Fascism vs Socialism?

[garyd]

The government both times through really bad legislation and worse regulations.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The government both times through really bad legislation and worse regulations.

yeah that old free market capitalism had n-o-t-h-i-n-g to do with things.

 

[Contumacious]

And so you have statism? Since, by your definition, freemarket capitalism has never existed and ours is the largest economy why should we care? Why should we endeavor for something that never existed when what we have seems to be working fine?

Really.

We have had two major depressions , the government has declared bankruptcy twice - every time we have an economic upheaval the central government becomes stronger. So only some one with an enslaved mentality would assert that the present economic system is fine.

who caused these major depressions?

The Federal Reserve Board

the 1935-36 depression was caused by one J.J. Thomas


the 2007-08 Depression was caused by one Ben Shalom Bernanke


.

 

[Contumacious]

The government both times through really bad legislation and worse regulations.

yeah that old free market capitalism had n-o-t-h-i-n-g to do with things.

Mr Dumb Ass Sir:

The Federal Government NATIONALIZED banking and credit in 1913 - so get your head out of your ass


.

 

[paperview]

lol.

We have had three major depressions: 1837, 1893, and 1929, along with quite a number of Panics and smaller depressions in our history, Comatose.

Panics, Depressions and Economic Crisis Prior to 1930

The Panic of 1819 Panic and Depression 1832

Panic and Depression 1836

The Panic of 1837

Six Year Depression 1837-1843

The Panic of 1857

Panic and Depression 1869-1871

The Panic of 1873

The Panic of 1893-Financial World

The Panic of 1893-Presidential Papers

The Panic of 1901-Market Fails, Panic Reigns-Part I

The Panic of 1901-Market Fails, Panic Reigns-Part II

The Panic of 1901- At The Stock Exchange

Panic and Depression of 1929

Brief Financial Notes based on 1875-1907

 

[Ringel05]

lol.

We have had three major depressions: 1837, 1893, and 1929, along with quite a number of Panics and smaller depressions in our history, Comatose.

Panics, Depressions and Economic Crisis Prior to 1930

The Panic of 1819 Panic and Depression 1832

Panic and Depression 1836

The Panic of 1837

Six Year Depression 1837-1843

The Panic of 1857

Panic and Depression 1869-1871

The Panic of 1873

The Panic of 1893-Financial World

The Panic of 1893-Presidential Papers

The Panic of 1901-Market Fails, Panic Reigns-Part I

The Panic of 1901-Market Fails, Panic Reigns-Part II

The Panic of 1901- At The Stock Exchange

Panic and Depression of 1929

Brief Financial Notes based on 1875-1907

It sometimes astounds me how little people know about history. If they are aware of the Great Depression they probably couldn't tell you when it was. Thanks for posting the info.

 

[Polk]

Caveat emptor.

Do you know how many government agencies were supposed to prevent Madoff for perpetrating a fraud - especially the SEC. But typical inefficient bureaucracy it fucked up royally.

It wasn't bureaucratic inefficiency. It was willful ignorance.

People select a particular product according to what they think is best - they vote with their money.

Best is pretty subjective. The best value may not be the most effective, which may not be the most environmentally friendly, which may not be the longest-lasting.

Aside from the fact your definition is incorrect in both cases freemarket capitalism is at an end. That was my point.

A Capitalist government has no authority to authorize coercive monopolies.

It also has no real world to stop them, which creates a state that's basically the same as authorization.

 

[Polk]

lol.

We have had three major depressions: 1837, 1893, and 1929, along with quite a number of Panics and smaller depressions in our history, Comatose.

Panics, Depressions and Economic Crisis Prior to 1930

The Panic of 1819 Panic and Depression 1832

Panic and Depression 1836

The Panic of 1837

Six Year Depression 1837-1843

The Panic of 1857

Panic and Depression 1869-1871

The Panic of 1873

The Panic of 1893-Financial World

The Panic of 1893-Presidential Papers

The Panic of 1901-Market Fails, Panic Reigns-Part I

The Panic of 1901-Market Fails, Panic Reigns-Part II

The Panic of 1901- At The Stock Exchange

Panic and Depression of 1929

Brief Financial Notes based on 1875-1907

It sometimes astounds me how little people know about history. If they are aware of the Great Depression they probably couldn't tell you when it was. Thanks for posting the info.

