Socialism equals less freedom. How?

[PeterS]

In another thread the statement was made that Socialism makes us less free. Canada, England, and Europe are all countries and regions much more socialized then we are yet all provide equal or greater quality of life, longer life, and equal or more civil liberties. So exactly how has socialization in those countries made them less free than ourselves?

And if you could I would like the explanation in the form of a logical argument-that is, your predicate should be supported by premises and conclusion congruent to all premises and predicate. "I'm a dumb fuck, go to Canada dick-wad, etc" are fallacies and only shows your ignorance. Many of you have already established that so now I am giving you the opportunity to show some intelligence. How exactly are we more free while others with comparable or better quality of lives and liberty aren't?

 

[007]

Dumb questions equal intelligence how?

 

[KittenKoder]

Dumb questions equal intelligence how?

My thoughts to ... normally I say there are no stupid questions ... but this thread made me doubt that assertion.

 

[PeterS]

Dumb questions equal intelligence how?

The question wasn't where I was looking for intelligence but the answer. Lets hear it...

 

[PeterS]

Dumb questions equal intelligence how?

My thoughts to ... normally I say there are no stupid questions ... but this thread made me doubt that assertion.

If freedom doesn't equate to our quality of life and civil liberties then what is it and why do we desire it? Explain.

 

[KittenKoder]

Dumb questions equal intelligence how?

The question wasn't where I was looking for intelligence but the answer. Lets hear it...

Alright ... here's the simple answer that is so easy to see, it's almost glowing.

It takes away the freedom of the rich to decide how to spend their earned money and forces them to support people who either do not care, or are unwilling to try, instead of offering the help they do to those of us who simply can't but want to try.

 

[007]

Dumb questions equal intelligence how?

The question wasn't where I was looking for intelligence but the answer. Lets hear it...

Alright ... here's the simple answer that is so easy to see, it's almost glowing.

It takes away the freedom of the rich to decide how to spend their earned money and forces them to support people who either do not care, or are unwilling to try, instead of offering the help they do to those of us who simply can't but want to try.

***

You must spread some reputation around before giving it to KK again.

 

[007]

Dumb questions equal intelligence how?

The question wasn't where I was looking for intelligence but the answer. Lets hear it...

Alright ... here's the simple answer that is so easy to see, it's almost glowing.

It takes away the freedom of the rich to decide how to spend their earned money and forces them to support people who either do not care, or are unwilling to try, instead of offering the help they do to those of us who simply can't but want to try.

It takes away just about everybody's freedom to decide how to spend their money, on the IMPORTANT things... the things that you SHOULD have the FREEDOM to chose.

What part about that wasn't obvious enough for DavidS to see? Or was it simply just a DUMB QUESTION?

 

[Xenophon]

How can you have more 'freedom' when a government can force you to do things with your own money you don't agree with?

The problem many people have with socialism is it never knows when to stop, while everyone agrees it would be good to help old and poor people, socialism tends to blur the lines of who needs help and where the money is to come from.

The main problem is, people don't have free will, they HAVE to go along or be arrested.

That is why the question was treated with derision, it should have been obvious.

 

[ErikViking]

In another thread the statement was made that Socialism makes us less free. Canada, England, and Europe are all countries and regions much more socialized then we are yet all provide equal or greater quality of life, longer life, and equal or more civil liberties. So exactly how has socialization in those countries made them less free than ourselves?

And if you could I would like the explanation in the form of a logical argument-that is, your predicate should be supported by premises and conclusion congruent to all premises and predicate. "I'm a dumb fuck, go to Canada dick-wad, etc" are fallacies and only shows your ignorance. Many of you have already established that so now I am giving you the opportunity to show some intelligence. How exactly are we more free while others with comparable or better quality of lives and liberty aren't?

Basicly KittenKoder explained it. Another way of putting it:

You sacrifice some of your personal freedom for the greater good of society. (It is the idea anyway)
Most if not all societies have this. Even USA 200 years ago. There is a scale to wich degree this is done and somewhere on this scale is socialism. One easy way of describing it. Then what personal freedom in other aspects of life you might come to vary of course. I would say an Amercian is more free than a Swede. That does not mean that an American can do alot more in general, but there are things that differ - trust me?.

 

[goldcatt]

True socialism infringes on the individual's right to private property, which is a right we in the US generally value (see the 5th Amendment).

 

[007]

In another thread the statement was made that Socialism makes us less free. Canada, England, and Europe are all countries and regions much more socialized then we are yet all provide equal or greater quality of life, longer life, and equal or more civil liberties. So exactly how has socialization in those countries made them less free than ourselves?

And if you could I would like the explanation in the form of a logical argument-that is, your predicate should be supported by premises and conclusion congruent to all premises and predicate. "I'm a dumb fuck, go to Canada dick-wad, etc" are fallacies and only shows your ignorance. Many of you have already established that so now I am giving you the opportunity to show some intelligence. How exactly are we more free while others with comparable or better quality of lives and liberty aren't?

Basicly KittenKoder explained it. Another way of putting it:

You sacrifice some of your personal freedom for the greater good of society. (It is the idea anyway)
Most if not all societies have this. Even USA 200 years ago. There is a scale to wich degree this is done and somewhere on this scale is socialism. One easy way of describing it. Then what personal freedom in other aspects of life you might come to vary of course. I would say an Amercian is more free than a Swede. That does not mean that an American can do alot more in general, but there are things that differ - trust me?.

