10 Traits Found In Socialists

[☭proletarian☭]

Capitalism is amoral - it has no moral compass, and is neither moral nor immoral. It simply is a system which when unregulated recognizes the following:
- the importance of unrestricted individual rights

The 'importance of unrestricted individual rights' is an idea grounded in morality. The very premise of such ideologies is that it is morally abhorrent to restrict a man's liberty without due cause. Ergo, an amoral system cannot have such a tenant, rendering your argument fallacious.

- the importance of individual property rights

Again, 'right' is a matter of morality, meaning it cannot be part of any system you declare amoral.

- the right to engage in unrestricted free enterprise and keep the profits of your work

Again, the concept of rights is a moral concept and you have already declared the system amoral...


How does that fit in with Jesus who spoke for the poor and protected the weak?

 

[Father Time]

Well he didn't say 'force people to give to the poor' he said 'render unto Caeser's that which is Caeser's'

so I take it he was into 'give Caeser the money he earns but if he doesn't help the poor, he's not a good person'

 

[☭proletarian☭]

He also pretty much said that to refuse to give your wealth to the poor meant you went to hell. The camel going through the eye of a needle, how you treat the wost among you, and so forth.

The only way to go to heaven is to be blessed with the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit manifests in a man and can be seen in him through his godly acts (Christian = like Christ)

Among Christ's actions, which he taught his disciples to continue in his leave and which the Holy Spirit moves all of God's people to carry out as a sign of the goodness of God, is the tending to of the poor and the feeble.

Hence, a man who refuses to care for the poor and feeble or who complains when he is expected to share his bounty with the less fortunate is clearly not acting like Christ himself and it is clear that he is not blessed by the Holy Spirit and has not received the salvation of the LORD. As such, he is still condemned by his sins, including his coldness to the least among us, to the Outer Darkness or to the eternal fires which shall consume him.

 

[Coyote]

Capitalism is amoral - it has no moral compass, and is neither moral nor immoral. It simply is a system which when unregulated recognizes the following:
- the importance of unrestricted individual rights

The 'importance of unrestricted individual rights' is an idea grounded in morality. The very premise of such ideologies is that it is morally abhorrent to restrict a man's liberty without due cause. Ergo, an amoral system cannot have such a tenant, rendering your argument fallacious.

- the importance of individual property rights

Again, 'right' is a matter of morality, meaning it cannot be part of any system you declare amoral.

- the right to engage in unrestricted free enterprise and keep the profits of your work

Again, the concept of rights is a moral concept and you have already declared the system amoral...


How does that fit in with Jesus who spoke for the poor and protected the weak?

Individual rights may be grounded in morality but that does not mean they work together to create a moral system. Rights can be grounded in morality, but if those exercising those rights aren't moral - is the system moral?

One argument I heard on capitalism and morality: "...Yet morality is impossible unless one is free to choose between alternatives without outside coercion. Since capitalism is based on freedom of choice, it provides the best environment for morality and character development. In addition, business success not only requires but also rewards virtuous behavior by participants in the market." illustrates exactly what I mean by "capitalism is amoral".

Capitalism does not reward virtuous behavior, in fact it just as easily rewards bad behavior. When there was no regulation of free-wheeling capitalism you had:
child labor
company towns/company store arrangements keeping workers in perpetual debt
no work safety rules
no product safety rules (flour adulterated with plaster of paris, bread made with sawdust...)

Where is the "morality" in that? It is what it is - the survival of the fittest (or smartest, or most ruthless) that gave rise to the industry barons of another century.

 

[DiamondDave]

He also pretty much said that to refuse to give your wealth to the poor meant you went to hell. The camel going through the eye of a needle, how you treat the wost among you, and so forth.

The only way to go to heaven is to be blessed with the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit manifests in a man and can be seen in him through his godly acts (Christian = like Christ)

Among Christ's actions, which he taught his disciples to continue in his leave and which the Holy Spirit moves all of God's people to carry out as a sign of the goodness of God, is the tending to of the poor and the feeble.