And even that list doesn't include the Panic of 1907 or the crisis at the outbreak of the First World War.

 

[Contumacious]

lol.

We have had three major depressions: 1837, 1893, and 1929, along with quite a number of Panics and smaller depressions in our history, Comatose.

Another dumb ass making unsupported assertions


The Panic of 1819 Panic and Depression 1832



WHO caused the Depression ?


US President Andrew Jackson



Why?

"Gentlemen, I have had men watching you for a long time, and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter, I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the eternal God, I will rout you out."

~ President Andrew Jackson 1832


In 1832, President Andrew Jackson refused to renew the charter of the Second Bank of the United States; and Jackson transferred government monies to state banks. Nicholas Biddle, head of the National Bank, called in all outstanding commercial loans. A panic followed; and then a recession. Eight hundred banks closed; and the national banking system collapsed. One third of manual laborers were out of work in New York City alone. And the national unemployment rate was over 10%



So Fucktard, can you show me HOW CAPITALISM caused the depression?

 

[Polk]

Just a moment ago, you were telling us how a central bank is bad and the cause of ills. Now you're saying that the lack of a central bank is the problem. You need to decide which direction you want to argue from.

 

[Contumacious]

Just a moment ago, you were telling us how a central bank is bad and the cause of ills. Now you're saying that the lack of a central bank is the problem. You need to decide which direction you want to argue from.

So English comprehension is not your forte, when did I say that.

Manipulation by a central entity whether a bank or not is the problem. Prior to 1913 the US Treasury was manipulating banking and credit with similar consequences.


.

 

[Agnapostate]

However based on historical and sociological observation I don't see how your model can possibly work on anything but a limited scale, certainly not anything larger than, say a village or small town.

That is also not a specific criticism or objection, and you've not identified any individual element that you believe might contribute to such collapse. I've made it clear that I advocate horizontal federations of decentralized collectives and communes managed through participatory direct democracy, but you've not been able to articulate much in the way of precise and strong opposition to this, which is understandably difficult in light of the observably implemented facets of anarchism.

I honestly don't see how the "stronger", more ambitious personalities won't eventually usurp the process for their own ends and ultimately end up as a ruling class i.e. "state control".

This is the most inconceivable sentiment I've encountered, yet one that I've encountered all too often nonetheless. Traditionally, the rise of authoritarianism has been most vigorously opposed by the self-declared libertarian population. And the rise of authoritarianism has been facilitated by hierarchical governance structures. Conversely, the heavily anti-authoritarian sentiments of rank-and-file anarchists have traditionally created rather significant obstacles for the "ambitious," which is why so many are attracted to Leninism rather than avowedly stateless socialism.

That is why there is no pure capitalism, socialism, communism, fascism, etc. on a state level anywhere in the world.

I haven't referred to any "pure" ideologies except to note their nonexistence, and have consistently maintained that the only valuable form of an ideology is its actually existing manifestation. Your reference to anarchism as a "pure" ideology is evidently related to the misconception that its proponents think elimination of every hierarchical relationship in every context at all times a conceivable prospect. Yet we've always conceded that the deficiencies of human imperfection prevent such a state of affairs from coming into existence, and instead sought to minimize hierarchies in the public management arena to the greatest and most significant extent possible.

difference between fascism, socialism, and "national socialism"?

Already identified. "National socialism," aside from the disingenuous and deliberately misleading nature of the term, is a variant of fascism. Both that and other variants are distinct from socialism because of its necessarily participatory nature, which is flatly contradictory to the elements of fascism.

WHO determines what constitutes the most desirable consequences?

