Socialism equals less freedom. How?

[Diuretic]

Is the US still locked into an 18th Century mindset because of a written constitution?

 

[goldcatt]

Is the US still locked into an 18th Century mindset because of a written constitution?

Only if you're what's commonly referred to as a strict constructionist. Others who look to a four corners interpretation of the document and/or incorporate precedent into their decisions create the flexibility to keep the Constitution from stagnation. The tricky part is the balance between adherence and flexibility. But I digress.

 

[007]

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.

And I get the impression that that is just the tip of the iceburg.

So if you could wave the magic wand and give all citizens in Sweden all the freedoms we still enjoy here in America, would you do it?

 

[007]

Is the US still locked into an 18th Century mindset because of a written constitution?

It created, in a historically short period of time, the most powerful and free nation on earth.

You saying there's something wrong with that?

 

[PeterS]

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.

So socialization reduces the ability of the wealthy elite to be benevolent and this represents a loss of freedom? But you are ignoring that socialization reduces the need for benevolence so if my ability to give what is not needed is the measure of loss of freedom how is losing what isn't needed a loss?

 

[007]

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.

So socialization reduces the ability of the wealthy elite to be benevolent and this represents a loss of freedom? But you are ignoring that socialization reduces the need for benevolence so if my ability to give what is not needed is the measure of loss of freedom how is losing what isn't needed a loss?

You have just won the blue ribbon for best line of psychobabble...

 

[xsited1]

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.

So socialization reduces the ability of the wealthy elite to be benevolent and this represents a loss of freedom? But you are ignoring that socialization reduces the need for benevolence so if my ability to give what is not needed is the measure of loss of freedom how is losing what isn't needed a loss?

You sound like Karl Marx. It's okay to admit you're a Marxist.

 

[Diuretic]

Is the US still locked into an 18th Century mindset because of a written constitution?

It created, in a historically short period of time, the most powerful and free nation on earth.

You saying there's something wrong with that?

I asked, "is the US still locked into an 18th Century mindset because of a written constitution?"

Is it?

 

[skookerasbil]

Ummm........anybody who even asks this question is beyond gone.

Still, it seems clear that a little lesson in "freedom" is in order, so class is in session for the k00ks...........

The huge difficulty here is that people on the left want to impose THEIR definition of what is good for society, thus, insisting on a categorical and fundemental change for EVERYBODY!!! = fail.

Thomas Sowell excells like no other in explaining the midset of the left. He is a national treasure!! What he is able to do that few others can is hone something down to what is essentially common sense. Problem is, the k00ks have virtually none of it.........


Freedom and the Left
by Thomas Sowell

Most people on the left are not opposed to freedom. They are just in favor of all sorts of things that are incompatible with freedom.

Freedom ultimately means the right of other people to do things that you do not approve of. Nazis were free to be Nazis under Hitler. It is only when you are able to do things that other people don't approve that you are free.

One of the most innocent-sounding examples of the left's many impositions of its vision on others is the widespread requirement by schools and by college admissions committees that students do "community service."

There are high schools across the country from which you cannot graduate, and colleges where your application for admission will not be accepted, unless you have engaged in activities arbitrarily defined as "community service."

The arrogance of commandeering young people's time, instead of leaving them and their parents free to decide for themselves how to use that time, is exceeded only by the arrogance of imposing your own notions as to what is or is not a service to the community.

Working in a homeless shelter is widely regarded as "community service"-- as if aiding and abetting vagrancy is necessarily a service, rather than a disservice, to the community.

Is a community better off with more people not working, hanging out on the streets, aggressively panhandling people on the sidewalks, urinating in the street, leaving narcotics needles in the parks where children play?

This is just one of the ways in which handing out various kinds of benefits to people who have not worked for them breaks the connection between productivity and reward, as far as they are concerned.

But that connection remains as unbreakable as ever for society as a whole. You can make anything an "entitlement" for individuals and groups but nothing is an entitlement for society as a whole, not even food or shelter, both of which have to be produced by somebody's work or they will not exist.

What "entitlements" for some people mean is forcing other people to work for their benefit. As a bumper sticker put it: "Work harder. Millions of people on welfare are depending on you."

