Do you really know what socialism really is?

Socialism is the giving up of private ownership of property. It would not surprise me that most young people have no idea of what socialism really is. You own NOTHING. The state and "the group" own everything.

Is that what those on the left really want? Be careful of what you wish for. Most have no idea of what it will become. Not a damn clue. Under socialism, you and everything your own, you will no longer own, even yourself.

Again, just warning socialist what they are bringing in and on themselves and society.

 

You're playing with words. You can have some things that some people consider socialistic or you can have a purely socialistic government. The two aren't the same.

 

Yes but when you're blowing rainbows out your ass like Bernie Sanders, young impressionable people can't tell the difference and would opt for the enhanced package. No such thing as just a little socialism.

 

No playing with words at all. Look up the definition of socialism. And the left IS trying to get us to a socialist government. That is what they teach in the colleges. And yes, they are the same. You cannot have ownership of property and have any form of socialism. I just want the ignorant people here to know what socialism brings.
Universal healthcare. They take money from some to give to all, the destruction of private property.
Socialistic programs. They take money from some to give to all, the destruction of private property.
Minimum Wage. They take money from some to give to all, the destruction of private property.

It makes it so the state ends up "owning" everything, and the people nothing but slavery to the hand that feeds them.

 

If I work hard and create a lot of wealth, you don't and create little, they take from me 1/2 and give to you for being incompetent and having no value.

 

Socialism is when the government has too much control over the people and freedom dies.

 

Yeah, I had this conversation with my lefty brother and he equates socialism to getting stuff for free, so he doesn't really quite get how he is hurt by socialism.

He made a pretty good point by saying that his healthcare insurance under obamacare is basically nothing, and I couldn't argue with that. To him, he should get free stuff, and I just don't know how to argue against that. He's obviously basically a ward of the state, but... hey, he would have died if not for obamacare which paid for his medical care when he was diagnosed with diabetes.

I do know how to argue against getting free stuff, but when you're dealing with people you love who are dependent upon the government for their very lives, there isn't much of a compelling argument you can make that doesn't sound like "yeah well, everybody dies sooner or later".

 

duplicate

 

I have only ever heard 1 or 2 ever say they prefer the gov't to own everything.
So, not much to worry about.

 

Nothing is free in this world. It was just paid for by people other than him.

Nobody wants your brother to die-but it can't be brushed off as "free stuff".

 

It's the entitlement mentality, and one that lefties use to tell themselves that socialism is good. It's all emotion with no substance. Theyr'e basically saying "without socialism, I'd be dead and you don't want me dead, do you? DO YOU?????"

I can easily say "Yeah well, why put off for tomorrow what you can accomplish today" to somebody I don't care about, but I just can't do that with my brother.

 

I get it, its wrong and intended to tug at our heart strings.

Its also a sign of the deceptive nature of socialism.

Everyone hopes they are going to get the freebies.

Everyone pretends the bill won't be to dear.

 

Agreed here, but with a stipulation: Socialism doesn't work when there are limited resources. The situation you are rightfully pointing out is that the government decides "each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", not the individual. However, with unlimited resources, there is no need for such government authoritarianism, only a method of coordinating distributing those resources without ever having to deprive anyone of their own labors.

 

worth repeating (smiling)

 

When are there not limited resources?

Why are the resources rationed in socialist systems?

 

But there never are unlimited resources anywhere. You must dissolve private property rights to bring in socialism. And why should I work hard, if the fruits of my labor go to someone else. So why should I product anything, and let the fools left work for me stuff, until the whole system collapse.

 

Have you heard more than 1 or 2 who seek to ban guns? Deprive people of rights "for their own good"? Ban books? Ban anything? Both those on the hard Left and hard Right seek to ban thinks; to limit freedom. If you favor any banning of individual rights where no one is harmed, then you are part of the problem.

 

An amusing aside...

 

And this...

 

Obviously not everybody, else there wouldn't be fiscal conservatives. The thing is, I think this ties in with the left's destruction of the family. It's all about free sex with anybody and then abortions when things go wrong for them. Marriage is something that should be allowable for gays because well... everybody should have that option! This is without thinking of why marriage is important to begin with, which is to provide women with some security that they'll be provided for by men.

I can't think of a single issue the left champions that helps families.

 

Correct, but it's a technological problem.

What happens when we develop fission or some form of unlimited, renewable energy coupled with 3D printers that can print anything provided raw materials and unlimited energy?

Think Star Trek replicators coupled with Back to the Future's Mr. Fusion. What happens when anyone can be given a Mr. Fusion and a replicator? All they need is dirt, rocks or waste to make whatever they need.

 

Under our current level of technology, always.

Because they can't make the ideology work in a world of limited resources.

 

They believe in murdering children, so mom will not be inconvenienced or pay for their own actions. That helps families (somehow).

 

And when that happens, socialism will become the norm. It's like everybody having their own Robbie the Robot.

Which side of the political dichotomy routinely fights against robots taking over jobs? Which side asks "who is going to clean my toilet!?!?!?!?!"

Socialism/Communism will happen, but only when there's no longer a value placed on work. When that happens, I'm all about keeping my Robbie Robot busy making beer and pizza and staying home in front of the TV watching gilligan's island reruns. Until then... No.

 

That is a nice theory, but we are a long way from it now. Someone has to product the replicators and repair them.