Socialism is NOT a bad thing

reply to post by cybertroy


Are you saying public health care is a bad idea? because you are forced to pay for others? because thats true to an extent. But are you not already giving the government money anyway, in any number of taxes? If they choose to spend some of that money on creating a unified health care plan would that be so bad?

Certainly, it would be great if everyone was cared for.

My biggest problem with America's health care is the cost of it. Let's take insurance out of the picture for a bit. I would say a large part of the population here couldn't pay out of pocket for a simple doctor visit. That's where the problem is. There is a bloat of money going into the system.

There is too much "money-making" and not enough real care. Not to say I disagree that a good doctor should have a good paycheck, and they should.

This doesn't contradict what I said about striving to be more, because I also said you shouldn't rip people off to do this.

The reform our health care system needs isn't with forced insurance, and it isn't socialism. Health care should be somewhat of a mix between natural and conventional, because there is a time and place for drugs, and surgery. There is tons of money being made on unnecessary surgeries, procedures and drug prescriptions. A waste of our dollars, making people rich who don't deserve it.

I know our health care system is corrupt, that's our real problem right there.

Our first step is to do some house cleaning in the Health Care System. I'm afraid the new health care bill may only end up corrupting the system more.

Troy

reply to post by cybertroy


Very true.

All of it.

I was never argueing that America should become socialist in order to fix its healthcare system...only that it is not any better or worse than any other system of government - the original subject of this thread.

P.S. Personally, my opinion is almost a mirror to yours...its the greed and corruption inherent in ALL systems that needs to be addressed in order for not just the USA's healthcare, but the entire world to move forward and evolve positively....

[edit on 29-3-2010 by OLDMATE]

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Did I say anything at all about the surrender of individuality? Absolutely not. All I said is that when you partake of a society you are bound to the rules of that society, just or unjust.

If one does not like the rules of a society, they tend to change it or leave it. People tunneled under the Berlin Wall to leave the Soviet-client society of East Germany. People have escaped North Korea. In a less dramatic way, millions of people move to new countries every year, leaving their own society behind to partake in a new one.

The problem is the form of hyper-Libertarianism that some here on ATS subscribe to does not exist as a functioning government on the planet. As such, they must form a new society. They could say, voluntarily pool their resources and purchase an island or, if their numbers ever grow beyond the pitiful minority they are now, move to a given state and leave the United States.

What I find objectionable is when persons try to have it both ways. They want to have a special exemption from anything they do not like in government for themselves yet reap all of the other benefits. They are freeloaders, and, to use a metaphor, spoiled children in my view.

Individuals are important, vitally so. You're absolutely correct that governments are comprised of individuals. We are social creatures.

I reject the idea however that individuals are special. You and I have the same worth as everyone else whom are human beings. We are important, but we are not special, we are no different than everyone else.

The rules should not be applicable only if the individual likes them, because then there really are no rules. If you and the likeminded wish to create a new society with different rules, be my guest. I will come and do a story on it even, I'm curious to see how it would work.

reply to post by ShadeWolf


Socialism is good says the bleeding heart socialist. You seem to missing a few key details that kinda seal the deal for me.


Lets just keep it simple our constitution is basically against that forum of government and is pretty clear about them wanting a capitalistic republic ruled by law not men.


And socialism to tell you the truth does not exist it is a Oligarchy and so is communism and fascism. This is the truth read about it study it look into the past to see the future.


Also did you know Hitler was a socialist? That's right he loved unions until he broke them and used them until he did not need them anymore just like what is happening here in the US. Hmm makes you wonder just a little bit does it not.



They will use all of you bleeding heart progressives until they don't need you anymore. Change is only a good thing for awhile and when you have the power change becomes a bad thing get it. I bet you don't get it and will tow the line and wonder why your ideals and work mean nothing when the fat lady sings.


The world has played this game before and we have forgotten why the Ism's are bad. We need to be reminded and then the progressive will shrivel up like a pecker in December for another 50 years.

reply to post by ProjectJimmy


Can you not even see the contradiction of your own ideology? You claim to respect the vitality of individuality, but would reject as a matter of course any recognition of special qualities in individuals. You attempt to rely upon the rules, but will make light of, at best, and at worst, simply ignore the rules that have been set in place by a Constitution that prohibit the government from imposing certain requirements upon an individual.

The fantasy of a world or society where all people hold the same value and worth to market places is what is non existent, and you willingly ignore the law of supply and demand in order to have your imaginary world. In your world, there would be no competitive sports and Micheal Jordon would not be known for being arguably the best, certainly special, indeed in your world Jordon wouldn't likely never be known. In your imaginary world, Benjamin Franklin's experiments with electricity, Alva Edison's accomplishments, the Wright Brothers, all are not worthy of being considered special, they are just merely faceless people unworthy of any individual respect for their accomplishment, all that matters in your imaginary world is that this accomplishment now belongs to "society" and who made it happen is irrelevant.

The problem with socialists is in order to defend their position the continually rely upon an ever expanding lexicon of terms and phraseology. Socialism becomes a pure thought, where in practice bastardizations of the concept are labeled social democracy, or Western socialism, or libertarian socialism, and on and on and on. In order to get your opponents to play along you invent phrases like "hyper libertarianism", (not saying you coined the word yourself, I am saying hyper libertarianism is not a self named movement and is more than likely a term invented by someone opposed to libertarianism in its purest form), which have nothing at all to do with the truth or reality.

In order to be a libertarian, it is not necessary to disobey the rules set forth by the Constitution for the United States of America, but in order to be a socialist, the Constitution must be changed in order to facilitate the socialist agenda. Yet, in spite of that, you attempt to paint a picture where individuals who assert the their right to life, liberty and pursuit of property as being some sort of lawlessness, and breaking of the rules of society, when in truth no such reality exists, and the lawlessness is that of a legislature, executive and judicial branch that would validate plunder as legal.

When you say the rules should not be applicable only if the individuals like them, you ignore that the rules prohibiting any form of government tyranny are applicable as well, and you're attempting to frame free individuals who insist they are more than capable of self government and making personal decisions regarding their survival as rule breakers in a social setting. These free individuals are not breaking any rules and I defy you to present a single rule a free autonomous and sovereign being is breaking, by being free and sovereign. On the other hand, we have socialism that pretends a greater good can be accomplished through plunder. Yet, plunder is plunder and legal plunder only generates disregard for the law.

In a free society, you are free to help others and no one will stop you from doing so. You are free to come and go as you please, but in your world, we are not so free and must abide by mysterious rules that you only speak of vaguely that demand some sort of hybrid socialist system in order to function. These are the choices an individual is faced with?

reply to post by ProjectJimmy


There is also the issue for an individual citizen as to what constitutes "enough" I believe.

Take this example:

One of the things I would really like to see in the United Kingdom is a re-nationalization of the rail system (70-some-percent of the population agrees with me on this one by the way!) I also believe the piecemeal and temporary government takeover that is happening now is just the latest example of the Labour Party lacking anything resembling a spine.

The current dysfunctional and unsustainable state of the rail system is not nearly enough for me to move out of the United Kingdom or ferment a revolution. I will vote for politicians that agree with my views and I'll campaign for it as well, but I can accept the current state of affairs even though I do not like it.

Now say I lived in Iran and disagreed with living under a totalitarian theocracy. You bet I would work to ferment a popular uprising that would overthrow the government or just get the hell out of the country if I could.

Every individual has to make this kind of decision for themselves, what disagreement will they allow within their society. Currently I do not believe the majority of Americans want any kind of revolution or dissolution of the union. The idea of "socialism" as terrifying as it seems to some of you out there, will probably be weighed at the ballot box instead of at gunpoint. Thank god the majority of Americans are still sane.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


"Life, liberty and the pursuit of property"? I didn't know that Sir William Blacks' Commentaries on the Laws of England was part of the United States Constitution. Well done mate!

You have a disagreement with much of the United States populace regarding interpretation of the US Constitution. If that disagreement is deep enough, find a way to resolve it. When I say that you are not special, but important you make an absolutely crazy argument that I do not like competition of any kind.

Where did you pull that out of? Jordan (funny how the Brit is the one that spells it right) was the greatest basketball player ever, he got championship rings, Olympic gold, riches and fame. It does not entitle him to more than one vote though, he is still equal to you in the eyes of the United States government.