Determination is gained through the process of ethical reasoning; what other mechanism could you refer to?

HUH?

Transactions in a Capitalist socio-economic system are VOLUNTARY in nature so your "are not allowed" claim does not compute.

Transactions in a capitalist economy are not legitimately voluntary in nature because of the authoritarian mechanisms of the labor market (which is composed by mixtures of coercion and exchange). However, that was not intended to be the central focus of this point, and your response indicates nothing other than derailment on your part. Now, the thrust of my comment was intended to focus on the nature of constrictions on social mobility in the capitalist economy. The empirical literature illustrates that such constrictions continue to be rather substantial and problematic. As an example, for analysis into how income inequality and restricted social mobility are more prevalent in the U.S. than in most European countries, consider Gangl's Income inequality, permanent incomes, and income dynamics: Comparing Europe to the United States.

In most of Europe, real income growth was actually higher than in the United States, many European countries thus achieve not just less income inequality but are able to combine this with higher levels of income stability, better chances of upward mobility for the poor, and a higher protection of the incomes of older workers than common in the United States.

Supplement that with analysis into the probability of intergenerational transmission of corresponding economic success, specifically the probability of children belonging to the same income level as their parents. Consider Corak's Do poor children become poor adults? Lessons from a cross country comparison of generational earnings mobility.

In the United States almost one half of children born to low income parents become low income adults. This is an extreme case, but the fraction is also high in the United Kingdom at four in ten, and Canada where about one-third of low income children do not escape low income in adulthood. In the Nordic countries, where overall child poverty rates are noticeably lower, it is also the case that a disproportionate fraction of low income children become low income adults. Generational cycles of low income may be common in the rich countries, but so are cycles of high income. Rich children tend to become rich adults. Four in ten children born to high income parents will grow up to be high income adults in the United States and the United Kingdom, and as many as one third will do so in Canada.

So we can thus clearly observe the nature of intergenerational transmission of an effectively matching income level being a significantly occurring pattern in the U.S. and other Western countries.

We may be able to attribute a sizable portion of that to direct inheritance, for which we'd consider a source such as Summers and Kotlikoff's The role of intergenerational transfers in aggregate capital accumulation. Consider the abstract:

This paper uses historical U.S. data to directly estimate the contribution of intergenerational transfers to aggregate capital accumulation. The evidence presented indicates that intergenerational transfers account for the vast majority of aggregate U.S. capital formation; only a negligible fraction of actual capital accumulation can be traced to life-cycle or "hump" savings.

Aside from that, there's also the obvious matter of a myriad amount of inequitable environmental conditions skewing human capital attainment, thus creating a prohibitive obstruction to upward social mobility.

Once has to be gullible to the max to conclude that the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) which required a massive federal intervention in the economy was "saving Capitalism" instead of enriching FDR a demagogue.

The National Industrial Recovery Act is a good example of the manner in which liberalism and socialism/communism are antithetical, because liberalism utilizes the welfare state to maintain macroeconomic stabilization and growth in the capitalist economy. More than that, there's an interest in appeasing worker militancy and preventing the adoption of more radical tactics supplemented by “subversive” ideologies (i.e. actual socialism). Consider the Henderson report, issued for the NIRA (which was of course ultimately nullified by the SCOTUS), which included this section as an illustration of that reality:

Labor unrest exists to a degree higher than warranted by the Depression. The unrest flows from insecurity, low annual earnings, inequitable hiring and rehiring methods, espionage, speedups and displacement of workers at an extremely early age. Unless something is done soon, they [the workers] intend to take things into their own hands.

Interventionism is thus a necessary component of the capitalist economy (accounting for its perpetually mixed nature), lest something more radical and unacceptable to the financial class occur.

For you to totally conceal the fact that the Federal government had controlled banking, credit and the currency since 1913 tells me that you a fraud. . In 1935 the US was deep into fascism .

