Coercive Capitalism vs. Voluntary Socialism

Eminent domain is a form of Socialism enabled by States' rights over means of production for public use.

 

I keep letting so-called capitalists get me off on tangents with their labels, too. I'm about done with it. If someone isn't an outright anarchist then he or she does agree that government must exist in some form and must create some rules for citizens to live by. At that point, I need to stop letting them sling labels and catch phrases and make them hash out with me what rules they want and why while I argue which rules I want and why.

 

Where there is a surplus of goods, there is the ability to hoard or exploit others. From that point on, only regulations prevent this. As regulations decrease, so does hoarding (lack of wealth distribution) and exploitation (predatory economics).

 

Doesn't it seem that a social Contract must be a form of socialism?

- - - Updated - - -

Eminent domain favors the socialism of the State and that Body politic, over the Individual.

 

Nope, it doesn't. It is a compact by which government runs.

Only in the process of managing land to the best and highest use. It is still not socialism in any form.

 

A social contract via socialism does enable States and Statism to exist. Managing land use is a simple function of government (a public sector) that is supported by the Peoples' tax monies through income transfers with recourse to the coercive use of force of the State; socialism in action.

 

I agree, land management is not peculiar to either capitalism or socialism. We use in in a capitalist system to insure the highest and best use it put to land. Eminent Domain as used in the US is not socialist in nature, and most of the land involved in Eminent Domain is turned over to private enterprise for use to the betterment of the community and fair compensation is rendered to the original owner.

Your senseless claims it is socialism reflects your ignorance of what socialism really is, as have all of your assertions about socialism. IOW, you special plead because you have no argument, and you have never used logic to express your points.

- - - Updated - - -

A social contract does not imply or infer socialism and it is not used as such in the US. Again, you have failed to prove your point.

 

It is only your special pleading that claims, Income Transfers, Eminent Domain, a legal monopoly on the Coercive use of force of the State, and Taxes, are not any form of Socialism.

 

The only one without an argument on these subjects is you Daniel, and that is the epitome of special pleading. You have no argument. You make claims which are simply not true. Then you insult the intelligence of anyone who gets the information, links to the information that proves you wrong by claiming they are appealing to ignorance. Daniel, you are the only one special pleading and/or appealing to ignorance, and you are the only one whose assertion cannot inspire confidence of validity. You have been conclusively proved wrong about gun control and the 2nd amendment and about socialism. You obviously don't have any idea what socialism is, yet you continue to assert things about socialism that is completely inaccurate. Grow up Daniel, and smell the coffee.

 

Special pleading, in a vacuum inspires even less confidence in your sincerity.

How can Income Transfers, a legal monopoly on the coercive use of force of the State, alienation and defeasing of rights in private property, not be a form of socialism as enumerated via a social contract? If it is not socialism, can you explain how it is a form of Capitalism? If not, then it Must be a form of socialism; and definitely not some "trinity", for your special pleading convenience.

 

Trying to explain things to you is like spitting into the wind. It just splashes back in your face. All of those issues have been explained by me and several others until we are blue in the face, yet you continue to flaunt your ignorance of the subject. So no Daniel, there is no reason to explain anything to you since you are uneducable.

 

Only when you resort to fallacy for your Cause. What ever shall we tell Will Robinson, Mr. Smith, since you claim to have a degree and therefore, cannot appeal to ignorance any longer.

How can Income Transfers, a legal monopoly on the coercive use of force of the State, alienation and defeasing of rights in private property, not be a form of socialism as enumerated via a social contract? If it is not socialism, can you explain how it is a form of Capitalism? If not, then it Must be a form of socialism; and definitely not some "trinity", for your special pleading convenience.

 

Because socialism involves public ownership of the means of production, not a social contract.

 

Why are you bothering with Daniel Palos. he has no interest in discussion. he uses pretentious language to annoy people. he is a classic troll. Look at the way he repeats the same sentences over and over again.

 

Mild amusement at seeing him make a fool of himself, over and over again.

 

How do you account for Hoover Dam and the Fed?

 

The Fed isn't publicly owned and is the Hoover Dam supposed to be an example of "alienation and defeasing of rights in private property" or have you already moved on from your previously challenged claim to move onto the next?
Public funding of large infrastructure projects doesn't contradict a capitalist economy. And does nothing to support your assertion that government itself is socialism.

 

Absolutely! Owning some small part of production does not a socialist economy make, any more than social programs make socialism. The government ownership of some production simply makes the government a competitor in the market. Unless the government owns or controls all production, distribution and wealth it is not socialist in nature.

 

Gee, have any more non sequiturs? Hoover Dam is an excellent example of public sector means of production. The Fed is as well to the extent any revenue is returned to our public treasury. Central planning, income transfers, and the socialism of eminent domain are example of socialism and the process which accomplised those public sector means of production.

- - - Updated - - -

We have a Mixed Market economy. Any questions?

 

Wow, you really are clueless. The Federal reserve is owned by privately owned banks. Revenue is used to pay operating expenses and profit to the stock holders of the individual banks.

 

Still appealing to ignorance instead of reason?

 

Directly contradicting yourself and not even aware of it.

 

Absolutely! Owning some small part of production does not a socialist economy make, any more than social programs make socialism. The government ownership of some production simply makes the government a competitor in the market. Unless the government owns or controls all production, distribution and wealth it is not socialist in nature.

Ludwig von Mises

Capitalism and socialism are two distinct patterns of social organization. Private control of the means of production and public control are contradictory notions and not merely contrary notions. There is no such thing as a mixed economy, a system that would stand midway between capitalism and socialism. The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality pp. 6465 Capitalism vs. Socialism​

 

He tends to appeal to ignorance on a regular basis.