It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

An experiment in socialism

page: 7
21
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by Maslo

I dont think its a crass remark, its the core of the issue you seem to ignore. The redistribution of wealth is justified by the fact that people still need money to acquire basic necessities. If it wasnt the case (such as with stars and flags), then redistribution would not be justified. But it is the case.

If people need money for necessities, either give them your money or have them work. Don't steal from me and call it charity.

Redistribution is THEFT!


Not to mention that so much of what the govt gives out is not genuine charity, but pork barrel spending for ridiculous stuff, outrageous programs, and who knows....black ops we never hear about.



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by beezzer
 


I would say you have glossed over the industrial revolution and the two world wars that saw millions of working men go to their deaths to protect the interests of the wealthy. Millions of working men died so our countries could prosper, surely the working man deserved to share in this wealth? This was the idea behind the welfare state


edit on 16-7-2011 by woodwardjnr because: (no reason given)



Let's not forget the wealthiest libs too. Gates, Buffet, Soros, Rothschilds, how about that Moore goofball who made more money selling communist propaganda.



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Interesting idea.....Though I doubt you'd find enough volunteers to go with it. (though I'd do it...though I don't think I got enough stars/flags to make much of a difference, really) Plus I'm not really sure how or what it would say about Socialism in general..... I'm not really sure if the Idea of Socialism is an agreed upon term, when applying it to something like U.S. politics. For instance many hardcore Republicans think that such things as Free Health Care is Socialism....even though most non-third world countries follow that model and very few of them could be considered 'Socialist' ( and they have GREAT Health Care, that actually costs them less of a percentage of the GNP than the U.S. does anyway.....but I'm digressing into another topic altogether).

My point being that Socialism is an extremely complex subject, with myriads of different subtle arguing points of definition. For instance the U.S. Firefighters and Police could be considered 'Socialist Systems' since they are (more or less) free, and can be used by any of the public at large (again, one could argue about whether the quality of these systems are the same in poorer neighborhoods as compared to rich neighborhoods...but that would be another digression into another topic, again)
edit on 16-7-2011 by bhornbuckle75 because: I had one too many dangling participles......or something.



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


How many stars and flags 'till I can retire? Ah....retirement, the Golden Years.




posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 10:41 PM
link   
When people do a lot of hard work and the most of the rewards of that work are given to someone who didn't do any work...

I thought that was called being a CEO.

Corporatism is not Capitalism. Corporatism is the redistribution of reward for the work done by a group of people to a person or people who had none or almost no hand in the work being done. Corporatism is when Capitalism is taken over by a Feudalistic mentality.

Capitalism is that Mom & Pop store where the people who did all of the work get all of the reward for that work.

Unions bring the reward for a job well done back to the people who did that job.
edit on 16-7-2011 by CryHavoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 10:46 PM
link   
I'll keep my stars and flags, you keep your stars and flags and we're square. If I don't have as many as you that's my fault, not yours or anyone else's. I know that makes me evil, disgusting, and worse than a person that eats babies, but that's my cross to bear.

/TOA



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


I think rewards are good if you are trying to achieve certain goals and you want to create incentives to achieve them.

I don't think stars and flags work here to be honest because I see the threads that aren't even about ANYTHING get hundreds of flags and the person sharing real knowlege and information just get a few.



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 





Decay is the bane of any system when people quit caring about it. Capitalism too.

BTW Since when is "money changing" such a high aspiration?



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 





But the redistribution of wealth has been a transition from bottom to top rather than top to bottom....


AHA the magic of "Socialism" The newest way to trick the masses out of their wealth.


No wonder the mascot is a wolf in a sheepskin and is wholeheartedly endorsed by the bankers.



posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 12:54 AM
link   
I got bored at about the second page, but any stars or flags I've accumulated you can distribute to those below me that have not received as many.

We all have an unlimited number of stars and flags to give but only a limited number to receive. Quite the opposite of reality and currency.

Cute thread though OP, maybe you can read some Marx and get a better understanding of it all.



posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 01:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Absolutely.

There is a book written about corruption, apathy, and un-earned gains.

Atlas Shrugged.



posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by CryHavoc

Unions bring the reward for a job well done back to the people who did that job.
edit on 16-7-2011 by CryHavoc because: (no reason given)


um...so this is why there are janitors that make $25 an hour (or more) because they are in unions?

no. unions (now) are fronts for communists and the mob.

All the folks in flint and those who's jobs left the country.......are the unions paying there mortgage? Dont think so.

"Oh, you dont have a job to pay your uber-dues? Nice knowin' ya pal".



posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 01:36 AM
link   
there is a better example of socialism. it took place at a liberal school.

someone went around doing quick interviews. they asked a few quick questions to see if the person supported socialism. almost all of the students said "yes". then, they said "ok, those of you with higher grades are going to redistribute some of your GPA to students who aren't doing so well."

do you think any of them did it? nope. they all said it wasn't fair, or it "wasn't the same thing as socialism". so much for that.



posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 01:40 AM
link   
In the end, it'll always be easier to take rather than earn. To lie, distort, re-word, misrepreset, than to work or create.