In fact, there is a remarkable similarity between the economic policies that Hitler implemented and those that Franklin Roosevelt enacted. Keep in mind, first of all, that the German National Socialists were strong believers in Social Security, which Roosevelt introduced to the United States as part of his New Deal. Keep in mind also that the Nazis were strong believers in such other socialist schemes as public (i.e., government) schooling and national health care. In fact, my hunch is that very few Americans realize that Social Security, public schooling, Medicare, and Medicaid have their ideological roots in German socialism.

If so, that would be a welcome indication that most Americans haven't lapsed into the repugnant and pervasive degree of economic ignorance that you illustrate with each and every one of your posts. Socialism requires the public ownership and management of the means of production; government programs are integral facets of the capitalist economy and in fact strengthen capitalism through the provision of macroeconomic stabilization and growth and sustainment of the physical efficiency of the working class. Since this in fact aids in the maintenance of an arrangement wherein the means of production are privately owned, it's thus patently absurd and moronic to refer to such government programs as "socialist" in nature.

Hitler and Roosevelt also shared a common commitment to such programs as government-business partnerships.

That's because Hitler and Roosevelt's economic policies were both capitalist in nature, and both acknowledged the integral role of the state in the capitalist economy.

And you also believe that a woman can be 1/2 pregnant.

Only someone determined to perpetrate a massive fraud would claim that an economy is BOTH fascist and capitalist . Capitalism is freedom - fascism is tyrannical , so how the fuck can a socio-economic system be free and dictatorial at the same time ?

Capitalism is authoritarian slavery that relies on hierarchical subordination in the labor market and elsewhere to trample liberty in coordination with statism. Fascism, the bastard child of statism and capitalism, is an almost perfect example of the nature of their collusion. A socioeconomic system cannot be free and dictatorial at the same time, which is why socialism and fascism are incompatible, but since capitalism and fascism are both dictatorial, they make for a good match.

True. Hitler recognized that the form of statism known as fascism was better that socialism . The German entrepreneurs accepted fascism for the same reasons that I would prefer to be afflicted by pneumonia instead of the H1N1 virus.

The German entrepreneurs accepted fascism because it provided ample protection for capitalist private property rights and left the corporate structure of the industrial economy largely unmolested, as has been noted by an academic analysis which you have failed to comment on.

First, where Communism seeks to substitute the state for private ownership, fascism seeks to incorporate or co-opt private ownership into the state apparatus through public-private partnership. Thus fascism tends to be more tempting than Communism to wealthy interests who may see it as a way to insulate their economic power from competition through forced cartelization and other corporatist stratagems.

The economically ignorant nature of comparisons between fascism and socialism is well cemented through the fact that the pseudo-anarchist Roderick T. Long promulgates such idiocy, so thanks. Moreover, does this fool not know that communism involves abolition of money, markets, and the state, or is he simply being willfully disingenuous?

What the fuck is "collective management"? Can I tell the collective managers to fuck off and leave my widget factory alone?!?!?!?!?!?

Your widget factory? I don't know what kind of arrogant fool you must be to believe that you can exercise dictatorial and monopolistic control over a factory, but I wouldn't expect workers to abandon the democratic nature of collective management to yield to your idiotic demands, thankfully.

I see, so you can mix liberty and slavery and the end result is still liberty. Hummmmm, Let me guess, you are smoking Mexican sinsemilla, right?

Of course not. The liberty of the socialist economy can never be diluted by the slavery of the capitalist economy, which is why socialism and capitalism are incompatible. The elements of the economy inaccurately referred to as socialist in nature are in fact integral components of capitalism, and misconceptions to the contrary are based on ignorance of political economy.

Because......

I've already provided several examples of the integral role of the state in the capitalist economy. They included utilization of welfare state policies as a means of inefficiency reduction, utilization of state protection of infant industries to ensure appropriate development and thereby maximize dynamic comparative advantage, etc. That you have ignored these examples is certainly not a fault of mine.

Elaborate on the "authoritarian" nature of Capitalism - explain to me how Capitalism - i a socio economic system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. - is authoritarian in nature.