Any other conclusions you'd like to jump to because I'm an evil socialist commie?

Originally posted by mackey1224uk
If youre health care system goes the same way the NHS has in the last fifteen years, America's in big trouble.. The goverment doesnt care about anyone but themselfs and always have. (FACT)

There's more irony in this post than in I need for my RDA. Saved myself the price of some brown rice and curly kale, thanks.

The real problem with the NHS is that, ironically for your post and for all the posters on here intent on using 'NHS horror stories' as a bogeyman for socialist nightmare to the come, it's becoming more like the American system in that, due to Private Finance Initiatives, we're slowly getting an NHS that is being privatised by the back door. The same goes for schools and prisons &c. (FACT). This socialist state we're meant to be living in is anything but. Anyone who tows this line is ignorant beyond belief.

Seriously Mackey, if you want to check-out a real bona fide conspiracy, one that people are blind to and never gets the coverage that it deserves as it's costing the British taxpayer £billions every year, look into the Private Finance Initiative Scheme scams.

[edit on 29-3-2010 by Merriman Weir]

Originally posted by ProjectJimmy
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

"Life, liberty and the pursuit of property"? I didn't know that Sir William Blacks' Commentaries on the Laws of England was part of the United States Constitution. Well done mate!

You have a disagreement with much of the United States populace regarding interpretation of the US Constitution. If that disagreement is deep enough, find a way to resolve it. When I say that you are not special, but important you make an absolutely crazy argument that I do not like competition of any kind.

Where did you pull that out of? Jordan (funny how the Brit is the one that spells it right) was the greatest basketball player ever, he got championship rings, Olympic gold, riches and fame. It does not entitle him to more than one vote though, he is still equal to you in the eyes of the United States government.

Any other conclusions you'd like to jump to because I'm an evil socialist commie?

This is nothing more than bad sophistry. You hope to insidiously imply that capitalism is opposed to equal protection under the law, while pretending that socialism actually respects it. Yet in your world, Jordan will be taxed far more than in a capitalistic world, and taxed unequally simply because he makes more money. There is no regard for equality under the law with socialism and in order to achieve their twisted view of equality they advocate a complex progressive tax that punishes the achievers and rewards the under achievers. Voting is not the issue and Jordan doesn't have more than one vote now in the mish mash system of economics we have in play in the U.S. today.

Voting is voting, and has to do with electing government officials, and it is disingenuous, at best, to offer up your rejection of an individuals special nature as being equated with equal protection under the law. Socialism goes well beyond justice in any legal sense and attempts to rig the market place to bend to its own ideology. Socialism attempts to offer justice through an economic system and declare industry a public endeavor rather than private. Private property, and for your edification much of the SCOTUS rulings made are deeply rooted in common law rulings held by judges in England, has a long history of legal precedence in The United States, and the right to individual ownership has never been at question.

The right for any individual to make their own decisions regarding their survival also has a deep history of precedent, and much of it again found in common law rulings held by British judges years ago and now belonging to the realm of Stare Decisis, and due to this, and that there is no SCOTUS ruling that has overturned the long held belief that the individual has the right to self determination, it is quite irrelevant how many people disagree with me on the matter. Judges in this country, nor in yours, take popular opinion polls to make their decisions. They rely upon the law.

Originally posted by Subjective Truth
reply to post by ShadeWolf

 

Socialism is good says the bleeding heart socialist.

You seem to missing a few key details that kinda seal the deal for me.
Lets just keep it simple our constitution is basically against that forum of government and is pretty clear about them wanting a capitalistic republic ruled by law not men.
And socialism to tell you the truth does not exist it is a Oligarchy and so is communism and fascism. This is the truth read about it study it look into the past to see the future.
Also did you know Hitler was a socialist? That's right he loved unions until he broke them and used them until he did not need them anymore just like what is happening here in the US. Hmm makes you wonder just a little bit does it not.
They will use all of you bleeding heart progressives until they don't need you anymore. Change is only a good thing for awhile and when you have the power change becomes a bad thing get it. I bet you don't get it and will tow the line and wonder why your ideals and work mean nothing when the fat lady sings.
The world has played this game before and we have forgotten why the Ism's are bad. We need to be reminded and then the progressive will shrivel up like a pecker in December for another 50 years.

