Why are Americans so afraid of Socialism?

[jrh72582]

I don't believe I used the civil war as an example. I stated that legal ain't always moral and stated as an example that slavery was once legal, but never moral. If something is legal but immoral being "the law of the land" don't mean shit to me...even if your revered majority say it must be so. Tyranny by the many, tyranny by the few, still not morally right.

Concerning tacit consent, you avoided my question...does your presence in the United States mean you give tacit consent to pot laws and any punishment you may receive? Will you be taking your own advice and leaving the country if you disagree with pot laws?

You again side step another of my questions. So that I will not be so "confused" tell me about your "morality"...Do you accept that government should use force against people that harm nobody? Are you okay with that?

I have no problem with the pot laws in my state. Having just moved, I am now legal and completely legit. So no, I will not be leaving the country. And leaving the country over pot laws is stupid. If the country were to shift to a pure socialist state, and people don't like it, then yes, by all means, move. And I do not see socialism as immoral. I don't even know what you're asking. You need to communicate more clearly. Education is important, my man.

 

[Rob Roy]

I have no problem with the pot laws in my state. Having just moved, I am now legal and completely legit. So no, I will not be leaving the country. And leaving the country over pot laws is stupid. If the country were to shift to a pure socialist state, and people don't like it, then yes, by all means, move. And I do not see socialism as immoral. I don't even know what you're asking. You need to communicate more clearly. Education is important, my man.

You are not completely legal. The federal government has not legalized marijuana. Your state is dictated to by the federal government remember?
I don't endorse that, simply reminding you.

Leaving the country over pot laws IS stupid, I agree. However you are the one that stated in your tacit consent argument if a person doesn't like the laws they should leave. Granting exceptions to yourself already?

Socialism isn't immoral to you. Got it.
Sorry to hear that.

You don't know what I'm asking?
Okay here's the question(s) you and many others still have not answered, I don't see how I can ask any clearer, be kind enough to answer this time?

Is it wrong or immoral to MAKE people that harm nobody participate in something they wouldn't otherwise participate in? Is it acceptable to you that an individual or group of individuals (government) may initiate force to subjugate others?

Education is important. I agree. So is honesty. Without honesty "education" is indoctrination. Are you in favor of public schools stopping with teaching revisonist history and telling kids the truth?

 

[medicineman]

what a jerk. i should pay for your education? fuck you you should pay for my whiskey then.

on second thought maybe i will pay for your education so you will know that you are wasting everyones time when you try to differentiate socialism from communism.

the first post says that smart driven people cant get an education, bullshit

it makes me sad to be a stoner sometimes. all these stoners dont have a problem giving more power to the government. look what the government has done when its not a complete fucking communism. you think the government will make things better? do they teach coommon sense at colleges? i guess not.

look at all the socialist,communist, statist countries that will hang a mother fucker for possesion. but you can get hospital treatment for free if there isnt too long of a waitlist .

look at these fuckers in iran. they are out there right now ready to die for what we are so willing to give to the first charismatic mullato to offer a little hope.

What an ignorant rascist rant. Right wing paranoia for sure. They're coming to get you, be afraid, be very afraid.

 

[natrone23]

Med what do you expect from a right winger

whites are the best but nowadays the young kids all act like nigs.

. it will be a bunch of slimy mullies trying to get something from you right off the jump.

 

[TreesOfLife]

Med what do you expect from a right winger

What an ignorant rascist rant. Right wing paranoia for sure. They're coming to get you, be afraid, be very afraid.

(Please don't turn this thread into a Republican or Democrat bashing party. I created this for thoughtful meaningful discussion, not mindless stupidity.)

I guess some of us didn't learn to read during our re-education...

 

[ChChoda]

(Please don't turn this thread into a Republican or Democrat bashing party. I created this for thoughtful meaningful discussion, not mindless stupidity.)

I really want to know why so many people are afraid the idea of Socialism. It seems that every time a politician is even loosely connected to it, its ends up being their political demise. I for one am not calling for a entirely socialist government that only leads to communism, which in the end have shown to fail. But guess what a pure capitalist economy fails to, remember the last time that America had one of those? Around the 1920s, funny how that turned out.