I won't hold my breath.

More ignorance? I'll have to assume that you suffer from relatively substantial reading comprehension problems, given your rather notable exclusion of my "elaboration" from your quotation of my comments. I'm not going to repeat precisely what was just explained, so you'll have to refer to the substantial portions of my post that you didn't even pretend to respond to to find your answer.

We hold these truths to be self-evident:

That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men

I don't give a flying fuck if the Constitution declares republicanism to be legitimately democratic and sufficiently protective of individual rights; no government can offer legitimate protections of them, and the anti-democratic elements of the Constitution and of the current federal republic are ample evidence of that, which is why principled libertarians have cause to reject minarchism and embrace anarchism.

Of course it was , so don't ever use the term "controlled Capitalism" - once the government interferes with the economy in any way shape or form you have STATISM , in the case of Germany and Italy in the early 1940's , of the FASCIST variety.

Government is and will remain a facet of the capitalist economy for the remainder of its existence, as it's a necessary agent. The only economic structure that can be free from government is socialist in nature, and must manifest itself through stateless anarchism.

Capitalism depends on the FREE MARKET, no the semi-free, not the semi-controlled, not the compassionate free market, ...........ad nauseam.

The free market is a purposeless theoretical abstraction with no historical record of existence or successful implementation, which is why its proponents are often chief among the naive and utopian. Capitalism utilizes market exchange as the primary means of resource allocation, but capitalist markets have always been dependent on relatively substantial state support and intervention, and will continue to be.

drone on

Fascism and socialism differ by one and only one facet...

Fascism is National Socialism, Socialism is international... Meaning that Fascism expects that socialist policy will be framed by and fall within the scope of the given culture and heritage of the nation in which they're being applied; and bolsters loyalty and patriotism to the State which is said to defend that culture.

Socialism of the international variety rejects the principle of national sovereignty and thus the respective heritage of such cultures; and requires that all loyalties be laid at the feet of 'the people', which is the ethereal object which is represented by and thus rests in the imbodiment of "The State."

This standard asinine commentary ignores the aforementioned critical points about the ideological contradictions between fascism and socialism, and the inaccurate nature of identifying state capitalism as "socialist" in nature. Congratulations on regurgitating one of your typically moronic posts, you politically and economically ignorant imbecile.

 

[veritas]

All of that is nice aggie; on what planet do you plan on implementing your new project?

And who's going to make the clones for you?

 

[Agnapostate]

America, bitch. And really, we have to unmake the clones from what capitalism has done to them.

 

[Ralph]

Still having the self back patting demonstration of the pseudo intellectual in the format of a pissing contest? I just never could figure out ALL THESE self professed smart people.....why do they try to impress someone with their supposed intelligence.......by blogging on the net? One would think they would be out campaigning for the noble prize in Sociology or Literature. The simple fact is Social Communism is a failed ideology as exampled by the many dead bodies left (no puns intended) laying around the world.....without ONE example of success to show for all the violence associated with pure democracy in any format. The exception? China....who incorporated Capitalism into a dictatorial system of cheap labor with no concern in the least for human rights, a clean environment, or morality.

 

[Agnapostate]

Piss off.

 

[Ringel05]

However based on historical and sociological observation I don't see how your model can possibly work on anything but a limited scale, certainly not anything larger than, say a village or small town.

That is also not a specific criticism or objection, and you've not identified any individual element that you believe might contribute to such collapse. I've made it clear that I advocate horizontal federations of decentralized collectives and communes managed through participatory direct democracy, but you've not been able to articulate much in the way of precise and strong opposition to this, which is understandably difficult in light of the observably implemented facets of anarchism.

I honestly don't see how the "stronger", more ambitious personalities won't eventually usurp the process for their own ends and ultimately end up as a ruling class i.e. "state control".