Hence, a man who refuses to care for the poor and feeble or who complains when he is expected to share his bounty with the less fortunate is clearly not acting like Christ himself and it is clear that he is not blessed by the Holy Spirit and has not received the salvation of the LORD. As such, he is still condemned by his sins, including his coldness to the least among us, to the Outer Darkness or to the eternal fires which shall consume him.

And hence why charitable people will be just fine....

There are PLENTY of people who are against government redistribution of wealth by force, who still pay their taxes even though they disagree with the leftist influenced redistribution within our system, and who still VOLUNTARILY support charities out of the goodness of their hearts

Christ was not advocating a power hungry system of forced redistribution.. no matter how much you would like to see it like that so you could use it for left-wing propaganda

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Christ was not advocating a power hungry system of forced redistribution..

Really? Is not the punishment for failing to do so eternal punishment?

Is that not force?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Coyote has argued my point for me. If capitalism is amoral, his assertions that

recognizes the following:
- the importance of unrestricted individual rights
- the importance of individual property rights
- the right to engage in unrestricted free enterprise and keep the profits of your work

are false, since its ays nothing about protecting any rights and is based on the principle that the capitalist takes the profits/product of another man's labour.

 

[DiamondDave]

Christ was not advocating a power hungry system of forced redistribution..

Really? Is not the punishment for failing to do so eternal punishment?

Is that not force?

Free will to gain that 'benefit' though.... he did not advocate the elimination of free will on this.. it was upon the person or individual to choose the path... not for some other person to force it upon them

but nice try

 

[☭proletarian☭]

If I put a gun to your head, do you still have free will?

You're saying that I'm not forcing someone to give me their wallet because they can choose to refuse and be shot.

 

[DiamondDave]

If I put a gun to your head, do you still have free will?

You're saying that I'm not forcing someone to give me their wallet because they can choose to refuse and be shot.

I realize the gun to the head is typical in socialism based forced system... but this is not the case of what was being done by Christ....

You can try and convince me of your leftist system and you may say I'll go to hell for it, but I still won't buy in... much like Christ preached his mantra, but there was indeed no actual force on this plane of existence

Nice try, though

 

[☭proletarian☭]

If I put a gun to your head, do you still have free will?

You're saying that I'm not forcing someone to give me their wallet because they can choose to refuse and be shot.

I realize the gun to the head is typical in socialism based forced system... but this is not the case of what was being done by Christ....

The gun was called Gehenna

much like Christ preached his mantra, but there was indeed no actual force on this plane of existence

So it's cool because he didn't punish you now, but you got deferred payments on that eternal torment?

Nice try, though

 

[Coyote]

Coyote has argued my point for me. If capitalism is amoral, his assertions that

recognizes the following:
- the importance of unrestricted individual rights
- the importance of individual property rights
- the right to engage in unrestricted free enterprise and keep the profits of your work

are false, since its ays nothing about protecting any rights and is based on the principle that the capitalist takes the profits/product of another man's labour.

I'm not sure what you're saying here...maybe it's the inherent contradiction of pure capitalism in theory and capitalism in practice? Theory vs human nature? Pure socialism sounds great in theory...but in practice doesn't work.

 

[DiamondDave]

If I put a gun to your head, do you still have free will?

You're saying that I'm not forcing someone to give me their wallet because they can choose to refuse and be shot.

I realize the gun to the head is typical in socialism based forced system... but this is not the case of what was being done by Christ....

The gun was called Gehenna

much like Christ preached his mantra, but there was indeed no actual force on this plane of existence

So it's cool because he didn't punish you now, but you got deferred payments on that eternal torment?

Nice try, though

What you believe in eternity is your business.. you may not believe in my teachings or you may not believe in a hell.. then again you may believe but believe differently how to get there... not nearly the same as the use of force in redistribution into systems that you support in our existence here on this earth...

I'll stick to charity and stick to my actions, PERSONALLY, getting me into whatever eternity I believe.. you go right ahead and think your forced charity upon others gives you one up with your maker, or that it gets you somewhere before you blink out into a black void... but I will fight your supported systems until I go to meet my maker

 

[Diuretic]

Capitalism is amoral - it has no moral compass, and is neither moral nor immoral. It simply is a system which when unregulated recognizes the following:
- the importance of unrestricted individual rights

The 'importance of unrestricted individual rights' is an idea grounded in morality. The very premise of such ideologies is that it is morally abhorrent to restrict a man's liberty without due cause. Ergo, an amoral system cannot have such a tenant, rendering your argument fallacious.