The most fundamental problem, however, is not which particular activities students are required to engage in under the title of "community service."
The most fundamental question is: What in the world qualifies teachers and members of college admissions committees to define what is good for society as a whole, or even for the students on whom they impose their arbitrary notions?

What expertise do they have that justifies overriding other people's freedom? What do their arbitrary impositions show, except that fools rush in where angels fear to tread?

What lessons do students get from this, except submission to arbitrary power?

Supposedly students are to get a sense of compassion or noblesse oblige from serving others. But this all depends on who defines compassion. In practice, it means forcing students to undergo a propaganda experience to make them receptive to the left's vision of the world.

I am sure those who favor "community service" requirements would understand the principle behind the objections to this if high school military exercises were required.

Indeed, many of those who promote compulsory "community service" activities are bitterly opposed to even voluntary military training in high schools or colleges, though many other people regard military training as more of a contribution to society than feeding people who refuse to work.

In other words, people on the left want the right to impose their idea of what is good for society on others-- a right that they vehemently deny to those whose idea of what is good for society differs from their own.

The essence of bigotry is refusing to others the rights that you demand for yourself. Such bigotry is inherently incompatible with freedom, even though many on the left would be shocked to be considered opposed to freedom.






pretty much nails it in terms of putting it into perspective............but only for the non-kooks. As I said.......a thread title like this indicates a marked misunderstanding of freedoms under a democracy!!

 

[skookerasbil]

oh............and did I mention??

The Rasmussen #'s for Obama this AM..........this would be DISAPPROVE rate.

And how ironic!! The main reason for the historic tank in the polls for a new president? Folks didnt sign up for losing freedoms they've enjoyed all their life. They are beginning ( obviously) to be concerned about being taxed for breathing the air!!!

 

[PeterS]

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.

But isn't that true with any form of government...go along or be arrested?

The only way to have complete free-will is to abandon society. Any association with others requires compromise and any compromise is a loss of freedom. The question is whether what you gain thru compromise increases or decreases your quality of life. And again, when you look at developed socialized regions you find quality of life that is equal to or better than ours and when you look at our life expectancies we are closer to the third world.

If freedom is not our total quality of life then what is it and why is it of any value?

 

[skookerasbil]

Is the US still locked into an 18th Century mindset because of a written constitution?

It created, in a historically short period of time, the most powerful and free nation on earth.

You saying there's something wrong with that?

I asked, "is the US still locked into an 18th Century mindset because of a written constitution?"

Is it?

Clearly a majority of Americans prefer it to be that way = a majority prefer tradition vs. the 21%er's who want a ban on ALL tradition = fail

 

[Diuretic]

Ummm........anybody who even asks this question is beyond gone.

Still, it seems clear that a little lesson in "freedom" is in order, so class is in session for the k00ks...........

The huge difficulty here is that people on the left want to impose THEIR definition of what is good for society, thus, insisting on a categorical and fundemental change for EVERYBODY!!! = fail.

Thomas Sowell excells like no other in explaining the midset of the left. He is a national treasure!! What he is able to do that few others can is hone something down to what is essentially common sense. Problem is, the k00ks have virtually none of it.........


Freedom and the Left
by Thomas Sowell

Most people on the left are not opposed to freedom. They are just in favor of all sorts of things that are incompatible with freedom.

Freedom ultimately means the right of other people to do things that you do not approve of. Nazis were free to be Nazis under Hitler. It is only when you are able to do things that other people don't approve that you are free.

One of the most innocent-sounding examples of the left's many impositions of its vision on others is the widespread requirement by schools and by college admissions committees that students do "community service."

There are high schools across the country from which you cannot graduate, and colleges where your application for admission will not be accepted, unless you have engaged in activities arbitrarily defined as "community service."

The arrogance of commandeering young people's time, instead of leaving them and their parents free to decide for themselves how to use that time, is exceeded only by the arrogance of imposing your own notions as to what is or is not a service to the community.

Working in a homeless shelter is widely regarded as "community service"-- as if aiding and abetting vagrancy is necessarily a service, rather than a disservice, to the community.

Is a community better off with more people not working, hanging out on the streets, aggressively panhandling people on the sidewalks, urinating in the street, leaving narcotics needles in the parks where children play?

This is just one of the ways in which handing out various kinds of benefits to people who have not worked for them breaks the connection between productivity and reward, as far as they are concerned.

