Coercive Capitalism vs. Voluntary Socialism

Nope, in socialism they would have no need to compensate the landowner as the state owns the land.

 

And how did the socialist State get the land in the first place? They stole it from the landowner.

 

At least the commie is somewhat honest. Socialism is nothing more than the seed of Communism which will eventually grow into Communism and once the people realize that they're getting screwed over... it will devolve into Fascism. Such is the life cycle of socialism/communism/fascism.

You see socialism is predicated on the idea that the socialist elite are more intelligent and make better decisions than the average person. The average person is too stupid to make decisions on their own so the socialist elite must appropriate the resources of the people and make decisions for them. For instance... you're too stupid to prepare for your own retirement, so the socialists must take money out of your check every week and prepare your retirement for you. You're too stupid to provide yourself healthcare, so the socialist elite have to appropriate your resources and provide it for you... and so on and so forth.

Eventually though, the people begin to recognize that the socialist elite are really screwing them over. They're inefficient, ineffective, costly and while they claim to be in it to help the poor, they're really in it to help themselves and their buddies. The people will eventually refuse to hand over their money to the socialists willingly. However, because the socialist elite are so much smarter than the average person and they're so much more capable of making correct decisions... the socialists will begin to TAKE the money from the people whether they want them to or not. They have then devolved into fascism.

Unless capitalism and the capitalists can stop them before it gets there... that is the inevitable course that too much socialism will take you down.

 

As opposed to "just compensation"

 

It depends on the Social Contract, not Any form of Capital Contract. Ours enumerates just compensation as a Social End.

 

There is a lot of truth in your post.

 

Referring to this as a "social" contract or a "social" end no more makes it socialism, than you proclaiming that government is socialism. But I'll interpret you grasping to characterize emminent domain as socialism is because you have nothing to support your assertion that government is socialism.

 

So you like chaos and anarchy? The communist community I am personally familiar with also failed. It was located in west central Louisiana, and only the founders came out with anything. Neither Socialism nor Communism or any marxist community can survive for long without authoritative/dictatorial government and even then the "long" is relatively short term as well.

- - - Updated - - -

Wrong! Eminent domain is nothing more than a tool to manage land use.

 

So what. Even true communist States must manage land use. Eminent domain completes the stereotypical socialism requirement for public sector ownership of means of production in favor of the State, even if it may require the coercive use of force in addition to just compensation.

 

Because that is all eminent domain is, a tool to manage land use.

Which is of course totally irrelevant to the discussion.

No it doesn't as their is no means of production in the US Government.

 

Even true communist States must manage land use. It is relevant because eminent domain completes the stereotypical socialism requirement for public sector ownership of means of production in favor of the State, even if it may require the coercive use of force in addition to just compensation as specifically enumerated in our Social Contract which can in no way be confused with a Capital Contract. Hoover Dam and the Fed are public sector means of production to the extent revenue is returned our public treasury.

 

Our Social Contract enumerates just compensation when alienating and defeasing rights in private property.

 

Eminent domain as used in the US is for a land management tool. Not socialism. Social contracts do not infer, or suggest socialism. They are usually, as ours is, a compact on how to govern. Government creation of infrastructure is not production in the same sense as the ownership and control of production in socialism.

 

Seriously, after everything i have posted you still insist that a direct democratic regime will become fascism .
You could just tell me to stop wasting my time.

Y

Socialism is not what you think it is and you got everything wrong.

It failed because it had a leader and it was probably undermined by capitalist Morlocks .
You may have a point , primitive societies like the one you live are full of insecure weaklings unable to take personal responsibility and decide for themselves . Sheep need a shepard .

 

Land management is not peculiar to capitalism or socialism; but can be utilized by both; only Persons who resort to special pleading run out of logic and reason sooner than those who don't. In case you missed it, Eminent Domain establishes ownership and control.

 

Of course land management can be used by both, but my point is simple, it is not specifically socialist. In the US it is used for land management only.

There you go again. After admitting, in the post to which I am responding, says it is used in capitalism as well as socialism. In the US it is never socialist in nature. It does not cause production by the government, it tends to manage land for private enterprise which is more useful to the people. Your fetish with calling everything socialism reflects ignorance, and special pleading for socialism without argument on your part.

 

Eminent domain is a form of socialism that can alienate and defease, rights in private property; it is the essence of stereotypical Socialism.

 

In fact it is not, as in the US it is used to manage land to its highest and best use, and mostly for private enterprise. It has nothing to do with socialism in the US.

 

It has to do with socialism confiscating capital from capitalism.

 

So, how many years before France is a communist country?

 

No it doesn't. It has to do with fair compensation for land which can be better used in a manner other than how it is currently being used, and usually for private enterprise to use for the betterment of all. There is nothing socialistic about it.

 

It has to do with ownership of means of production through eminent domain; it is a form of socialism.

 

The means of production through the use of eminent domain is usually for private enterprise. Eminent domain is not socialist in nature, it is only a means to manage land.

 

It is Socialism, in action regarding "ownership" of means of production via the coercive use of force of the State and not voluntary social transactions that may result in mutually beneficial and social trade.

 

Wrong again! Are you capable of even understanding what socialism is? I doubt it. Eminent domain is not socialist in nature.