I don't, where are you getting that? You aren't aloud to confiscate wealth without *due process of law*, by the sentencing by a judge or jury. The 5th amendment says. Voluntary taxes such as excise, tariffs, property tax is not a confiscation therefor they are not against the 5th amendment. You don't have to own land, or trade, therefor they are voluntary. This is why they had to create a 16th amendment to enact the federal income tax.
What you claim may have been the rationale for the Sixteenth Amendment; but, in my opinion that amendment was not necessary, as most amendments after our Bill of Rights were not necessary, if we had only been able to bear true witness, to our supreme law of the land. Why do you believe our federal Congress did not have the power to enact an income tax after the first census or enumeration?
"No country has been some form of socialist. Ever." I've been appreciating your arguments thus far, but to say that no country ever, has ever been a form of socialist is absurd. Any measure of collectivism is some form of socialism. Just as simply as any form of individualism is some form of Capitalism. The naivity of utopian socialism as I understand it (and correct me if I'm wrong, I haven't read Marx for a decade) is that true collectivism would require a global voluntary sharing of wealth and responsibility. Collectivism, in reality, can not be achieved without coercion, which is why, in any attempted implimentation on a large scale it has been insepirable from tyranny. Even within so-called Capitalist states such as the US, every act of socialism requires reduction in liberty and an increased use of force. Sacrifice of personal wealth and property is almost never universally met with willingness, obviously making oppression of those who oppose necessary. When measuring net prosperity, based on practical successess of part-socialist experiments versus part-capitalist experiments throughout history, socialism has failed to even come close to providing the kind of health and propsperity to the poor and middle class that is achieved through capitalism. This is why discussions of socialism are historic and fringe at best. It's a wonderful notion with no real-world application. Philisophically and morally it is utterly impractical and refuses to acknowledge the proven history of human self-interest and motivations. Like it or hate it, capitalism is the best practical way to embrace and reward natural impulses for growth and development while maintaining survival of the poorest as an externality of success.
I create a party called: The Conservative Party of America. My party wins the elections, and I change the name of USA of the Conservative United States of America. And my policies are: nationalize the banks, introduce laws that pemit workers colectivize an industry when this industry pretends go abroad sea... Also I introduce laws like abolishing the marriage for everybody. I desvinculate totally the church from the state, no relations church-state. And more, I abolish exemptions of the churchs in taxes. Ok. Are you considering that government conservative? Just because this government is having the name of conservative?
Your logic here is completely sound, nearly every state has betrayed to some degree the ideology which it claims to ascribe to. However, socialism is a broad term, widely inclusive of many aspects of most governments today. I'm sure your definition is quite specific, but it's not true that everything else is "not socialist". Most hard-core socialists argue that no one has ever really tried it, which I agree with inasmuch as no one has ever really seen true capitalism (without private interest government and state monopoly). It's just naïve to use black and white logic on one and not the other. The truth is, the USSR implemented many socialist policies, which has produced drastically different effects than other systems have. No one normally claims it was a good example of socialism, but to say anything that varies from your vision of a socialism is "not socialism" just undermines the point of ever using ideological labels.
What is your opinion on a hypothetical Heaven on Earth and a that contrast and comparison with anarcho-capitalism. It could be conceivable that some form of anarcho-communism could achieve a form of that utopia, even if it took a thousand monkeys a thousand years to randomly type it up, and simply claim it took them so long, because it was also a committee meeting. Eliminating want is a communist ideal.
I can agree with you regarding some fees that are simply another form of tax; but, how can you claim that the Fifth Amendment denies or disparages the general government of the Union in its delegated power to tax? How does your point of view account for general taxes? Taxation is taxation; from one perspective.
Democratic People's Republic of North Korea. You're taking the arbitrary connection of the signified and signifier to be ultimately true, don't do this, ever. If I call something accepted within general society to be a table a horse, it doesn't make it a horse.
Oh yes,N Korea is not democratic - here the views of left and right anti-communist meet.Can somebody explain clearly why the state that guarantees the observance of four basic human rights :the right to work,the right to housing,the right to medical aid,the right to education - there is no real freedom without these rights - why in the hell this state isn't democratic??And why the states that never were able to give their peoples these rights and therefore a real freedom,are democratic?? Really you must have an overturned brain to belleave in it. And the USSR was socialist because it's basis - public ownership of the means of production,organized planned production and consumption in society on the whole - was socialist.
