Socialism Is Ethically Wrong

Cool...so the idea is to have 50 corrupted states instead? Of course I say that, and ALEC is completely entangled in state politics as we speak...

 

A proposed Constitution should abandon the two-party system that is de facto imposed by a first-past-the-post electoral system, thus closing one avenue that allows corruption.

 

There seems to be debate between people who believe that more than 2 parties is bad as it doesn't represent majority and belief that there should be more even-ness in terms of party eligibility in elections and then those that wish to have no such things as parties.

This is an interesting discussion. And all points of view have valid points. How could we have the best of all solutions? Possibly: Presidential candidates cannot be in a party, more even-ness in party representation through congress and only 2 party system in the house?

 

THINK AGAIN:

CONSERVATIVE CAPITALISM:
Republican President, Republican Senate, Republican House, and Republican Federal Reserve Chairman: 1921, 1922, 1923, 1924, 1925, 1926, 1927, 1928, 1929, 1930, 1931. Result: THE GREAT DEPRESSION.

LIBERAL CAPITALISM:
Democratic President, Democratic Senate, Democratic House, and Democratic Federal Reserve Chairman: 1933, 1934, 1935, 1936, 1937, 1938, 1939, 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943, 1944, 1945, 1946, 1947. Result: END OF GREAT DEPRESSION, VICTORY IN WORLD WAR II, OUR COUNTRY'S BEST ECONOMY. (Note to those who will try to use a common GOP lie: The Great Depression was needlessly extended when FDR took bad advice from GOP in 1937 regarding austerity. Also, WWII helped to show the importance of massive spending to get out of a Republican Depression.)

 

Conservative capitalism in America today is based on as much laissez-faire economics as the Republicans can get away with.

 

And the more the better.

- - - Updated - - -

You realize Hoover was a big spending liberal right? That FDR ran against him calling him a socialist? That the New Deal stalled the recovery multiple times? That the government caused the crash in the first place?

What do you buy from the government? Why do you want them to run everything?

 

A truly socialistic society only works if it is small in population and where everyone who is capable of working actually work. We don't live in a socialistic society and no other country has either in history regardless of what they believe.

 

The only socialists I know on a personal basis who are willing to accept the death of innocents to advance their cause belong to the tendencies of Leninism, Stalinism, or Maoism. And these people are a small minority among progressive socialists, who by their very nature prefer slow and peaceful transitions via participation in the existing political process. It generally seems to only be the militant and revolutionary folk who are willing to get blood on their hands.

Aye - in my case it seems proper to let people own personal property and to place claims to exclusively manage capital borrowed from the People, an arrangement under which property rights allow conditional, de facto private ownership of collective assets. Likewise, I have no interest whatsoever on forcing the ideology upon society. It will either be freely, fairly voted into being or rejected. Either outcome will be respected and peacefully accepted as legitimate.

If by socialism in this case you mean a centrally-planned economy then yes, I concur.

Aye - strict adherence to dogma and bias in favor of it sets one up for at times impractical policies likely to fall well short of what could potentially be achieved if one were open to tempering their views with promising ideas put forth in alternative ways of thought.

Alternatively, I would like to tinker with an idea of allowing folks to opt out of taxes and pay their own respective ways (including the purchase of state services they want to have) by becoming denizens, accepting a social contract different from that offered to taxpaying citizens. Many rights outlined in the constitution could still apply to them but some of them would, along with fee-free access to many state goods and services, be reserved for citizens who are basically subscribing each year via their taxes to a premium membership package. Citizens and denizens would be equal in status but differ significantly in how they manage their financial affairs. Not sure if it would work though - there may be a lot of kinks in this I have yet to even recognize.

Personally, I do not think the current system of welfare is too small - just too inefficiently and ineffectively designed.

Conventional liberal welfare regimes suffer from trying to promote self-sufficiency by allotting as little aid to as few people, for the least amount of time reasonably possible. They create sprawling bureaucracy, drive wedges between the classes, ruin lives and exacerbate daunting social ills by letting people genuinely in need fall through the cracks, invariably fail to prevent all abuse of benefits, and create an illusion of poverty not being a serious threat to individual freedom and quality of life when it is actually one of the greatest threats of all under capitalist, liberal democracies.

I am underemployed, looking for more jobs, and in the meanwhile making about $7,000 a year. So I pay no income tax. I want the rate I pay in tax increased to 10% aside from the increases on other brackets of income. At $15,000/yr. I would be willing to pay 30% in tax and 50% at $24,000/yr., for example. Those latter two rates are not ones I would think fair to impose on society as a whole however.

I consider well-designed systems of capitalism to be superior economic engines for ambition and GDP expansion, in the long term delivering more in material assets to all individuals than socialism. In contrast, I consider well-designed systems of socialism to be superior economic engines for compassion and holistic human development, in the long term delivering more satisfaction with life to all individuals than capitalism.

Incidentally, I prefer to combine elements of the two rather than going for purely for one side of the ideological coin or the other. It just so happens I lean more toward the latter paradigm than the former.

Workers at the co-op would elect managers and their businesses would be representative democracies. If workers vilify, under-compensate, or otherwise mistreat executives they will likely suffer a competitive disadvantage as excellent candidates for leadership choose to campaign for posts at relatively hospitable co-ops.

The current problem of overcompensation for executives would be rectified, and the push toward a more just measure of economic inequality in society driven, by a requirement of no worker at a co-op being compensated more than ten times as well as any other in their business. Businesses would have poor leadership unless workers choose to compensate managers and administrators well, yet those leaders would likewise need to also raise the wages or salaries of the workers if they themselves want to get big raises, bonuses, etc.

Alternatively, a CEO could run a sole proprietorship and negotiate contracts with co-ops by which they would exchange services of leadership for whatever the representative of the workers of the co-op in question are prepared to pay. Nobody is getting cheated of the opportunity to make a lot of money if their goods or services are deemed highly valuable to consumers. The sole proprietorship is compatible with socialism, in my opinion, since it is owned by its worker; there is no objectionably authoritarian power structure in place. I suppose some regulation of contacts among sole-proprietorships would be necessary though to prevent a de-facto shift to capitalism driven by markets rather than the People's elected trustees serving in government.

That seems to be a problem, yes, and I accept it as a weaknesses in the system.

To some extent I would try to mitigate it via stipulations in the social contracts for both citizenship and denizenship. Emigration / self-imposed exile would entail breaking the contract, leading to termination of one’s right to claim assets of the People for exclusive personal use and management. The bloke leaving would lose all assets except for personal properties, and the state would gift enough money to facilitate the process of transition from the old country to new. From there, she or he who left would be free to start afresh - this time earning their fortune using their own resources.

Some "brain drain" and flight of world-class professionals would occur anyway but their departure is acceptable.

Though true in theory, in practice I wonder whether talented leaders are really so narrowly focused on increasing their pay that they would sacrifice many other things they care about simply to get paid more - even after they can live very comfortably and are no longer made substantially happier by the things additional money could buy. I'm pretty curious about that, as I have heard the über rich often keep competing for more because they thrive on the power-rush and raw thrill of making the deal - not because they care if their net assets grow to a vastly larger figure measured in currency.

Or maybe I've got it wrong. I am unsure! Either way though, allowing sole proprietorships to compete with and against cooperatives should satisfactorily alleviate the problem.

First of all, I am not interested in total equality between the classes, and would be quite satisfied with having greater equality of opportunity in life regardless of socioeconomic background. People should have the strongest influence in choosing the courses of their own lives. With capitalism people tend to have fewer paths accessible for selection.

Second, under such a system you should want to work because the basic income is too modest for it to easily enable self-actualization. People tend to have a need for the love of friends and a mate, for a good measure of self-esteem, for creative outlets, accomplishment, a sense of being righteous, etc.

Do you think living in (*)(*)(*)(*)ty, low-rent studio apartments your whole life, frittering away your days immaturely sating hedonistic impulses will be attractive to the ladies? When you get old and look back on your achievements, would there be no regret? Would you be happy and respect yourself in spite of others thinking you a dysfunctional freeloader with few or no redeeming values? Could you have and maintain that self-love and respect knowing you are deeply in debt to those who support you, lack the material resources to satisfactorily pursue all your interests, have so little work experience that you are deemed fit for only the lowliest and least prestigious of menial tasks, and you never accepted the responsibilities or took on the risks necessary to enjoy a genuinely good life? What kind of person would you be? The answer is: one not in good mental health.

That is not to say some people won’t try it or find ways to game the system. Yet what else is there? The current system's benefits do not satisfy the basic physiological and security-related needs of all, plus abuse still occurs. The social democratic models are nice but need even greater state intervention and redistribution. Charity only suffices if you are okay with people suffering for dire want of opportunities in life or dying of thirst, hunger, exposure to the elements, etc.

*shrugs*

You are correct. What concerns is me what happens when people try to totally self-govern. I lack the same measure of faith in people not to harm, cheat, and oppress each other as you.

Including - under most of its forms - decisions to harm, cheat, and oppress others to the effect of significantly inhibiting their individual pursuits of life, liberty, and happiness.

We both have opinions about who should get what in society and why, you know. It is not just me.

That being said, I am more learned in matters concerning government than the vast majority of the general population. This does not qualify me to decide what is best for everyone, but I do think it justifies me having outspoken opinions about politics and in appropriate settings offering respectable opinions about how we might go about building a better society. None of that makes me right of course, and neither does it mean there’s nobody out there who knows much better than I what should be done in the context of what I mean to achieve.

The Founders were products of a different time and culture, and they proposed a feebler array of rights and protective measures to defend against oppression than I am. You are right that I do think we need protection from some things other than government, e.g. firms, unions, organized religion, political parties, other assorted interest groups, and individual people. Latent threats to the upkeep up human rights come in many different shapes and sizes and, although I am an advocate of limited government, do not believe less government always translates into more actionable freedom for each individual. I endeavor to limit the extent to which any faction can become oppressive without being confronted for it and held accountable.