Why is it so bad that the government provide higher education ensures that a large percentage of Americans can either not afford to pay for it, or will be paying interest on a large loan for the rest of their lives, if they can get the loan. For all of those you think that the money is out there and people just have to stop being lazy and look for it. Well I am sorry you people are living in a fantasy world. It is very hard to get a loan these days with the "cullusterfuck" that the economy has been in, and government aid for the most part is a joke. You can barely pay for most colleges with the amount that you are allowed to take out. I think I know this more then most people since I had to take a semester off because I could no afford to pay for college, might even have to take another semester off. Since I cannot get a loan. Its not as if I am stupid I maintained a 3.4 GPA in BioChemistry, its simply I cannot afford to pay for it. How is it beneficial to the American Society to keep people that are smart and have a drive in life at the bottom of the pack simply because they do not have money.

Why is it so bad to provide health care for all American's? Is it really the end of society if all people had a right to be able to go to the doctor if they or one of their loved ones were sick. There should be limits to the amount of times someone could go to the doctor. I would never want to see Hospitals over flowing because people are abusing the system. But that does not mean that people should be dieing of things such as the common flu just because they are to poor to afford the health services. Or dieing because they cannot afford to get a check up on a regular basis, and end of sick because of a worsening condition that could have been prevented? Of course there should be regulations, if you smoke cancer sticks and obese because you don't take take of you body. You should not get the same benefits that everyone else does. Sorry but when you are on the governments bill you better be taking care of yourself better.

I know the argument against this is that people do not want to pay for something that they do use. It is not the governments right to take away their money and use it for something that has no benefit to them. By doing this it will only make people lazy and destroy the fabric of society. Some also might contend that Capitalism is the reason why this country has become so strong, and by adding socialist policies we will only be going against everything that has made this country so great and strong. Policies that have favored business have been the building blocks of our economy.

While I do agree that policies that have strongly favored business have helped bring this country to where it is today. It is also true that one of the main building blocks for the country was the introduction of free education system. Without it our country would not be where it is today. If you do not educate your citizens in this world business you are at a huge disadvantage. You are only creating a perpetual class of people that are going to suck up the programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. Why not create doctors, lawyers, engineers, instead thieves and bums on the street. We already have a socialist type education system, albeit broken, why no fix it and provide more education for those who want it.

Its not a well known fact but because there are people that cannot afford health care, the price of health care is actually being driven up and you are actually paying for it in the end. When someone without health care ends up with a life threatening disease that could have been prevented. Guess who pays the bill to save them, you, and its a ALOT more expensive to keep some one from dieing then to keep someone from getting sick. So why not take that extra money and put it in a system that provides everyone with health care, with regulation. Some might argue that it will kill the insurance industry. Why are people caring about the insurance industry, they sure as hell don't care for you. Innovation means that certain industry will become obsolete over time, it happens that is the way for life.

I am not calling for a completely socialist country but one which takes the ideals from both capitalism and socialism and works them together. Nothing is black and white, but shades of gray.
So I ask you again, why are Americans so afraid of Socialism?

(Please don't turn this thread into a Republican or Democrat bashing party. I created this for thoughtful meaningful discussion, not mindless stupidity.)

Capitalism means that it is not immoral for me to care about myself and my family first. This is what America was founded on.

Are not shades of gray composed of black and white? Or, without first accepting the reality of both black and white as individual colors, we could not indulge ourselves the creation of grays.

Capitalism can be defined as the many pursuits of the many individuals. Black and white. Defined. Simple.

Socialism can be defined as the collective for the common good. The common good? As gray as it gets. Muddled.

Do you know what you want? Do I know what I want? Of course. That's capitalism.

Do I know what you want? Do you know what I want? Of course not. How could we? That's socialism.

Incredibly, socialists claim to have the answers to the latter set of questions.

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

Yes, I believe kids today should decide if they want to go to school. That way all of the assholes that do nothing but cause trouble can not only get kicked out but stop wasting time. I hated going to high school and being in class with a bunch of kids that did not even bring a book with them. Luckily I got into the AP classes so I did not have to deal with them later on. I believe everyone has a right to a education, I do not believe they should have that right forced upon them. The government should serve to allow people to better themselves through hard work. Money should never be a road block in education. If a kid wants to sit down learn, put in the hard work, and better themselves. They should have every right to. And if they want to spend time on the streets, let them. Its the parents responsibility not the governments to raise kids.

