Let’s look at the Worlds Socialists countries

a reply to: crazyewok

You can always move to Galts Gultch down in South America. From what I hear it was some kind of Any Rand-inspired paradise offering up large plots of land for people.

Move to Somalia, I hear they don't have much of a government there, you can own a tank if you want to and do whatever you please.

Then there's the anarchy colony Freetown Christiania in Copenhagen, or Slab City out in the Sonoran Desert 156 miles northeast of San Diego.

The fact is, options are everywhere if you actually look. The fact that none of the people complaining have ever considered moving shows me they'd rather just complain. It's a lot easier to complain and eventually comply with society as it moves forward in time.

I mean, I get it -- it's easier and more entertaining to just complain. It's a whole other ball game to pack your bags and actually take a stand and set an example for others.

The Puritans did it, the Mormons did it...humans have been pioneering and leaving their homes for places that they think are more suitable for generations and generations.

It seems that today, humans are to lazy and do not want to be without the creature comforts they're used to. They'd rather keep those and meanwhile complain and carry on, run interference and cause disturbance rather than put their money where their mouths are.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

A tyranny of the majority? That doesn't sound very liberal of you. Liberalism is an attractive ideology because it requires less critical thinking and more "hope and change". The right doesn't import voters. You have to be fairly educated to take up the cause of libertarianism or even some forms of conservatism. I am not talking neocons (really trotskyites) here.

People will wake up one day and realize that they screwed themselves. Like in Europe that social safety net isn't designed for the unchecked hordes moving through. Eventually Europeans will be out numbered ( low birth rates)and will be oppressed through the democratic processes they uphold.

a reply to: snewpers

Well one way is marry someone from another country. They do it here in America all the time. Go online to some dating site for the country you want to move to.

IDK, why should *I* have to be responsible for figuring out how to enable you to move? You, apparently, are the one with the problem. The problem is yours, so the solution falls upon your shoulders.

I'm not required to serve you and everyone else that hates the current state of things some alternatives on a silver platter. That's pretty lazy if you ask me, and behaving like the "takers" here that so many of your disenchanted cohorts rail on about constantly.

No, I'm not required to provide you or anyone else with alternatives. If they are serious about hating the direction the majority has decided to go -- they need to take personal responsibility to find their own alternatives, create alternatives and man up, buck up and do what they need to do in order to be happy.

A minority of people on a boat don't get to decide to turn the boat around, and a minority of unhappy conservatives, libertarians and anarchists don't get to decide for the majority in America. They need to put their money with their mouth is, show to the world how "right they are" and just get off their butts and practice what they preach. I tire easily of armchair experts and backseat political drivers.

a reply to: NihilistSanta

It's only tyranny to you because you believe you somehow are being oppressed. That is your opinion, and it doesn't make it codified or fact.

If one finds the social contract of a country or society they live in untenable, the logical solution is to move. If the majority of people find value in the society which they live, what right does the minority have to force change upon them?

That, right there is tyranny. The minority forcing and exerting their will upon the masses. Isn't that what happens in a dictatorship?

No, you have it backwards and are trying to turn the argument around...not going to work, sorry.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

It doesn't work like that. Unless you are a third world migrant (then everything is subsidized and they roll out the red carpet and hand you some virgin brides) you pretty much have to be married to someone who is a citizen or have some exceptional skills in order gain citizenship in Europe or the majority of first world nations.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

So you will stop your activism then? You have no right to force change. Actually what you have said has invalidated everything you said prior. You even revel in the fact that you have some perceived majority. I guess during the bush era you kept your mouth shut sat at home and looked into migrating to another country?

a reply to: NihilistSanta

Look, I'm not moving and am happy here. There are alternatives if you want to research them.

The burden is not on ME to research these alternatives and present them to you on a silver platter for you to pick and choose or turn your nose up at.

Hell, I don't know buy a huge barge and seastead. Move to a third world country and create your own little community. None of you guys will do that though because you all enjoy the modern conveniences that come along with 1st world status.

That's the irony. It's all talk, as none of the people I know who rail on and on about the government this, or socialist that will ever actually DO ANYTHING about it.

Bold people in human history have actually done things like move across oceans and entire continents in order to secure a more favorable life for themselves and family.

Things must not be that bad yet, or the flush toilet and reality TV are to addicting to leave behind.

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
a reply to: MystikMushroom

So you will stop your activism then? You have no right to force change. Actually what you have said has invalidated everything you said prior. You even revel in the fact that you have some perceived majority. I guess during the bush era you kept your mouth shut sat at home and looked into migrating to another country?

I did! I did keep my mouth shut, and I did look at options in Canada. ictoria, BC specifically. I knew, however that I wasn't upset at the fundamental direction America was going -- simply the POTUS. That alone isn't reason enough to move.

Time shows that we as a species are moving in a more liberal, progressive direction. America will look like Europe of today in about 20-30 years. We have always trailed behind our European cousins.

So yes, I do put my money where my mouth is and I do practice what I preach.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

That makes no sense. First I am not asking for your help or research I have done it on my own. Next the irony is you say minorities should not be able to have a say over the majority. So I guess all of the liberal causes of glbtq, race, etc are invalid because they are attempting to change the status quo in their host populations? Getting hard to continue this conversation at this point. You mention bold people moving. That was imperialism LOL.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: Edumakated

It is amazing how they always leave out that the US military is what keeps many of these little countries from being over run. If the US wasn't having to step up and play bodyguard for all these other countries,

The U.S. doesn't " Protect " these " Little Countries "

The U.S. only " Protects " it's own self interest and U.S. investment in these " Little Countries "

If the U.S. is the worlds " Protector " , where was it when Ukraine was over-run a few months ago?

Oh i forgot........................There are no U.S. owned companies in Ukraine.

The US does not necessarily intervene in every conflict and most certainly there are political ramifications in which countries we decide to assist. However, the fact remains that the military might of the United States is what keeps much of the world stable. Smaller European countries are not burdened with huge military budgets, nor do people call on them when in need.

I don't necessarily agree with the US intervening in every backwater tin pot dictator's affairs, but the reality is we do and hardly anyone else is going to step in to take that role.

The bottom line is that it is apples and oranges comparing what works in small homogenous countries to the US.

a reply to: NateTheAnimator

It certainly wouldn't have anything to do with Americans penchant for living beyond their means and never saving a dime. That would be Un-American to accept responsibility for ones own actions, after all it is much easier to blame some evil banker or those darn capitalist companies that never pay them enough for a car for each family member or a new I-Phone every time one comes out.

Its those evil companies fault that they borrow money to purchase all those things instead of saving the money over time. Americans are spoiled rotten and need and want and have to have everything now. They sure cannot be bothered to budget and save money, after all our politicians are such great teachers at how to spend and save. The social programs we do have are going broke because they practice the same mismanagement skills Americans do at home, spend more than you have and borrow more and spend it too.

To me balance is the key. Just as in life or anything too much of anything or too less will cause an imbalance and consequently some kind of disease or in the case of society some social disease will come about.

Such as in the US where the over emphasis on capitalism and to placate the rich the system has been high jacked and has created humongous social problems that may destroy the nation and the world eventually.

A healthy combination of socialistic programs and some healthy capitalism is probably a prescription for success.

But vigilance must be maintained or what is happening in America can occur: too much wealth for a few people.

A reliance on magical thinking dogma, such as “the market will find its way” so we don’t need any market controls. Or the socialistic dogmas of total control of the market are both in excess bad.

At least the communist admitted their system was overbalanced and they adjusted.

Will capitalism do the same?
TIme WillTell

a reply to: Willtell

Bernie is a truth teller, when it comes to many of the problems...

...but his econometrics are an utter disaster.

1.) The government doesn't HAVE any money... they only have other peoples money.

2.) Because "men are not angels", there will be graft and corruption in ANY bureaucracy. Adding more bureaucracy to fix the rot in the bureaucracy is not a great fix.



files.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: MystikMushroom

what right does the minority have to force change upon them?

And yet that is what we see in the US on a regular basis. Minorities have been dictating change for decades here and when they don't get their way they bring in big brother to force their desires upon the majority. How many states voted down gay marriage to get it reversed by a higher court ruling? You are cherry picking facts here. Yes the US should not be afraid to look at other countries for new ideas [not that there are really any new ones just re-hashes of old], but we also need to get out of the gov't knows best mind-set. Politicians make devils deals with us, hardly anyone reads the fine print or in the case of Obama care any print. When a new bill gets made into law how many of us actually look at what the sponser is getting out of it? Hence why you see so many people leery of giving the politicians anymore power. If the gov't cannot run the socialized VA care what makes you think that they could do better with a universal health-care system? Because they tell us they can or is it because we want the pretty words to make us feel like they give a rat @$$ about us? Notice that no one who signed the ACA was willing to drop their own special coverage!

a reply to: DBCowboy


1. Why not?

2. You don't think the US is Socialist? Which definition, from what decade, are you using for the term "Socialist"?

a reply to: Leonidas

He's thinking Hitler when he thinks socialism not Denmark or Sweden.

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
a reply to: MystikMushroom

That makes no sense. First I am not asking for your help or research I have done it on my own. Next the irony is you say minorities should not be able to have a say over the majority. So I guess all of the liberal causes of glbtq, race, etc are invalid because they are attempting to change the status quo in their host populations? Getting hard to continue this conversation at this point. You mention bold people moving. That was imperialism LOL.

There's a huge difference in equality for LGBT people, African Americans and people of ethnic backgrounds vs. simply being upset at having to "share".

Equality is not the same thing as being upset about taxes. Not being killed because of your race or sexuality is on an entirely other level than being upset that you now don't have to buy insurance and it's paid for by your taxes.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Willtell

Honest question, do you want to do away with the Constitution and Bill of Rights? Because I don't see how you can have socialism here in the US and keep those documents.

Why couldn't you have both. Honest question.

a reply to: hangedman13

That is not even close to the same thing.

African Americans, LGBT and others are born the way they are. No one is "born a conservative" or "born an anarchist" and can only find true happiness in life if their biologically programmed inner conservative can be set free.

These minority groups you speak of are asking to be treated the same, not better than everyone else. They are not mandating that their minority group be in charge of society or dictate to the majority how everyone else should be treated.

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
a reply to: Willtell

Contrary to popular propaganda, Canada is NOT a country. It is a British colony just like Australia, new Zealand, Belize, etc.

Cheers - Dave

Good Grief! I keep forgetting that!