I'm far from anti-communist. North Korea is far from democratic due to totalitarian rule of a malnourished, impoverished nation. State capitalism is closer to what the USSR was, rather than a form of socialism. They had some useful redistribution and improvements to be admired, but all communists need to accept the failure, move on and rebuild.
It's a formal point of view.At first,don't mix democracy with grub,democratic nation can be malnourished and impoverished,too,especially if it lives at a state of siege like N Korea.At second,democracy can be in a form of dictatorship,such is a dialectic.The point is not in the form of the rule,but in the policy provided by authorities.The policy in the interests of the majority - this is the only indication of democracy. There were no private property and separate individual producers in the USSR and therefore capitalist form of exploatation was impossible.
Let me try again: Let's say red is rule no. 1, blue is rule no. 2. Medicare, medicaid, social security Both rule 1 and 2 are in conflict with these. They are funded by a tax which is involuntary, you must generate income to live. And the people who are paying into it are not justly compensated in most cases. Unconstitutional Income tax Both rule 1 and 2 are in conflict with this. I do not receive 35% of my income back in government spending, therefor I am not justly compensated. This income is not charged to me by a judge, I must make income and I must pay it without jury or sentence. Unconstitutional. Luxury tax, land property tax, corporate tax Neither rule 1 nor 2 are broken. I do not need to own land, I do not need luxuries, I do not need to make profit. Property taxes generally are compensated with roads, police, firefighters, schools, and the like. Mostly constitutional. Clear? And try and connect the dots on this one: Article 1 Section 9: 16th amendment Clearly the 16th amendment is in contradiction with the constitution. If you were to repeal an amendment, the easiest way to do it is to create an amendment that negates it. That is exactly what they did with the 16th amendment.
and democratically controlled by the people what? Less poverty? lol. They don't. China, North Korea, Cuba, the soon collapsing of the European socialism. They have more poverty. The difference is their authoritarian governments, like china, are great at hiding it.[/QUOTE] There is probably more truth to this than you realise. I think you just stumbled on some actual Marxism. But just because communism isnt possible doesnt mean that scrapping capitalism is impossible. You couldnt go to communism overnight, and we know how to make robots. cheers!
Well I described the USSR as a degenerated workers state. You can call it half-socialist if you want, but that's like calling a bag of flour half a cake. It was missing some vital ingredients. And in practice the Stalinist regime acted as anti-socialists, deliberately sabotaging revolutions. I'm not too well up on Utopian Socialism. No. Socialism needs some coercion of the capitalist class, sure, but that is not how Russia degenerated. It is connected, but different. Russia degenerated because socialism is impossible in a backward country. In actual fact it was a sort of counter-revolution, carried out largely by the bureaucrats, most of whom were inherited from the Tsars's regime. Even under the Bolsheviks the could command privilege and they were more numerous too. Well the healthcare in Britain is kinda 'socialist' in that it's free. It is also far less expensive than America's largely private healthcare. And Norway is often called (mistakenly) 'socialist', but it's prosperous. But really you cant mix socialism and capitalism. Anyway, what examples are there of 'socialist ' acts requiring reduction in liberty?
First off by utopian socialism, I wasn't quoting a political science textbook, I simply meant the utopian (as in, imaginary ideal) of perfect socialism. A flawed use of words perhaps. Secondly, Britain's health care isn't free, tax payers fund it obviously. Lastly, what happens to me if I don't pay my taxes? I go to jail. In order to give me even the most moderate of social programs, I must be taxed for it. I have no choice in the matter, even if I have no use for the particular program or if I completely disagree with the objectives of the program. This, in every instance is coercion and therefore a reduction of liberty and choices. Oddly enough, I would suggest that the dismantlement of the majority of federal government power and the onset of a free society would actually provide the best possible setting for true and honest socialism to imerge. If a state, lets say Utah, wanted to offer free health care, free food, free houses, etc., but in exchange required 90% of your earnings and a strict adherence to a contract in order to participate in the scheme, US citizens could voluntarily choose to come and go from Utah based on whether or not they felt the service they recieved for their personal investment was worth it or not. The problem with federal socialism is that I, as a person living under a social contract that I never signed nor am favourable towards in it's entirety have little option of moving to another country to escape the tyranny of the majority.