So, let the teachers get back to teaching, and let students (and parents) decide what is right for them. Wouldn't it be a more logical course of action then to make those changes (abolishing truancy laws, and forced attendance laws,) before trying to expand government subsidies?

Though, there is the small issue of the fact that has government subsidies for education, healthcare and other consumer services has increased the price increases have typically outpaced the increase in subsidies. If the education system is revamped to allow voluntary attendance it may result in reduced costs, and thus lead to increases in per pupil spending with out an actual increase in the budget alotted to the DoE.

Why does it seem like regardless of what party they are for only dumb asses run for political positions? (They either focus on just one side of the issue, or don't have the ability to try pursuing a rigorous debate due to being afraid of having their ideas challenged.) (No, I don't call the sham that McCain and Obama went through a debate. Compared to the debates between Lincoln and the other candidate before the Civil War modern debates are a sick sham.)

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

Capitalism means that it is not immoral for me to care about myself and my family first. This is what America was founded on.

Are not shades of gray composed of black and white? Or, without first accepting the reality of both black and white as individual colors, we could not indulge ourselves the creation of grays.

Capitalism can be defined as the many pursuits of the many individuals. Black and white. Defined. Simple.

Socialism can be defined as the collective for the common good. The common good? As gray as it gets. Muddled.

Do you know what you want? Do I know what I want? Of course. That's capitalism.

Do I know what you want? Do you know what I want? Of course not. How could we? That's socialism.

Incredibly, socialists claim to have the answers to the latter set of questions.

Capitalism is the voluntary cooperation through commerce. Socialism is the involuntary coercement through regulation and restriction of freedom.

 

[jrh72582]

You are not completely legal. The federal government has not legalized marijuana. Your state is dictated to by the federal government remember?
I don't endorse that, simply reminding you.

Leaving the country over pot laws IS stupid, I agree. However you are the one that stated in your tacit consent argument if a person doesn't like the laws they should leave. Granting exceptions to yourself already?

Socialism isn't immoral to you. Got it.
Sorry to hear that.

You don't know what I'm asking?
Okay here's the question(s) you and many others still have not answered, I don't see how I can ask any clearer, be kind enough to answer this time?

Is it wrong or immoral to MAKE people that harm nobody participate in something they wouldn't otherwise participate in? Is it acceptable to you that an individual or group of individuals (government) may initiate force to subjugate others?

Education is important. I agree. So is honesty. Without honesty "education" is indoctrination. Are you in favor of public schools stopping with teaching revisonist history and telling kids the truth?

Dude, my point is so simple, but you're still not getting it. At least three people equated socialism to slavery in this thread. You haven't used the word slavery, but you do believe socialism is immoral because it forces a will upon people. My response is simple. Socialism is NOT slavery and it is NOT immoral because people have the free will to deny being subject to those laws by leaving. If they closed off the borders, allowing no one to leave, and then forced their will upon us, I would be pissed. But they will not do that. They are adopting a new government, which the people generally agree with, and it is not slavery. Slavery, by definition, is when you force someone to work under you, not allowing them to leave. You are allowed to leave whenever, so it's not slavery and it's not immoral. Every country has laws. Every country has a government. The people in the US want something different. They're tired of the rich controlling everything. They're tired of the dissipation of the American dream. They're tired of the 15% controlling 85% and getting the short end of the stick. So they think that maybe, if we tax the hell out of the rich and give everybody the same benefits, they will be subjugated less.

Every government subjugates those that it governs. Under the old way, the people were subjugated by the rich and their health benefits and access to education eroded. Under a socialist rule, the people will still be subjugated, but better off because of the access to health care and education. Both options aren't ideal, but I would take socialism over capitalism any day. I've heard many people say on this board that capitalism allows for ANY individual to realize the American dream and to get rich through hard work and industry. HA - that's laughable. Hard work doesn't get the vast majority anywhere. Under this capitalist system, the vast majority are much more enslaved than they would be under a socialist system. Hard work - what a bunch of crap. The next time you hear someone say that hard work leads to riches, ask them if they're rich. I bet they're not. Remember, and this is important - a free lesson if you will.......

the biggest trick the rich every played is to convince the middle class (all these right wing whiners) to blame the lower class for their problems, instead of blaming the rich, who are to blame for their subordinate position. Think about it. You all blame the poor, lazy, and unfortunate. Why do you not blame the rich who designed an unfair system allowing you NOTHING? They are to blame and that is why socialism could help. The rich will be taxed and although not ideal, the poor will at least get education and health care. It's better than the alternative that your precious capitalism offers. You're more of a 'slave' under capitalism than socialism, my friend. You're merely blinded by your dogmatic one-sidedness.