Politics is a conflict first and foremost to implement competing perceptions of morality and reality to decide how people are to resolve their disputes. Each of us stand to learn quite a bit from alternative points of view but you should only care about mine insofar as it can aid in refining your own political positions and re-evaluating from time to time whether your moral values are arranged in a way that still settles well with your conscience. I do not want to change you; if anything I want you to always strive to become a wiser, more knowledgeable advocate of your views.

Rather than being the sort of bloke who wants to win at any cost, mind you, I prefer for the political faction most compatible with the People's values and worldviews to lead in government.

 

If your measure is the US Government Taxpayers hard earned JUNKIES ,GM and Chrysler should be NATIONALISED!

Without ,Compensation to the "SHAREHOLDERS" the Government WELFARE Recipients Wall Street!

Wall Street Capitalist scum is not Worth $85bn a Month .!

The American Working Class ,sorry, and PEOPLE!

Not the Government OWN AMERICA !

Nationalise GM and Chrysler ,wait for Ford to go belly up and Buy at 10cents in the Dollar!

 

Yeah, the government makes such great products ford can't win! You remember that government made consumer product that everyone wanted, what was its name again?

 

Ford has been in good financial shape. They may have had repeated losses, but they have the cash and liquidity to remain afloat.

I don't like seeing corporate welfare either, and, yes a bailout does qualify, but seeing GM and Chrysler go tits up would have been WORSE for the United States economy, even a hardcore capitalist would have said that is the case.

As for the other stuff. I'm sorry but I can't make heads or tails of your broken English and I will leave it at that.

 

I suppose it is okay if you like coercion and theft on a grand scale. Marxism tends to bring societies down to the lowest level. Sometimes the decline is rapid. And sometimes, if the nation beagan wealthy it takes more time to run down the wealth of the nation. England is running out. Sweden, I cannot say.

But poverty for most is the way to bet when a nation chooses socialism. Look at how rapidly we have declined under the Marxist.

 

So far this year about 1200 of the richest Americans have done precisely that. Like California soon America will contain mostly the poor who are unable to escape.

 

Like I said, it is a simple moral dilemma for free. Everybody knows Capitalism requires a profit motive.

 

Even before I knew what to call the 'ugliness' that (laissez-faire) capitalism generates, I was certain that the character "Christ" of the Bible, would surely have nothing to do with it. Yet, I saw so many on the "Christian" Right (especially) clinging to corrupted values systems based in large part upon the same; then came my awareness of the twisted money-worshiping right behind that.

Serious woes have always come home to roost, where THINGS in a society were afforded greater value and importance than PEOPLE; America is yet again in the very midst of such (well deserved) reciprocity.

 

What ever can you mean?

 

So? Who gives a flying (*)(*)(*)(*) about Grease Stain countries like that?

The unemployment is super high in the United States, the only country that matters, because King Obama is a fascist and a traitor and his policies are deliberately aimed at making the United States weaker. His determined efforts to fail cannot be explained as simply Marxist ignorance, no matter how hard you try.

 

Ignoring the substance of your actual argument, I'm disheartened by your disregard for the well-being of people elsewhere in the world just because they don't live within the arbitrary lines drawn on the map that designate "America". People do not stop mattering just because they're far away from you and you possess the American Superiority Complex.

 

So you claim that the brand of Progressive Socialism portrayed by Nazism, Russian and Chinese Marxism is the product of more advanced cultures? I don't believe that the "Conquistadors", nor the first English or French settlers understood the diseases they were bringing to New World in the beginning. surely Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Hitler all had a good idea of the death and destruction they brought to the world. Even Obama's friend Bill Ayers claimed that once the Progressive Social Marxists were in power at least 25 million Americans would necessarily have to be murdered.

 

Question: How many times has Bill Ayers been a guest of the Obama White House?

Answer: Three http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/...-wright-sharpton-jackson-are-in-da-house.html

Question: Were was connection between the Obama Campaign and Bill Ayers?

Answer: Bill Ayers says "YES" http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/bill-ayers-confirms-what-obama-has-denied/


So Obama is palling around with someone who wants 25 million American Capitalist "Dissidents" Exterminated ...

Why would any Sane American Trust Obama?

-

 

Such is the way with them. I say good riddance. They can go have their stupid tax haven. I think if they didn't have their hand so far up politicians sphincters, the government as a whole would simply say "Don't let the flag hit you on your ass on the way out." and never let them do business here again.

 

WOW <take a breath .deep breaths ,yes ,Obama is fascistic in his thinking ,and it time for the Tyrant of Imperialism to fall ,the Former super power the USA ,is n't what it used to be ,Uncle sam has gone Senile , he is ,sorry ,DYING!

Wether he takes the American People with him is well up to them ,Socialism or dying Capitalism take your choice.

 

Give it a rest. American capitalism has lasted at least three times longer than Soviet communism. The capitalist way of life will never die.

 

America as a nation was doing fine until we ushered in Socialism. When we finally fail, it will not be because of our Capitalism, but because of our dalliance with Socialism.

 

Oh it will. It's been around for a while but not a long time and it won't last a long time into the future either. It will find itself in trouble when the resources are so scarce that market forces are no longer able to regulate production, distribution and exchange.

- - - Updated - - -

You have no socialism in the US, your understanding is skewed by your perspective.