008 financial collapse and the Madoff Scandal.
As the video below outlines, there are so many federal, state, and county criminal and civil laws that no one could ever know them all. Unfortunately, ignorance of the law is no defense in the American legal system.
As if that wasn’t enough, the government is now cracking down on peaceful protests like the Occupy Wall Street movement. Over the last decade, the government has militarized the American police force and allowed Israel to teach top American police officials how to treat peaceful protestors like Palestinians (see http://thebilzerianreport.com/?p=495*for details). President Obama recently signed the “Anti-Protest Bill” H.R. 347 which makes it a crime to enter or remain in an area where an official is visiting even if the person does not know it’s illegal to be in that area and has no reason to believe there may be an official there.
America now has the highest incarceration rate in the world. In fact, the situation is so dire that America has less than 5% of the world’s population but yet 25% of world’s prisoners. America went from the most free nation to the least free, and the vast majority of Americans seem to not only love their lack of freedom, but continually beg for more and more government intrusions to “guarantee their safety.”
One of the central tenants of any constitutional republic is a free and unbiased media. The US Constitution guaranteed such a free press, but through government intervention in the Federal Communications Commission and the regulation of the media, the US now has one of the least free medias of any developed nation. Multi-national conglomerates have created a monopoly in which 90% of the media is in the hands of 6 major corporations which are controlled by Jewish Americans who support Israel. As of late, the government has also been cracking down on reporters who expose corruption and hypocrisy. In 2012, the US dropped to 47th in the World Press Freedom Index.
While the mainstream media complains about voter fraud in other countries, America has had an appalling record of election integrity over the last decade. A democracy is measured when a non-mainstream candidate seeks election. In the United States there have been at least two documented cases of voter fraud aimed at keeping the one non-mainstream candidate, Ron Paul, from winning the republican nomination (See:*http://thebilzerianreport.com/?p=777*for details).*The history of American voter fraud dates back, at least, to the Bush/Gore debacle which embarrassed America in front of the international community.
With the constitutional walls that protect Americans from their government crumbling all around them, the American people have one last chance to shrink their government and return to their constitutional principles. Fortunately, the presidential candidacy of the ideologically consistent Ron Paul let’s us know exactly how many Americans still respect liberty. Ron Paul is a strict constitutionalist who looks at every piece of legislation and policy decision by how constitutional it is and how it promotes liberty. He is a military veteran with no skeletons in his closet, and is beyond reproach when it comes accusations of corruption and inconsistency. Every other candidate in the race is establishment and is for, or has signed in the case of Obama, legislation that destroys the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. All of the Republican candidates have stated on record that they are for an unconstitutional and disastrous future conflict in Iran for Israel’s security. Therefore, we can estimate the amount of Americans who appreciate liberty by the percentage of votes Ron Paul gets. By this measure at least 80% of Americans hate freedom today.
I Pledge Resistance, to the Nazi Flag, of the United Police States of America, and to the Private Federal Reserves for which it stands. One Corporation, under Goldman Sachs, unaccountable, with poverty and slavery for all.
Freedom&Liberty (04-13-2012)
but according to http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/brief...ernational.cfm is the fourth lowest in terms as tax take as a percentage of gdp. of the countries compared, only turkey, chile and mexico are lower (although the figures are from 2008). the tax paid by Americans is a third less than the OECD average.In fact, the overtaxation (and constant demonization) of the people who earn the most in our society, along with the increase of payments and goodies sent to those who earn less, does as much toward breaking down the desire for hard work and advancement, as any "pure socialism" could.
"Socialism" doesn't have to be "pure", to be destructive.
e. e. cummings is my hero.
One only needs to look at the present administration to find the answer.WHY is socialism (or communism) bad for a country?
Why? Because they know what those words mean?
Show us not the aim without the way, for ends and means on earth are so entangled
That changing one, you change the other too; each different path brings other ends in view
Yes, we know this. Republican morons cannot tell the difference.
Most people pushing socialism (or communism) seem to use the "argument" that the socialistic characteristics of whatever government we are examining, aren't PURE socialism.
As if that mattered a tinker's damn.
The point of the OP is that governments that try to dictate how much people are paid (or how much they keep) acccording to what govt thinks they need, rather than what they would earn in a free market, is:
(a) Socialistic, and
(b) Unfair and dangerously debilitating to the entire economy.
In fact, such schemes have usually resulted in widespread, massive poverty, starvation, and even riots and mass murders by government upon their people. Whether they are called "socialist", "communist", or "progressive".
The fact that it wasn't somehow "pure" is irrelevant to the point of astonishment. The big-government pushers must really be scraping the bottom of the barrel if that's the argument they feel is best.
"The social contract exists so that everyone doesn’t have to squat in the dust holding a spear to protect his woman and his meat all day every day. It does not exist so that the government can take your spear, your meat, and your woman because it knows better what to do with them." - Instapundit.com
The greater tragedy is that earlier mass movements trying to change their gov't to socialism, were attempting to escape unbridled mercantilism, or capitalism corrupted by whatever non-socialist despot was running the country at the time. The most blatent examples include Russia and China, both of which allowed widespread, massive poverty, starvation, etc. well before communists came to power.
If the capitalist republic were a viable choice at all times, the masses would be always be skeptical of choosing another form. Since capitalism has proven it is open to corruption involving gov't (corruption going both ways), and the result of that corruption sometimes involves artificial ceilings on wages, much of the working class has a healthy skepticism of capitalism. Fortunately for progressives and the majority of the working class, they have learned the distinction between communism and socialism. We're only waiting for most of the right wing to catch up.
Last edited by 9ball8; 04-15-2012 at 08:02 PM. Reason: more starvation, etc.
None of those countries had capitalist market economies previous to the advent of communism. They were run by hereditary aristocratic dictatorships that essentially ruled by divine right.
In any event, the problem with communism is the rejection of markets as a means to regulate production via supply and demand.
Neither country had much of a capitalist economy -good point. A better example of capitalism and politics corrupting one another would be the US, before Teddy Roosevelt. Since most people worked in agriculture thruout the period, that muted the effects of labor organization and business leaders' reaction to the phenomena. Effects of distorting cost of labor -by strike busting, laws restricting organization of labor, importing foreign labor to cross picket lines, etc.- became clear after the US changed over to a more urban economy.
If we want to regulate capitalism -and we must because human beings are involved- then measures must be taken to keep the leadership from screwing things up. Whether that leadership is political or economic is not very relevant. Captains of industry or central planning ministers, both have proven quite capable of trying to bend the rules for their own agenda.
Cyclone Ranger (04-16-2012)
Because it is contrary to the Constitution.WHY is socialism (or communism) bad for a country?
Wrong as usual.... you republinazi moron.
optimus (04-17-2012)
Military is one of the largest socialistic institution. Am I wrong?
Do unto other nations what you would want other nations to do unto us.
Oh, stop messing up conversations with "facts".
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks