Socialism: Legal Plunder Premised on False Philanthropy

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: ScepticScot

If by real democracy you mean pure democracy, that system is simply tyranny masquerading under another another name. No, there aren't many pure democracies and for good reason.

No I mean democracy in the modern common usage.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Most people who use it in the modern common usage think they mean a pure democracy.

a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

And the other side, the Facists and Nazi's and so many other right wing governments and systems, they never took whatever they wanted from the rightful owners?

I'll call BS on Bastiat, with the evidence of a history he never experienced.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
there is a level of socialism that is necessary, it must be balanced and kept in check.
Public hospitals for the poor, welfare for those who need support in the short term, education, a long list
We live in a community
Forms of Socialism kept in check is not a bad thing

The problem with the far right is that they cannot conceive of anything that isn't them or the far left.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

And the other side, the Facists and Nazi's and so many other right wing governments and systems, they never took whatever they wanted from the rightful owners?

I'll call BS on Bastiat, with the evidence of a history he never experienced.

Bastiat’s ideas apply to both left and right and for the same reasons. Give The Laws a read. It’s timeless. It’s only pamphlet size and not dense.

The Nazis and the fascists operated on the same contradictions as the socialists, and utilized the laws to subvert justice itself, “legal plunder” (laws to posses property and liberty), under the guise of a false philanthropy.

Race struggle and class struggle are not much different in my mind. Both exploit the in-group bias. And both fascists and socialists were extremely collectivists and utilized central planning.

I don’t think any of this has to do with left and right, rather slavery and freedom.

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf

originally posted by: Raggedyman
there is a level of socialism that is necessary, it must be balanced and kept in check.
Public hospitals for the poor, welfare for those who need support in the short term, education, a long list
We live in a community
Forms of Socialism kept in check is not a bad thing

Socialism is a bad thing for the reasons Bastiat stated.

Socialism or statism isn't required for any of those, and it is a fallacy to suggest otherwise. Bastiat predicts in the same book this fallacy.

"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain."

The right-wingers, however, don't even want to mention the progenitors of their ideas, the Nazi's and the Fascists. They want to claim that they are the moderates and the rationalists, which are precisely the same claims made by the ultra right theorists upon which their philosophy is based.

Right now, many countries are banding together to put in place mechanisms to control the hate speech that has promoted so many acts of domestic and foreign terrorism. I sort of fear where this might go, but the real and present danger is greater at the moment.

If we, the moderates who disavow both left and right extremes, do not vociferously, rationally and peacefully oppose the extremists and their philosophies, then the society we inherit will be controlled by those extremists who, in the past have shown that they will ignore our rights and do so with violence.

If you see yourself as a moderate, who doesn't agree to extremist voices, it is your duty to answer the call for reason, rule of law, compassion and non-violence.

Don't let ATS become a right-wing (or left wing) platform. Let it be a place where we can express our opinions reasonably and know that they will be considered rationally. It can only be so with the unfettered voices of every member.

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

And the other side, the Facists and Nazi's and so many other right wing governments and systems, they never took whatever they wanted from the rightful owners?

I'll call BS on Bastiat, with the evidence of a history he never experienced.

Bastiat’s ideas apply to both left and right and for the same reasons. Give The Laws a read. It’s timeless. It’s only pamphlet size and not dense.

The Nazis and the fascists operated on the same contradictions as the socialists, and utilized the laws to subvert justice itself, “legal plunder” (laws to posses property and liberty), under the guise of a false philanthropy.

Race struggle and class struggle are not much different in my mind. Both exploit the in-group bias. And both fascists and socialists were extremely collectivists and utilized central planning.

I don’t think any of this has to do with left and right, rather slavery and freedom.

And what sort of freedom do you have?

Surely the diametric opposite of freedom is incarceration. Look at incarceration stats, by country. They are far more 'real' and 'credible' than the political pamphlet of a theorist.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

And the other side, the Facists and Nazi's and so many other right wing governments and systems, they never took whatever they wanted from the rightful owners?

I'll call BS on Bastiat, with the evidence of a history he never experienced.

Bastiat’s ideas apply to both left and right and for the same reasons. Give The Laws a read. It’s timeless. It’s only pamphlet size and not dense.

The Nazis and the fascists operated on the same contradictions as the socialists, and utilized the laws to subvert justice itself, “legal plunder” (laws to posses property and liberty), under the guise of a false philanthropy.

Race struggle and class struggle are not much different in my mind. Both exploit the in-group bias. And both fascists and socialists were extremely collectivists and utilized central planning.

I don’t think any of this has to do with left and right, rather slavery and freedom.

And what sort of freedom do you have?

Surely the diametric opposite of freedom is incarceration. Look at incarceration stats, by country. They are far more 'real' and 'credible' than the political pamphlet of a theorist.

My point was you cannot discount an author without having read his work. I assumed that was obvious.

a reply to: chr0naut

I’m not a moderate. Moderates do little more than get in the way. Abolitionists were called extremists. Martin Luther King was a radical. None of them were moderates. Moderates only hinder their cause and even they knew that.

The mechanisms that control speech will lead to violence long before the speech does. Suppression of our human rights is not the answer.

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf
a reply to: chr0naut

I’m not a moderate. Moderates do little more than get in the way. Abolitionists were called extremists. Martin Luther King was a radical. None of them were moderates. Moderates only hinder their cause and even they knew that.

The mechanisms that control speech will lead to violence long before the speech does. Suppression of our human rights is not the answer.

I know, real moderates are, and have been, almost silent - doers rather than talkers. Any analysis of those that talk politics, and those that are silent citizens, reveals that.

I would much rather that they all express themselves, so that there is balance.

They will express themselves if they see a need. It has happened all around the world and all through history.

Do we have to wait until we have another Venezuela or Arab Spring, but in the US (or my country, too)? Or can we be more civilized and savvy than that?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf
a reply to: chr0naut

I’m not a moderate. Moderates do little more than get in the way. Abolitionists were called extremists. Martin Luther King was a radical. None of them were moderates. Moderates only hinder their cause and even they knew that.

The mechanisms that control speech will lead to violence long before the speech does. Suppression of our human rights is not the answer.

I know, real moderates are, and have been, almost silent - doers rather than talkers. Any analysis of those that talk politics, and those that are silent citizens, reveals that.

I would much rather that they all express themselves, so that there is balance.

They will express themselves if they see a need. It has happened all around the world and all through history.

Do we have to wait until we have another Venezuela or Arab Spring, but in the US (or my country, too)? Or can we be more civilized and savvy than that?

Well, yes. Man is a political animal. Everyone has a civic duty to participate in politics.

But most of all, it is necessary that people should learn to endure having their sentiments outraged.

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf
a reply to: chr0naut

I’m not a moderate. Moderates do little more than get in the way. Abolitionists were called extremists. Martin Luther King was a radical. None of them were moderates. Moderates only hinder their cause and even they knew that.

The mechanisms that control speech will lead to violence long before the speech does. Suppression of our human rights is not the answer.

I know, real moderates are, and have been, almost silent - doers rather than talkers. Any analysis of those that talk politics, and those that are silent citizens, reveals that.

I would much rather that they all express themselves, so that there is balance.

They will express themselves if they see a need. It has happened all around the world and all through history.

Do we have to wait until we have another Venezuela or Arab Spring, but in the US (or my country, too)? Or can we be more civilized and savvy than that?

Well, yes. Man is a political animal. Everyone has a civic duty to participate in politics.

But most of all, it is necessary that people should learn to endure having their sentiments outraged.

Perhaps, but there are some damaged individuals who take that outrage and commit horrible crimes all the while believing that they have mandate to do so.

How do we counter that except through reasoned and consistent conversation? You usually can't guess who will snap and you can't (and shouldn't) prosecute all on the basis of a slight possibility.

It is a dilemma but one that I believe can be resolved through fair communication. The only barrier to that is "ruffled feathers".

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf
a reply to: chr0naut

I’m not a moderate. Moderates do little more than get in the way. Abolitionists were called extremists. Martin Luther King was a radical. None of them were moderates. Moderates only hinder their cause and even they knew that.

The mechanisms that control speech will lead to violence long before the speech does. Suppression of our human rights is not the answer.

I know, real moderates are, and have been, almost silent - doers rather than talkers. Any analysis of those that talk politics, and those that are silent citizens, reveals that.

I would much rather that they all express themselves, so that there is balance.

They will express themselves if they see a need. It has happened all around the world and all through history.

Do we have to wait until we have another Venezuela or Arab Spring, but in the US (or my country, too)? Or can we be more civilized and savvy than that?

Well, yes. Man is a political animal. Everyone has a civic duty to participate in politics.

But most of all, it is necessary that people should learn to endure having their sentiments outraged.

Perhaps, but there are some damaged individuals who take that outrage and commit horrible crimes all the while believing that they have mandate to do so.

How do we counter that except through reasoned and consistent conversation? You usually can't guess who will snap and you can't (and shouldn't) prosecute all on the basis of a slight possibility.

It is a dilemma but one that I believe can be resolved through fair communication. The only barrier to that is "ruffled feathers".

People are definitely motivated by ideas, sometimes bad ones, The best thing we can do is prove their ideas wrong. We have to be able to talk about these ideas in order to do so.

We cannot stifle that process. It’s how many societies have overcome their tyrannical past. I sincerely believe progress can be directly correlated with the ability to speak freely. Speech is the cure for violence.

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf
a reply to: chr0naut

I’m not a moderate. Moderates do little more than get in the way. Abolitionists were called extremists. Martin Luther King was a radical. None of them were moderates. Moderates only hinder their cause and even they knew that.

The mechanisms that control speech will lead to violence long before the speech does. Suppression of our human rights is not the answer.

I know, real moderates are, and have been, almost silent - doers rather than talkers. Any analysis of those that talk politics, and those that are silent citizens, reveals that.

I would much rather that they all express themselves, so that there is balance.

They will express themselves if they see a need. It has happened all around the world and all through history.

Do we have to wait until we have another Venezuela or Arab Spring, but in the US (or my country, too)? Or can we be more civilized and savvy than that?

Well, yes. Man is a political animal. Everyone has a civic duty to participate in politics.

But most of all, it is necessary that people should learn to endure having their sentiments outraged.

Perhaps, but there are some damaged individuals who take that outrage and commit horrible crimes all the while believing that they have mandate to do so.

How do we counter that except through reasoned and consistent conversation? You usually can't guess who will snap and you can't (and shouldn't) prosecute all on the basis of a slight possibility.

It is a dilemma but one that I believe can be resolved through fair communication. The only barrier to that is "ruffled feathers".

People are definitely motivated by ideas, sometimes bad ones, The best thing we can do is prove their ideas wrong. We have to be able to talk about these ideas in order to do so.

We cannot stifle that process. It’s how many societies have overcome their tyrannical past. I sincerely believe progress can be directly correlated with the ability to speak freely. Speech is the cure for violence.

Although I think we disagree politically, I totally agree that we can, and should, talk it out.

Shame we can't have a beer electronically.

Well, maybe...

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: ScepticScot

Most people who use it in the modern common usage think they mean a pure democracy.

I think most people have no problem at all understanding what is meant when someone says democracy.

Regardless doesn't change my point that, at the time Marx was writing, very few places would meet any real democratic standard.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Raggedyman
there is a level of socialism that is necessary, it must be balanced and kept in check.
Public hospitals for the poor, welfare for those who need support in the short term, education, a long list
We live in a community
Forms of Socialism kept in check is not a bad thing

The problem with the far right is that they cannot conceive of anything that isn't them or the far left.

Hard to argue but I will
I think it’s just ignorance, socialism is a very important part of our system and some people don’t understand it and how they use socialism in their everyday life

Or they can’t conceive anything as you stated

a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

What is Communism but state-owned/ controlled everything. The state now owns the securities on your body, your house, your automobile, your marriage, your children, your property, so don’t pretend we don’t live under Communism – we do; we’ve just been tricked into thinking otherwise because it has been disguised precisely the way Kruschev declared – “We’ll get you without bombs, in a way you’ll never realize.” They will destroy us from the inside – not a shot will be fired.

Mary Croft.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

And the other side, the Facists and Nazi's and so many other right wing governments and systems, they never took whatever they wanted from the rightful owners?

I'll call BS on Bastiat, with the evidence of a history he never experienced.

You still beleive NAZI's are right wing? Wow, after all the Social justice in Germany for the Gays and Jews, Oh wait! Their Marxism was hidden at all.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: ScepticScot

If by real democracy you mean pure democracy, that system is simply tyranny masquerading under another another name. No, there aren't many pure democracies and for good reason.

No I mean democracy in the modern common usage.

Whats the difference anyway...do you not find the modern democracy more a tyranny than the Republic of our Founding Fathers ? Democracy today is being clubbed and jailed because you got someone’s gender wrong .... oh pardon me, I mean misgendering someone...it’s just as barbaric as Game of Thrones. What some don’t understand is that Game of Thrones today just goes by different names but it’s the same barbaric power struggles for control, only today it’s a powerful central government in collusion with powerful corporations. What difference the name? A rose by any other name... Shakespeare was brilliant in his day.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: ScepticScot

If by real democracy you mean pure democracy, that system is simply tyranny masquerading under another another name. No, there aren't many pure democracies and for good reason.

No I mean democracy in the modern common usage.

Whats the difference anyway...do you not find the modern democracy more a tyranny than the Republic of our Founding Fathers ? Democracy today is being clubbed and jailed because you got someone’s gender wrong .... oh pardon me, I mean misgendering someone...it’s just as barbaric as Game of Thrones. What some don’t understand is that Game of Thrones today just goes by different names but it’s the same barbaric power struggles for control, only today it’s a powerful central government in collusion with powerful corporations. What difference the name? A rose by any other name... Shakespeare was brilliant in his day.

The early United States predominately restricted voting to white male property owners so I would think its safe to say the US is more democratic now.