Who is this "they" as in "they will use all you bleeding heart progressives"...?

It is good to know history so we will know what mistakes we are bound to repeat over and over as if we did not learn anything at all.

When our forefathers laid out the constitution it was to offer every man a fair chance to become the best he can be here in America. It made an agreement to protect and defend the welfare of it's members as a group called Americans.

It was based on Christian values of fairness and equality for all.
This is what you mean when you say "bleeding heart socialist"
FAIRNESS AND EQUALITY FOR ALL.
When these two are absent the Republic seeks to repair or restore that condition of equality for all if it has to change or amend itself to do it.

When circumstances become such or even if "capitalism" itself creates such a disparity among people it is time to amend the document so that it honors it's original intention.

A basic and minimum equality for all is promised and protected by our constitution. No where does it guarantee you the right to become a multi-millionaire by deceiving and conveniently feeding off the gullibility and plight of our largely captive audience.







[edit on 29-3-2010 by rusethorcain]

reply to post by rusethorcain


I agree with everything you have said and I hope you were adding to my post and not reading into it the wrong way. My avatar I think about says were I stand on the issue.

reply to post by Subjective Truth


Fair enough. I take you at your word.

Originally posted by rusethorcain
reply to post by Subjective Truth

 

Fair enough. I take you at your word.

Well that and my As* is all I got. But if you need clarification ask I am more than willing to let everyone know were I stand on any given issue. That is why I am so loved and hated. I believe in freedom and liberty and I also think the progressives believe little in either.

Socialism is when a gang called the government extorts cash from you to pay for services other people want. If you want to help others donate to charity, don't force other people to. That's the beauty of freedom: you don't HAVE to do what you don't want to.

Blablabla, you're selfish, blablabla. Yeah, and you support coercion.

[edit on 29-3-2010 by 547000]

I'm reading a lot in this thread how a 'socialist' runs against the possibilities of the American Dream and how what America has allows anyone who is prepared to work hard to make a success of themselves and that everyone is on an even footing with this.

But at the same time, this board itself is evidence to the contrary. Right next to this thread on the 'recent threads' forum, there's a thread about 'who killed the electric car'? There's a lot of other threads on here on similar lines.

Elsewhere there's threads about racism, threads about whether homosexuality should be accepted. I wouldn't like to guess the amount of threads that have ever appeared on here regarding how a rich elite were just able to ride roughshod over laws that other people are subject to.

Recently, I saw a table - which I'll try and find - which illustrated social mobility, roughly the ability to do well in society, and America had a relatively low social mobility rate compared to most Western countries.

Where does this idea of a level playing field come from, that everyone has the same chance to succeed? Yes, there's some American posters on here that have doneverywellforthemselvesthankyouverymuch, but these seem to be in a (vocal) minority.


[edit on 29-3-2010 by Merriman Weir]

reply to post by Merriman Weir




The reason is very simple why Socialism will never work in America. The constitution does not give the government those kinds of rights and you would need to tear it up or amend the crap out of it to do it. And this will never happen the country will fall apart first. And it is nice to debat you again best wishes.

[edit on 29-3-2010 by Subjective Truth]

reply to post by Subjective Truth


I am what you would define as "progressive" and I also cherish my individual liberty and freedoms.
I adore the good old days like everyone else and long nostalgically for when the world was a whole lot simpler but that is childish. We should keep what we value and improve the rest. When you are through improving yourself you are finished. This used to be an inspirational sign on my wall.
At the same time I allow my government to assume certain responsibility to act in my behalf and for my best interest. I have to trust this government because it is made of and for the people. It essentially is, my will.

reply to post by rusethorcain


I hate to tell you but you need to study the progressive movement in America. Because what you are saying does not fit into their teachings. Hitler was a progressive and he studied the American movement to guide him to his personal truth. Please don't believe me study it for yourself. Trust no one including me.


Progressives do not believe in personal freedom they believe in the greater good. Putting the masses before the individual undermines freedom. We are not a democracy we are a republic ruled by law.



And if you believe in personal freedom and personal liberty you are not a progressive.