And tyranny of the majority reigns. Tragedy of the commons, cites history of publicly owned land (commons) failing miserably. Until property rights are legislated/enforced/recognized. I said this, not you. Possible and preferable are worlds apart. How many people do you think won't take care of their robot(s) when they're free? How many people are going to invent new robots when they aren't awarded prosperity for doing so?
Well Marxism is the opposite of Utopian. Utopian means you imagine an ideal society and then wonder how it might be achieved. Marx never did that, most of his writing was about history and analysing capitalist economy. He looked at the present to see how it arose from the past. The present is obviously a point on the continuum of time, so if you can see how we arrived here you should have at least a rough idea of where things might lead. But you cant say exactly. Marx predicted that the workers would bid for power and he was proved right in his lifetime. he said it would only work if it happened in advanced countries, or that if it started in a backward country they would need assistance form advanced ones to succeed. Otherwise, he said, it would be back to the old crap. It's what Americans call single payer I believe. Free at the point of use. It is less than half the cost of the American healthcare. but people have voted for these things and support them. It is not socialism. And socialism can't exist in one country let alone one state.
yes you have any support for this? Socialism is only possible when you can eliminate shortages of stuff people need or want (within reason). So basically everyone would have to be prosperous.
Paying taxes does not always have to happen voluntarily because that power is delegated to our federal Congress and the executive department is charged with the faithful execution of the laws. Can you give me a specific example of your point of view in actual practice? It seems, to me, that you are simply engaging in a form of special pleading since anyone going before a judge and simply told to pay their taxes should be enough to convince anyone, that taxes must be moral enough for a judge to have the authority delegated to them to employ the coercive use of force of the State. You have not made any case where your claim of the immorality or "wrongness" of paying taxes is established, since our Founding Fathers did a better job at claiming the opposite.
If a social contract in which individuals give up all of their personal wealth and entrust their personal choices and well being to a centralized redistribution center is not a form of socialism, then you are working with some arcane, academic definition of socialism that is irrelivant to the current discourse and is purely semantic in nature. As for the argument that because people vote for ideas and "support" them, first of all, in a practical sense, voters rarely vote directly on ideas. Secondly, even if 51% of voters elected to murder the other 49%, it is unlikely that the 49% would just role over and accept the verdict in the name of democracy. In the same respect, the percentage of people who fund the non-productive percentage of the population would not voluntarily do so in most cases, regardless of popular vote and therefore only comply due to threat of force. I'm not making a judgement on this reality necessarily, but the fact remains that implied use of force is the only means of enforcing social programs. If you follow the political discussion in America at all you would know that only a shrinking majority (slightly greater than 50% of the people) support the majority of federal institutions. The remainder of the people feel coerced and would prefer to make decisions of whether or not to contribute their wealth and resources to the greater society freely.
I show you a green circle, and you say "this circle is not green." Welcome to the ignore list. You support tyranny of the majority...? https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugex....,cf.osb&fp=5f754cb99b9f8866&biw=1280&bih=899 Everyone is more prosperous when they are rewarded for producing. If no one is rewarded, no one produces, but everyone consumes.
well, that's not a definition of socialism nor a description of America if that's what you are saying. Yes I agree democracy is no good if the majority tyrannises the minority, but it depends, with the capitalists that's ok. However getting the rich to help the poor is a no brainer and most people want governments to do more. Here are some figures for the USA from the BBC global poll "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Americans have the largest majority viewing the Soviet Unions collapse in a positive light, and the largest minority endorsing capitalism in its present form. They are one of only four countries with a majority calling for a less active role in government ownership or control of major industries. Most (53%) agree that problems generated by capitalism can be solved through reform and regulation; 25 per cent of respondents say that it works well and efforts to reform it will result in inefficiencies, and just 13 per cent say that a different economic system is required. A modest majority (52%) say that government should be less involved in the ownership and control of major industries, while 24 per cent of respondents say that it should more involved, and 20 per cent say that it should continue with its current level of involvement. Four in ten (41%) support a more active role for government in distributing wealth more evenly, compared to 37 per cent who support a less active role and 18 per cent who support the governments current role. Forty-four per cent favor increasing government regulation of businesses, while 35 per cent favor decreasing regulation and 18 per cent favor existing levels. Eight in ten (81%) Americans view the disintegration of the Soviet Union mainly as a good thing, compared to just 8 per cent who view it as a bad thing (12% did not answer)."