- the importance of individual property rights

Again, 'right' is a matter of morality, meaning it cannot be part of any system you declare amoral.

- the right to engage in unrestricted free enterprise and keep the profits of your work

Again, the concept of rights is a moral concept and you have already declared the system amoral...


How does that fit in with Jesus who spoke for the poor and protected the weak?

Rights aren't necessarily about morality, simply legality. I do think Coyote has a good argument here, about amorality of capitalism. It really is amoral. But just because it is amoral doesn't make it a bad thing, just amoral. We need to look elsewhere to point out its faults, morality or amorality is, I think, not all that relevant.

 

[Diuretic]

Coyote has argued my point for me. If capitalism is amoral, his assertions that

recognizes the following:
- the importance of unrestricted individual rights
- the importance of individual property rights
- the right to engage in unrestricted free enterprise and keep the profits of your work

are false, since its ays nothing about protecting any rights and is based on the principle that the capitalist takes the profits/product of another man's labour.

I'm not sure what you're saying here...maybe it's the inherent contradiction of pure capitalism in theory and capitalism in practice? Theory vs human nature? Pure socialism sounds great in theory...but in practice doesn't work.

Capitalism has been - generally speaking - a brilliant event for humanity. I don't want to sound too lofty here but it has definitely improved the world far more than if it had not existed. Yes there have been problems with it, yes it's built on exploitation and yes it depends on class hierarchy to work, but on balance we are all better off for it. Have a look at the political/economic/social systems that preceded it. Feudalism - how's that for exploitation? Mercantilism great if you're a stockholder of the East India Company, not so good if you're watching your country being colonised! At least capitalism works on some sort of exchange basis and respects - theoretically - individual and state's rights.

Problem is that capitalism requires resources, and lots of them, to work. In times of scarcity of resources it will fall over. We've all benefited from the exploitation of resources over the past hundred years or so of capitalism, to the point where humanity in general is able to exist as never before in history. Before someone brings up Darfur please let me note that I am having to use generalities.

We know natural resources are dwindling. When that really begins to bite then capitalism will have to cede to socialism, to a planned approach to exploiting natural resources and their distribution.

And I agree it has to be practical, not theoretical and therefore it will - I think - have a good mixed approach.

Command economies in the past have failed because of an inability of the planners to predict consumer needs and demands. The benefit of a market system is that consumer needs and demands are expressed very quickly and picked up very aptly by companies willing to meet those needs and demands. However, capitalism has given us greater knowledge and technology and it is entirely possible that the mistakes of the past in command economies can be overcome by looking at the mistakes and using technology and knowledge as it exists now and into the future, to rectify those mistakes.

 

[Biggles]

I guess for my answer, I would just list Obama's Cabinet and Czars.

 

[Patriot214]

Socialism creates slavery. When millions of people are completely dependant upon a government for most of their everyday needs, they become slaves to the system. Many liberal democrat programs that have been put in place in this country are very similar. When someone cannot eat or pay their bills until a federal check comes in the mail, they are not free. Give a man a fish, he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, he will eat for a lifetime. Liberalsim and Socialsim give men fish. Conservatism allows them to fish.

 

[logical4u]

Capitalism only works in a 'mostly' moral society, where individual rights and individual property is protected. The founders of this country could have never imagined how corrupt and imoral the citizens would become. When that happens, more laws must be made that infringe on citizens' liberty. The more corrupt society is, the more freedom suffers. Capitalism has been tried in other new nations, none of them have managed to become as great as this country WAS, due to the festering corruption that was already there.
Just a thought.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

I guess for my answer, I would just list Obama's Cabinet and Czars.

psst... the communists and socialists were mortal enemies of the czars...

Russian Revolution (1917) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[DiamondDave]

And the uber-lefty slinks back away again....