 

[CrackerJax]

The very root of all of these problems is the very bad idea of Multiculturalism, which states that no one societies way of living is better than another. Everything becomes a matter of relativity with no anchored principles. This is the modern day liberal thought, and it is WRONG.

Capitalism IS better.
Free and unfettered markets ARE better.
Living free from the nanny state IS better.

If the entire world adopted the Ronald Reagan vision, the world would be BETTER, by far.

 

[jrh72582]

Capitalism is the voluntary cooperation through commerce. Socialism is the involuntary coercement through regulation and restriction of freedom.

Do you really think we have a pure capitalism BT? We're not even close.

And keep in mind (as I've heard a lot of bashing directed at the unemployed and lazy), that any capitalist system REQUIRES at least 3-5% unemployment to keep wages low and competition in check.

Capitalism is fine and all, but the manifestation that arose in the US benefits only one class - THE RICH. Some people are tired of that. Some people think that socialism will at least give the middle and lower classes some benefits that our current system doesn't.

 

[ChChoda]

A majority of the US population would never vote for socialism. How did the socialist party do last presidential election they ran a candidate? I don't know, just asking. Only the minority of greedy slobs want true socialism. The rest are dupes.

 

[jrh72582]

A majority of the US population would never vote for socialism. How did the socialist party do last presidential election they ran a candidate? I don't know, just asking. Only the minority of greedy slobs want true socialism. The rest are dupes.

Wow, you speak with such authority....and on behalf of ALL people. You must know everything, huh?

I love it.....the lack of awareness is amazing.

 

[ChChoda]

Wow, you speak with such authority....and on behalf of ALL people. You must know everything, huh?

I love it.....the lack of awareness is amazing.

"Capitalism is fine and all....."

Norman Thomas ring a bell? No? Eugene Debs then? No? What do any of us really know, other than what we know? No?

 

[CrackerJax]

And keep in mind (as I've heard a lot of bashing directed at the unemployed and lazy), that any capitalist system REQUIRES at least 3-5% unemployment to keep wages low and competition in check.

That is complete nonsense. Also realize that NOT everyone wants to work.

Wow, you speak with such authority....and on behalf of ALL people. You must know everything, huh?

I love it.....the lack of awareness is amazing.

Your lack of basic economics and common sense is what amazes me...but not surprised, not at all.

 

[jrh72582]

"Capitalism is fine and all....."

Norman Thomas ring a bell? No? Eugene Debs then? No? What do any of us really know, other than what we know? No?

Well we should strive to understand what we don't know rather than focusing on what we do know and limiting ourselves to that knowledge. I think people should focus on their ignorance rather than a determination to demonstrate knowledge. I'm talking about a Socratic awareness and being open to growth.

Why spend time on this board displaying my knowledge when instead, I can engage in debate and learn.

 

[jrh72582]

That is complete nonsense. Also realize that NOT everyone wants to work.



Your lack of basic economics and common sense is what amazes me...but not surprised, not at all.

How ironic - I took the unemployment numbers you deemed 'complete nonsense' from a textbook whose title reads "Basic Economics". No joke. You want the ISBN?

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

Do you really think we have a pure capitalism BT? We're not even close.

And keep in mind (as I've heard a lot of bashing directed at the unemployed and lazy), that any capitalist system REQUIRES at least 3-5% unemployment to keep wages low and competition in check.

Capitalism is fine and all, but the manifestation that arose in the US benefits only one class - THE RICH. Some people are tired of that. Some people think that socialism will at least give the middle and lower classes some benefits that our current system doesn't.

Of course we aren't a capitalistic economy. If we were in a capitalist economy the banks that were mismanaged and made bad decisions would be left to their fate. GM and Chrysler would be left to their's.