But that connection remains as unbreakable as ever for society as a whole. You can make anything an "entitlement" for individuals and groups but nothing is an entitlement for society as a whole, not even food or shelter, both of which have to be produced by somebody's work or they will not exist.

What "entitlements" for some people mean is forcing other people to work for their benefit. As a bumper sticker put it: "Work harder. Millions of people on welfare are depending on you."

The most fundamental problem, however, is not which particular activities students are required to engage in under the title of "community service."
The most fundamental question is: What in the world qualifies teachers and members of college admissions committees to define what is good for society as a whole, or even for the students on whom they impose their arbitrary notions?

What expertise do they have that justifies overriding other people's freedom? What do their arbitrary impositions show, except that fools rush in where angels fear to tread?

What lessons do students get from this, except submission to arbitrary power?

Supposedly students are to get a sense of compassion or noblesse oblige from serving others. But this all depends on who defines compassion. In practice, it means forcing students to undergo a propaganda experience to make them receptive to the left's vision of the world.

I am sure those who favor "community service" requirements would understand the principle behind the objections to this if high school military exercises were required.

Indeed, many of those who promote compulsory "community service" activities are bitterly opposed to even voluntary military training in high schools or colleges, though many other people regard military training as more of a contribution to society than feeding people who refuse to work.

In other words, people on the left want the right to impose their idea of what is good for society on others-- a right that they vehemently deny to those whose idea of what is good for society differs from their own.

The essence of bigotry is refusing to others the rights that you demand for yourself. Such bigotry is inherently incompatible with freedom, even though many on the left would be shocked to be considered opposed to freedom.






pretty much nails it in terms of putting it into perspective............but only for the non-kooks. As I said.......a thread title like this indicates a marked misunderstanding of freedoms under a democracy!!

Needs pictures! More pictures!

 

[Ringel05]

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?

Read F.A Hayek's book The Road to Serfdom.

 

[skookerasbil]

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.

But isn't that true with any form of government...go along or be arrested?

The only way to have complete free-will is to abandon society. Any association with others requires compromise and any compromise is a loss of freedom. The question is whether what you gain thru compromise increases or decreases your quality of life. And again, when you look at developed socialized regions you find quality of life that is equal to or better than ours and when you look at our life expectancies we are closer to the third world.

If freedom is not our total quality of life then what is it and why is it of any value?

one of my Photobucket classics s0ns..............

 

[Diuretic]

Good! Pictures!

 

[Diuretic]

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?

Read F.A Hayek's book The Road to Serfdom.

Why?

 

[goldcatt]

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.

But isn't that true with any form of government...go along or be arrested?

The only way to have complete free-will is to abandon society. Any association with others requires compromise and any compromise is a loss of freedom. The question is whether what you gain thru compromise increases or decreases your quality of life. And again, when you look at developed socialized regions you find quality of life that is equal to or better than ours and when you look at our life expectancies we are closer to the third world.

If freedom is not our total quality of life then what is it and why is it of any value?

Organized government always implies a social contract, giving up some rights in return for the security provided by the State. There's no question about that. The question is what rights are the people willing to give up and in what quantity. IMO, true socialism is bad for the US because of the value we place on the individual in general and in individual property rights specifically. We the People are not willing to cede that much to the State, pure and simple. That doesn't mean it can't work elsewhere where people attach different values to those rights. Government has to be tailored to the people who give it legitimacy.

 

[Ringel05]

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?

Read F.A Hayek's book The Road to Serfdom.

Why?

Something having to do with: "I don't have time to compile a dissertation on the subject and why bother, they won't take the time to read it in a forum post."

 

[skookerasbil]

Good! Pictures!

Thanks bro........since I have neither the intelligence nor wit nor creativty of Mr Sowell, my mission is to create lots of gay MS PAINT Photobucket Classics to emphasize the lefties lack of common sense. Drives some of the most miserable k00ks nuts...........and thats the effectiveness part. Since they are all angry and miserable to begin with, when the get publically pwned, I guess it gets a bit infuriating!!!:lol:

This one came on the heels of the Cambridge fiasco

......of course, the k00ks tried to marginalize the issue with PC bull sh!t..........but Obama's numbers went down 5% that week..........so the gay MS Paint stuff speaks for itself!!!