This is the most inconceivable sentiment I've encountered, yet one that I've encountered all too often nonetheless. Traditionally, the rise of authoritarianism has been most vigorously opposed by the self-declared libertarian population. And the rise of authoritarianism has been facilitated by hierarchical governance structures. Conversely, the heavily anti-authoritarian sentiments of rank-and-file anarchists have traditionally created rather significant obstacles for the "ambitious," which is why so many are attracted to Leninism rather than avowedly stateless socialism.



I haven't referred to any "pure" ideologies except to note their nonexistence, and have consistently maintained that the only valuable form of an ideology is its actually existing manifestation. Your reference to anarchism as a "pure" ideology is evidently related to the misconception that its proponents think elimination of every hierarchical relationship in every context at all times a conceivable prospect. Yet we've always conceded that the deficiencies of human imperfection prevent such a state of affairs from coming into existence, and instead sought to minimize hierarchies in the public management arena to the greatest and most significant extent possible.

1. I understand your point, I had not read it previously.
2.You can consider it inconceivable if you so wish but I contend history is rife with such examples, yours and mine. From my experiences/studies, my scenario plays out more often.
3.Pure ideology is simply that, as you say unattainable. Minimizing hierarchies will only work within a relatively minimal time frame before inner or or outer forces drive a change. Nothing is static.
4. You are not going to change my mind. While you appear to be well versed in socio-economic theory it is my firm belief your understanding of practical (as opposed to theoretic) human nature is almost non-existent. to put it plainly you seem to have the "smarts" but lack the common understanding (generally referred to as common sense), essential in developing human interactive systems.
This is not meant to degrade you in any manner, it is simply observable conclusions based on available data, i.e. your postings.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Fascism and socialism differ by one and only one facet...

Fascism is National Socialism, Socialism is international... Meaning that Fascism expects that socialist policy will be framed by and fall within the scope of the given culture and heritage of the nation in which they're being applied; and bolsters loyalty and patriotism to the State which is said to defend that culture.

Socialism of the international variety rejects the principle of national sovereignty and thus the respective heritage of such cultures; and requires that all loyalties be laid at the feet of 'the people', which is the ethereal object which is represented by and thus rests in the embodiment of "The State."

This standard asinine commentary ignores the aforementioned critical points about the ideological contradictions between fascism and socialism, and the inaccurate nature of identifying state capitalism as "socialist" in nature. Congratulations on regurgitating one of your typically moronic posts, you politically and economically ignorant imbecile.

Well, as noted, the OP has simply provided a forum through which pedantic academic minutiae can be aired on this tired ass issue... When the simple fact is that such puerile advocacies have been discredited with every single 'social experiment' wherein socialism of every conceivable stripe has been tested.

Socialism, without regard to the respective minute twist that is being highlighted; first strips the individual of their unalienable rights... and this without regard to the mouthing of such to the contrary... as was demonstrated by the voluminous 'individual rights' laid out in the Soviet Constitution... none of which had value beyond, at best the paper on which they were inscribed. And this is due to the secular humanists who conjured the concept at the root and who executed the collective culture and that represent the scope of same. The core unit of the Collective state, is by definition the collective state. Thus the value which is to be protected is the collective state; and despite the needs, wants and desire of the actual individual; despite all of the cacophony to the contrary... the individual itself is not represented by the needs of the collective State, as what stands preemptive over all else is the NEEDS OF THE COLLECTIVE!

Be it fascism, socialism, communism, progressivism, liberalism, green-ism... the collective stands above all else; that such is sold on rhetoric to the contrary, simply demonstrates the deception... the lie on which the entire collective thesis rests.

That the State applies the ample resources of industry which is privately owned... to bribe the addled minds of the principle-less apolitical masses, to lend their support; or that they strip individuals of private ownership... and use the resources generated by that same industry to do the same... the result IS the same.

A worker is not entitled to anything more than what the state says they are entitled to... thus human nature says that the worker will only produce the effort necessary to sustain their interests. As there is no motivation spawned by the collectivist system which provides the incentive for a given worker to produce one ounce more effort... as that effort will not produce one ounce more result.

