Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
After college I was all for communism. Call it indoctrination of the liberal teachers. However, I thought about it deeply and came to the conclusion it can never work. First, equal is a fantasy. Nothing can be equal because there is not an equal amount of resources. It is a fairy tale to believe everyone can have the same of everything because someone will always have something better. Whether it is lake front property, warmer climate, etc . Everyone can not live on the beach in sunny south Florida or in Hawaii. Then we get to work. Everyone can not have the cushy chair job. Someone has to pick up the trash. Someone has to dive into the sewage tanks and risk hepatitis to clean it. Who is going to do those jobs freely if everything is equal? There is nothing more to gain from doing those jobs. Heck if everyone has the same thing then why work at all? Then the government will have to force people to work and then there goes human rights. The only way communism, socialism, liberalism, etc can truly work is if we lived in the perfect world with the perfect resources and populated with the perfect people. We have none and that is why those forms of government will always fail in the end. Capitalism works because people in the end are greedy and always want more. No matter what form of government you have you will always have the haves and have nots. The only real question is does the individual decide through his own efforts and accomplishments or does the government get to pick the haves?
Government has no place in how we choose to live.
Throwing money at the have nots has never reduced their number.
When we have had full employment, there were still many have nots.
Not everyone is born with the traits needed to become economically successful.
Hitler wasn't a socialist, but he played one on TV.
The Nazi party initially did have socialist elements in its platform and there were a fair number of Nazis (most of them Party members before Hitler joined) who took that seriously. To find out what happened to them after Hitler assumed emergency powers in 1933, look up the "Night of the Long Knives."
After that, the Nazi party was socialist in name only.
You can't have communism under any constitution, first because anarchy is a prerequisite and secondly because it's impossible anyway.
You can, however, have socialism under the U.S. constitution. If you think otherwise, tell us what provisions in that document would foreclose it? Even assuming (which I don't) that it's outside the federal government's enumerated powers, there's still nothing to stop it being done at the state level.
agreed...(unless they bastardize that constitution)
Doesn't matter whether they do or not. Communism is impossible, and also in concept incompatible with government of any kind.
No, they're deciding whether the government can mandate the purchase of health insurance, which is not a requirement of a socialist economy.
states rights.....per the Constitution....
What? Where in the Constitution does it forbid the states from establishing a socialist economy?
Our Constitution is the Law of the Land. For the Feds as well as the states.
The U.S. Constitution defines a political system, not an economic system. It has nothing to do with capitalism or communism one way or the other. Funny how people can't seem to understand this distinction.
I have but one question. Just how stupid can an opening post be?
Actually, the only way that anyone could advocate either of those two economic systems is to adhere to theory with dogged determination in the teeth of contradictory facts. They are both supportable only by ivory-tower sorts with no grasp of reality at all.
Communism, properly so called, is anarchistic. It has no government; it's the end-stage of Marxist theory in which the state has withered away. You're thinking of Marxist-Leninist socialism, which (supposedly) would lead to communism.
Of course, a communist economy in a civilized context is totally impossible, at least as much so as a perfect free market, which is why I say both these economic philosophies are reality-challenged, ivory-tower stuff without practical validity.
When people refer to communism, they mean what people who call themselves communist actually implemented. They don't mean the impossible fantasy that communists believe their moronic theories will lead to.
Communism as practiced is the only thing that matters.
Communist theory makes as much sense as a Dr. Sues book. It's totally irrelevant in the real world.
After college I was all for communism. Call it indoctrination of the liberal teachers. However, I thought about it deeply and came to the conclusion it can never work. First, equal is a fantasy. Nothing can be equal because there is not an equal amount of resources. It is a fairy tale to believe everyone can have the same of everything because someone will always have something better. Whether it is lake front property, warmer climate, etc…. Everyone can not live on the beach in sunny south Florida or in Hawaii. Then we get to work. Everyone can not have the cushy chair job. Someone has to pick up the trash. Someone has to dive into the sewage tanks and risk hepatitis to clean it. Who is going to do those jobs freely if everything is equal? There is nothing more to gain from doing those jobs. Heck if everyone has the same thing then why work at all? Then the government will have to force people to work and then there goes human rights. The only way communism, socialism, liberalism, etc… can truly work is if we lived in the perfect world with the perfect resources and populated with the perfect people. We have none and that is why those forms of government will always fail in the end. Capitalism works because people in the end are greedy and always want more. No matter what form of government you have you will always have the haves and have nots. The only real question is does the individual decide through his own efforts and accomplishments or does the government get to pick the haves?
Government has no place in how we choose to live.
Throwing money at the have nots has never reduced their number.
When we have had full employment, there were still many have nots.
Not everyone is born with the traits needed to become economically successful.
Provide for the common defense? Promote the general welfare and preserve the blessings of liberty? Along with plenty of other lofty platitudes that involve 'how we choose to live'.
Do you disagree with these words in sprit or from some sense of principle?
Communism, properly so called, is anarchistic. It has no government; it's the end-stage of Marxist theory in which the state has withered away. You're thinking of Marxist-Leninist socialism, which (supposedly) would lead to communism.
Of course, a communist economy in a civilized context is totally impossible, at least as much so as a perfect free market, which is why I say both these economic philosophies are reality-challenged, ivory-tower stuff without practical validity.