A person can trust the unions, a political party, an ideology to provide and to get you "stuff". But relying on yourself can assure that you can get what you want, what you need.



posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 01:43 AM
link   
reply to post by felonius
 


i think most unions are wrong, but some need to exist. i was a welder, and i eventually joined the union. the difference in skill between union welders and non-union welders was so pronounced that the jobsite i worked on said they only wanted union welders after alot of welds made by non-union members failed.

oh yeah. us union welders made LESS money(i made $28.90 an hour, and that was some hard work), and didn't get per diem (a sum paid each day to cover living expenses since most of us traveled hundreds of miles).

unions in professions that require alot of skill and knowledge don't have to be a bad thing.



posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 02:05 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


I do not think you really understand what most people talk about when referring to social justice. Our system is designed right now prevents everything that it was designed to do. Property rights are limited by income. Access to quality food is limited by income. Housing in a safe neighborhood is limited by income. Health care is limited by income. Nearly every thing America used to promote is limited by income and we are all sliding off a cliff of no return, where the wealthy profit, and the standard of living declines. The system is designed currently to support those at the top. The system is neither socialism nor capitalism. Corporatism is the best term I have seen to describe our system.

Now your idea to make stars and flags distributed equally is no different then giving everyone a trophy or ribbon for an accomplishment of a group. I see where you were trying to make a point, and certainly there are those that believe in this type of social justice. However, not everyone that says socialism or social justice, that defends or promotes those ideas, has it in mind to take away from you and give to others.

Social justice when I speak about it is no more complicated an ideology of voluntarily sacrificing for the betterment of your community, and in times of extreme need of the community that sacrifice is mandated for the greater good of all. This concept is easily applied to serving in the military. If you serve voluntarily and sacrifice your life for your community, this is not socialistic. If your country is invaded and in order to survive together you are mandated to fight, this is not socialistic.

We are bound together in common cause, as a nation. Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Our founders recognized the importance of the ability to keep your life is innate and a common goal. It is a crime to take any persons life, and it is a civil wrong to prevent someones life from being ended where it was in their control. So we must recognize that life may extend to have medical care that could save your life and we must do so collectively in order to secure that right. Liberty is the ability to be free in our thoughts, speech and any amount of numerous activities. We must collectively defend this liberty and give each other tools needed to do so. Where one may not have the ability to fight for liberty in a war they could perform other functions necessary to ensure our collective survival. The pursuit of happiness is something that we all want. However, each persons happiness lay at different objectives. Balancing these objectives is our collective right to pursue that happiness in the most reasonable manner that fulfills all of our needs to pursue that happiness. There is that word again "collective." Where we have collective rights and goals requires sacrifice of some for the benefit of others. To do away with that destroys the concept of a nation united in those common objectives.

Now what I do agree with your point is personal accomplishments should not be distributed evenly. That is called communism. Communism takes by force and gives to others who may or may not have deserved or earned or have any shared value with the other party whom force was used against. Money from a rich person should not be taken and used to pay off another persons debt. There is no shared value between the two.

In order for social justice to work fairly we must all agree to certain principles in our lives, which we already have in the constitution. Things affecting life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness should be a collective effort. Otherwise, we risk an elite class that controls the population by rewarding only certain groups of people with the monetary ability to seek life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Such is the system we have now. You must conform to the systems expectation of you in order to be able to afford to live, afford to enforce justice and your liberty, and to pursue happiness in any decent respect.



posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 02:19 AM
link   
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 

You talk of shared sacrafice. A noble ideal, but when that "shared sacrafice" is mandated, then it no longer can be defined as noble. It is a direction given to us by someone else which is in direct opposition to what freedom is defined by.
You provided an interesting post, but I honestly believe that your interpretation is a distortion of what they (the founding fathers) wanted.



posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 03:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by Maslo

Its not always possible to find work, especially in this economy.

And what exactly is wrong with theft, when its used to acquire basic necessities?

If you're on the receiving end of theft and have no pride, then nothing is wrong with theft.

I'll let your post stand by iself to define you and your values.


So are you saying it is better for people to not have basic necessities like food or healthcare, then to steal the needed money from those it will cause very small harm, compared to the harm prevented?

I think we can also leave your post stand to show the twisted conservative values - me and MY money first, then maybe others..

FYI I am certainly not on the receiving end, but I think we must keep social system in place, since I have compassion for the poor, and you never know when you will need it.



posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 03:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by felonius
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Absolutely.

There is a book written about corruption, apathy, and un-earned gains.

Atlas Shrugged.


Yes the Ayn Rand philosophies are quite prominent around these parts. Shame it's these same philosophies that caused the financial meltdown. Also Ayan Rand relied on the state in her later years.



posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 

So you don't work?
You didn't buy the computer you're currently using?
You don't buy food?
But art?
Watch tv or dvds?
Don't own a car?
Don't pay utility bills?




What's your point..?




top topics



 
21
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join