The regulations on the banks and corporations would be a lot less restrictive, and taxes would by drastically lower, as the government would not need millions of people to shuffle paperwork.

If we were living up to the Constitution and the freedoms that are enshrined in it the federal government and state governments would be a lot smaller. California wouldn't be running around looking like a third world nation complete with the fiscal mismanagment and finger-pointing between the governor and the state legislators.

Under the Constitution the government would not be extorting trillions of dollars from the citizens to pay for federal wars having no interest in trying to use coercion (except in actual self-defense) and force against nations. Instead we would allow our corporations to do business with in those nations and hope that the commerce that came about would bring that nation to a more moderate stance, and improve their standard of living.

Instead of politicians using the threat of coercion and promises of creating legislative loopholes they would have to show that they are capable of being trusted to continue keeping their office due to being incapable of forcing corporations to donate millions to their re-election campaigns.

The United States hasn't had a Capitalist economy since Woodrow Wilson's incompetent bumbling. Bumbling that was corrected by Harding during the twenties but was repeated by FDR, who obviously had not been required to study the Fall of the Roman Empire in any great depth and showed that he was untrustworthy based on how he campaigned on the promise of economic non-interventionism (to create a platform opposite of Hoover's) and then reneged on those promises.

No, I'd say that based on the amount of money stolen from the citizenry through oppressive taxation, and based on the way the government ignored the cries of the citizenry against the bail outs that we are living in a tyrannical elective oligarchy where only the politically-connected are capable of thriving due to rampant and widespread corruption.

 

[jrh72582]

Of course we aren't a capitalistic economy. If we were in a capitalist economy the banks that were mismanaged and made bad decisions would be left to their fate. GM and Chrysler would be left to their's.

The regulations on the banks and corporations would be a lot less restrictive, and taxes would by drastically lower, as the government would not need millions of people to shuffle paperwork.

If we were living up to the Constitution and the freedoms that are enshrined in it the federal government and state governments would be a lot smaller. California wouldn't be running around looking like a third world nation complete with the fiscal mismanagment and finger-pointing between the governor and the state legislators.

Under the Constitution the government would not be extorting trillions of dollars from the citizens to pay for federal wars having no interest in trying to use coercion (except in actual self-defense) and force against nations. Instead we would allow our corporations to do business with in those nations and hope that the commerce that came about would bring that nation to a more moderate stance, and improve their standard of living.

Instead of politicians using the threat of coercion and promises of creating legislative loopholes they would have to show that they are capable of being trusted to continue keeping their office due to being incapable of forcing corporations to donate millions to their re-election campaigns.

The United States hasn't had a Capitalist economy since Woodrow Wilson's incompetent bumbling. Bumbling that was corrected by Harding during the twenties but was repeated by FDR, who obviously had not been required to study the Fall of the Roman Empire in any great depth and showed that he was untrustworthy based on how he campaigned on the promise of economic non-interventionism (to create a platform opposite of Hoover's) and then reneged on those promises.

No, I'd say that based on the amount of money stolen from the citizenry through oppressive taxation, and based on the way the government ignored the cries of the citizenry against the bail outs that we are living in a tyrannical elective oligarchy where only the politically-connected are capable of thriving due to rampant and widespread corruption.

I agree with most of what you say. Eloquently and passionately stated. Well-done.

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

I agree with most of what you say. Eloquently and passionately stated. Well-done.

My thanks, and just my beliefs. I understand helping others, but I can not understand how people believe any one will be in a position to help any one else if they are not free to be able to afford to make the sacrifices necessary to help others. I can also not understand how any one can believe that if you strip people of their resources they can help others. It takes money, and time to be able to build homes for the homeless, provide them with food. If your time is stolen via taxation then what do you have to help other's with?

At some point government needs to stop extorting from those (the middle and upper classes) that are in the best position to help their communities through providing those resources of their own free will, and let them do so. I think everyone would be shocked by the kind of vibrancy and charity that it instills in the economy. I personally do not make a lot, but I'll freely admit that I make more than I can spend in a comfortable middle class lifestyle. That doesn't mean I think the government should take it all in taxes. I should be able to make the choice on who I help, and why. Especially when the government has a record of abuse, corruption and inefficiency.