Revise the names, labels, reasoning... and it will always sum to the exact same thing as collectivism IS NEVER more than the sum of its parts; it can NEVER BE more... and THIS is what infuriates these wretched souls...

When they compare the most wildly successful 'socialist' experiments... to a system such as that of America... a system which has ALWAYS summed to orders of magnitude greater value than the sum of its parts... due to the intangible force multipliers found through the incentive BY THE INDIVIDUAL DESIRE TO GAIN FOR THEMSELVES... the socialist system demonstrates stark impotence... with no means to compete with such.

And this is simply a function of nature... The cream always rises to the top... Thus without regard to what the culture was founded upon; without consideration of the pedantic academic studies, the philosophy of fairness... the human species will produce those who will produce towards their own best interests; and where the interests is seen as power, the individual will seek and aquire power; where the interests is seen as wealth, the individual will strive for and realize a gain in wealth and so on... thus where the system is designed in such a way that this immutable trait is anathema, the corrupting elements common to the species will inevitably reign supreme and destroy that system; a system which ensured its own demise through the fatal flaw WHERE IT RECOGNIZED NO OTHER ELEMENT WHICH STANDS AT SUPREMACY TO THE HUMAN BEING.

Thus all experiments which strip from the consciousness any recognition of an authority above the human being, will inevitably suffer the decadence common to the human condition. Thus, secular humanism, the ideology at the core of neo-collectivism is doomed from the start.

And that is the intangible factor which rests at the core of ‘American Exceptionalism…’

Americans enjoy a liberty which rests upon the authority of their Creator... Individual, unalienable Rights and intrinsic responsibilities which are endowed to them by Nature's God... It is the IMPERATIVE of those INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS which stands supreme... and which rests upon the responsibility of the INDIVIDUAL to maintain the responsibilities inherent in those rights; and who stands accountable to the God for not only their actions, but their very thoughts.

The words on the Constitutional parchment merely enumerate protections for those unalienable rights... IT DOES NOT DECREE THOSE RIGHTS...

With or without the Constitution, the RIGHT EXISTS... Where government fails to protect those rights, such circumstances merely demonstrate that the Government has fallen short of it's only reason for being... and stands antithetical to those sacred rights and must be destroyed and replaced with a government which recognizes those rights and stands for no other purpose than to protect them... FOR THE INDIVIDUAL! It is the INDIVIDUAL THAT STANDS AT THE CORE OF FREEDOM; NOT THE COLLECTED SUM of individuals... Protect the individual and the sum's security is assured.

All the collective arguments do is to advance the Deception that there's an easier way...

Collectivism, without regard to it's respective stripe simply seeks to unburden the individual of their respective responsibilities... transferring such to the ethereal or if you prefer; the mythical collective; I.e.: "The State;" or in the above scenario, to the powers that be in the local collective, co-op or whatever other phraseology needs to be applied to avoid the human certainty that there must me some form of authority to enforce the reigning premise... Promising to free them; through the process which can only assure their bondage. As the simple fact is; that it is the RESPONSIBILITY WHICH SUSTAINS THE FREEDOM! Where the responsibility goes, so goes the freedom... and this with no potential for exception.

Thus the bottom line is that a free people, who are conscious of their divine rights and responsibility; who are each working towards their individual interests within the framework of the immutable principles of a viable, sustainable culture; who respect the divine authority on which their individual rights and responsibilities rest; and the accountability certain in that bargain... will ALWAYS outperform a collective of slave labor;... even where the rationale is that each slave is free... as long as they do what they're told.

Let the record reflect that what is typical; is that the opposition will respond, if they respond at all; with empty cliches and meaningless platitudes... they will not address that argument, but will flourish in distractions of every conceivable variety.

 

[Diuretic]

Pub - have you thought of checking with your doc to see if you have OCD?

 

[elvis]

Pub - have you thought of checking with your doc to see if you have OCD?

yeah that was novel-length.