Have you ever been to America? If so, I'm sure you could give specific examples...

 

[xsited1]

In another thread the statement was made that Socialism makes us less free. Canada, England, and Europe are all countries and regions much more socialized then we are yet all provide equal or greater quality of life, longer life, and equal or more civil liberties. So exactly how has socialization in those countries made them less free than ourselves?

And if you could I would like the explanation in the form of a logical argument-that is, your predicate should be supported by premises and conclusion congruent to all premises and predicate. "I'm a dumb fuck, go to Canada dick-wad, etc" are fallacies and only shows your ignorance. Many of you have already established that so now I am giving you the opportunity to show some intelligence. How exactly are we more free while others with comparable or better quality of lives and liberty aren't?

I responded to that here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1425184-post76.html

You simply don't understand how freedom works and how you can’t mix socialism with it. You might try reading more about the history of the United States' Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Federalist Papers would also be helpful.

 

[DiamondDave]

When person A exists to involuntarily have earnings and possession taken from then for the benefit of person B, while person B does nothing to earn said benefit from person A, it does indeed equal less freedom

 

[JakeStarkey]

How can you have more 'freedom' when a government can force you to do things with your own money you don't agree with?

The problem many people have with socialism is it never knows when to stop, while everyone agrees it would be good to help old and poor people, socialism tends to blur the lines of who needs help and where the money is to come from.

The main problem is, people don't have free will, they HAVE to go along or be arrested.

That is why the question was treated with derision, it should have been obvious.

And how are the rights of people removed in Denmark, Sweden, France, etc? That would be the logical conclusion to what you wrote above.

Those rights have not been removed, ergo you have committed a logical fallacy.

Whatever you argue must overcome the burden of evidence against your mere opinion, and you (and Kitten, for that matter) have never done that. At least Kitten makes no bones about being undemocratic -- she wants the rich to rule.

 

[JakeStarkey]

When person A exists to involuntarily have earnings and possession taken from then for the benefit of person B, while person B does nothing to earn said benefit from person A, it does indeed equal less freedom

Ah, jeez, look up 'social compact', 'constitution,' 'declaration of rights', and 'conclusion to Civil War.'

Morons.

 

[Xenophon]

How can you have more 'freedom' when a government can force you to do things with your own money you don't agree with?

The problem many people have with socialism is it never knows when to stop, while everyone agrees it would be good to help old and poor people, socialism tends to blur the lines of who needs help and where the money is to come from.

The main problem is, people don't have free will, they HAVE to go along or be arrested.

That is why the question was treated with derision, it should have been obvious.

And how are the rights of people removed in Denmark, Sweden, France, etc? That would be the logical conclusion to what you wrote above.

Those rights have not been removed, ergo you have committed a logical fallacy.

Whatever you argue must overcome the burden of evidence against your mere opinion, and you (and Kitten, for that matter) have never done that. At least Kitten makes no bones about being undemocratic -- she wants the rich to rule.

+

 

[DiamondDave]

When person A exists to involuntarily have earnings and possession taken from then for the benefit of person B, while person B does nothing to earn said benefit from person A, it does indeed equal less freedom

Ah, jeez, look up 'social compact', 'constitution,' 'declaration of rights', and 'conclusion to Civil War.'

Morons.

Ahh jeez.. look up individual freedoms, PERSONAL responsibility, and liberty... and while you are at it, the actual words and concepts within our constitution

Moron

 

[ErikViking]

In another thread the statement was made that Socialism makes us less free. Canada, England, and Europe are all countries and regions much more socialized then we are yet all provide equal or greater quality of life, longer life, and equal or more civil liberties. So exactly how has socialization in those countries made them less free than ourselves?

And if you could I would like the explanation in the form of a logical argument-that is, your predicate should be supported by premises and conclusion congruent to all premises and predicate. "I'm a dumb fuck, go to Canada dick-wad, etc" are fallacies and only shows your ignorance. Many of you have already established that so now I am giving you the opportunity to show some intelligence. How exactly are we more free while others with comparable or better quality of lives and liberty aren't?

Basicly KittenKoder explained it. Another way of putting it:

You sacrifice some of your personal freedom for the greater good of society. (It is the idea anyway)
Most if not all societies have this. Even USA 200 years ago. There is a scale to wich degree this is done and somewhere on this scale is socialism. One easy way of describing it. Then what personal freedom in other aspects of life you might come to vary of course. I would say an Amercian is more free than a Swede. That does not mean that an American can do alot more in general, but there are things that differ - trust me?.

Have you ever been to America? If so, I'm sure you could give specific examples...

Yeah, sorry totally stressed out - but in Sweden there is NO way that a company or person may be allowed to sell alcohol to a private person for use outside the establishment. (Restuarants and such are okay).

It is a right we simply doesn't have.

 

[Intense]

Equal Distribution of Wealth Infringes on Private Property Rights, which are considered Inalienable. Equal Distribution of Wealth, ignores Government by the consent of the governed. The mob needs to learn to Justify Civic Need, and convince, not Usurp. It ignores Justice, by predetermining the outcome of the many, at the cost of the few. One of the first casualties here is integrity. Separation of Church and State was not a License for the State to play God.