When people refer to communism, they mean what people who call themselves communist actually implemented. They don't mean the impossible fantasy that communists believe their moronic theories will lead to.
Communism as practiced is the only thing that matters.
Communist theory makes as much sense as a Dr. Sues book. It's totally irrelevant in the real world.
When people refer to capitalism, they mean what people who call themselves capitalist actually implemented. They don't mean the impossible fantasy that capitalists believe their moronic theories will lead to.
Capitalism as practiced is the only thing that matters.
Capitalist theory makes as much sense as a Dr. Sues book. It's totally irrelevant in the real world.
Works both ways doesn't it?
Government has no place in how we choose to live.
Throwing money at the have nots has never reduced their number.
When we have had full employment, there were still many have nots.
Not everyone is born with the traits needed to become economically successful.
Provide for the common defense? Promote the general welfare and preserve the blessings of liberty? Along with plenty of other lofty platitudes that involve 'how we choose to live'.
Do you disagree with these words in sprit or from some sense of principle?
How does government provide freedom when it is freedom from government that you seek? The whole liberal theme that government can only ensure freedom has got to be the dumbest thing ever. That is like saying to get out of slavery you need more slave owners.
Pure Socialism or Communism is workable with smaller numbers. It has never been applied to the full extent with mass numbers. The CCCP was built in the image of Stalin and was not even close to Communism. China under Mao was another military running roughshod over the citizens. Neither are good examples.
The Native Americans were very close to a pure Communist or Socialist state. They operated in smaller communities and prospered. It is hard to say whether these types of governments could flourish with populations in the millions.
Looking at the US and many European nations who have been based in a very capitalistic government for centuries it would be impossible to change the mindset based on material possessions.
Most nations are a variation on many styles of government. Trying to have a nation become Socialist or Communist would be impossible.
Communities that are self sustaining do exist and at a high level. I know of no community such as this larger than 1500 people in one area.
I think the greatest difficulty in building a large Communist or Socialist state would be incentive driven by profit and higher standard of living.
If you look at what many see as Communist states CCCP and China they were fragile at the center as they were pushed into those forms of government. Control was vital to the leaders to keep their powers. This is not Communist or Socialist. If there is a constant struggle for power the system was not installed correctly i.e military takeover or never Communist or Socialist in the first place.
In small groups where people are willing to share a more communal model of life these systems can work fine.
Provide for the common defense? Promote the general welfare and preserve the blessings of liberty? Along with plenty of other lofty platitudes that involve 'how we choose to live'.
Do you disagree with these words in sprit or from some sense of principle?
How does government provide freedom when it is freedom from government that you seek? The whole liberal theme that government can only ensure freedom has got to be the dumbest thing ever. That is like saying to get out of slavery you need more slave owners.
I didn't write those words but your right that a liberal did.
So you disagree with those words in spirit? You don't think the government 'of the people' should promote the general welfare of the people? You difer from the position of our nations founding documents?
Well, I guess that puts things in perspective.
You do have that right but I disagree with the basic premise of your argument.
Provide for the common defense? Promote the general welfare and preserve the blessings of liberty? Along with plenty of other lofty platitudes that involve 'how we choose to live'.
Do you disagree with these words in sprit or from some sense of principle?
How does government provide freedom when it is freedom from government that you seek? The whole liberal theme that government can only ensure freedom has got to be the dumbest thing ever. That is like saying to get out of slavery you need more slave owners.
I didn't write those words but your right that a liberal did.
So you disagree with those words in spirit? You don't think the government 'of the people' should promote the general welfare of the people? You difer from the position of our nations founding documents?
Well, I guess that puts things in perspective.
You do have that right but I disagree with the basic premise of your argument.
How does government provide freedom when it is freedom from government that you seek? The whole liberal theme that government can only ensure freedom has got to be the dumbest thing ever. That is like saying to get out of slavery you need more slave owners.
I didn't write those words but your right that a liberal did.
So you disagree with those words in spirit? You don't think the government 'of the people' should promote the general welfare of the people? You difer from the position of our nations founding documents?
Well, I guess that puts things in perspective.
You do have that right but I disagree with the basic premise of your argument.
Please tell me where it says in our founding documents that the rich need to pay for the welfare of the people. Please, please tell me where it is? Also they did not seem to practice what you say. Welfare did not start until FDR.
How does government provide freedom when it is freedom from government that you seek? The whole liberal theme that government can only ensure freedom has got to be the dumbest thing ever. That is like saying to get out of slavery you need more slave owners.
I didn't write those words but your right that a liberal did.
So you disagree with those words in spirit? You don't think the government 'of the people' should promote the general welfare of the people? You difer from the position of our nations founding documents?
Well, I guess that puts things in perspective.
You do have that right but I disagree with the basic premise of your argument.
Please tell me where it says in our founding documents that the rich need to pay for the welfare of the people. Please, please tell me where it is? Also they did not seem to practice what you say. Welfare did not start until FDR.
How does government provide freedom when it is freedom from government that you seek? The whole liberal theme that government can only ensure freedom has got to be the dumbest thing ever. That is like saying to get out of slavery you need more slave owners.
I didn't write those words but your right that a liberal did.
So you disagree with those words in spirit? You don't think the government 'of the people' should promote the general welfare of the people? You difer from the position of our nations founding documents?
Well, I guess that puts things in perspective.
You do have that right but I disagree with the basic premise of your argument.
By the way it is promote not provide.
