Socialism equals less freedom. How?

[BasicGreatGuy]

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.

What keeps the Constitution from being "stagnant" as it were, is the ability to amend said document via Article V.

 

[Meister]

Yes. That's the point. These self satisfied fuckers that collect money from interest and dividends have an awful lot of nerve to talk about hard work and the rewards. They well may have worked hard to get into that position but we even had a poster admit that he used his money to invest so he wouldn't have to work for his money anymore. Fucking amazing that kind of thing is admired by some. The ability to earn by not working. The American dream. No wonder we're fucked.

Spoken like a true communist.

Stop with the praise Meister, let's get back to insults!

I thought I was stating a fact after reading all of his posts, Di. A person can't save money, a person can't retire early. A person has to have a physically demanding job to make money because if you have an office job, and sit on your ass, your a lazy fuck. If you invest in companies, your stealing from the workers. If your wise in your investments and actually make money, your stealing from the workers. What does that sound like to you?

The way I look at it, if no one invested, we have no economy, and the government would have to run everything. Hence, Communism

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

If a person doesn't believe that turning this Republic into a socialist nation doesn't equate to less freedom, they need to educate themselves on the Constitution and the founding of this Republic.

That is one stupid thread question.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

Americans are in debt up their ears. Where, exactly, is all this money that Americans are free to spend?

You spend twice as much on your (capitalist) healthcare as the 'socialists' spend. Is your healthcare twice as good as theirs? No. So what freedom exactly do you derive from being gouged by the capitalists? Or is it their extra spending money at your expense that you cherish as 'freedom'?

 

[Meister]

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?

Americans are in debt up their ears. Where, exactly, is all this money that Americans are free to spend?

You spend twice as much on your (capitalist) healthcare as the 'socialists' spend. Is your healthcare twice as good as theirs? No. So what freedom exactly do you derive from being gouged by the capitalists? Or is it their extra spending money at your expense that you cherish as 'freedom'?

In a capitalistic society, yes you usually do have a few more coins in your pocket. The government isn't taxing the shit out of you as in a socialized nation.

 

[Diuretic]

Spoken like a true communist.

Stop with the praise Meister, let's get back to insults!

I thought I was stating a fact after reading all of his posts, Di. A person can't save money, a person can't retire early. A person has to have a physically demanding job to make money because if you have an office job, and sit on your ass, your a lazy fuck. If you invest in companies, your stealing from the workers. If your wise in your investments and actually make money, your stealing from the workers. What does that sound like to you?

The way I look at it, if no one invested, we have no economy, and the government would have to run everything. Hence, Communism

In a capitalist economy certain factors have to exist to make it work. In a socialist economy certain factors have to exist to make it work. Since there's no such thing as either, at least in pure form, then we're faced with hybrids. The main feature of a theoretically pure capitalist economy is the private ownership of the productive resources of the nation in which the economy is based. The main feature of a theoretically pure socialist economy is the communal ownership of the productive resources of the nation in which the economy is based. We can all use pejorative terms to describe both forms of economy but it's just name-calling in the end.

 

[Diuretic]

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?

Americans are in debt up their ears. Where, exactly, is all this money that Americans are free to spend?

You spend twice as much on your (capitalist) healthcare as the 'socialists' spend. Is your healthcare twice as good as theirs? No. So what freedom exactly do you derive from being gouged by the capitalists? Or is it their extra spending money at your expense that you cherish as 'freedom'?

In a capitalistic society, yes you usually do have a few more coins in your pocket. The government isn't taxing the shit out of you as in a socialized nation.

In a capitalistic society you can use those coins to buy the services that in a socialised economy you are given by government because you paid taxes. The difference is that in a capitalistic society you may not be able to buy those services because you don't have enough coins so you go without.

 

[Meister]

Americans are in debt up their ears. Where, exactly, is all this money that Americans are free to spend?

You spend twice as much on your (capitalist) healthcare as the 'socialists' spend. Is your healthcare twice as good as theirs? No. So what freedom exactly do you derive from being gouged by the capitalists? Or is it their extra spending money at your expense that you cherish as 'freedom'?

In a capitalistic society, yes you usually do have a few more coins in your pocket. The government isn't taxing the shit out of you as in a socialized nation.

In a capitalistic society you can use those coins to buy the services that in a socialised economy you are given by government because you paid taxes. The difference is that in a capitalistic society you may not be able to buy those services because you don't have enough coins so you go without.

You may be right on that, but a lot of those that can't afford the services can buy a cell phone and an XBox.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Without a doubt socialism means less freedom. That should not be the question. The question should be "Are you OK with that?".

In Europe and Canada, they tolerate a more socialistic government (notice I did not a they actually have a socialist government...just "more" socialist). Over there, their society is OK with it.

Over here in the US, we would not tolerate it to the same extent they do.


And thats pretty much that.

 

[Diuretic]

Without a doubt socialism means less freedom. That should not be the question. The question should be "Are you OK with that?".

In Europe and Canada, they tolerate a more socialistic government (notice I did not a they actually have a socialist government...just "more" socialist). Over there, their society is OK with it.

Over here in the US, we would not tolerate it to the same extent they do.


And thats pretty much that.

I can't let you get away with assumptions. Why does socialism mean less freedom? And allied to that I suppose is, how do you (or I for that matter) define "freedom"? Is "freedom" actually necessary for capitalism to function? Can socialism function with "freedom"? Just a few questions that come to mind.

I agree with you about people outside the US tolerating more socialistic policies. In my country one of the dearest to our hearts policies is our Medicare system (universal health care, not confined to a particular sector as is US Medicare). It comes down to national values I suppose.

 

[Diuretic]

In a capitalistic society, yes you usually do have a few more coins in your pocket. The government isn't taxing the shit out of you as in a socialized nation.

In a capitalistic society you can use those coins to buy the services that in a socialised economy you are given by government because you paid taxes. The difference is that in a capitalistic society you may not be able to buy those services because you don't have enough coins so you go without.

You may be right on that, but a lot those that can't afford the services can buy a cell phone and an XBox.

Got that right, the number of times I've been into people's houses to see crap strewn around the place but a brand new tv in the corner. But I put that down to ignorance. These are the same types that think yelling at one another in the supermarket is the accepted form of interpersonal communication.

 

[RadiomanATL]

I can't let you get away with assumptions. Why does socialism mean less freedom?

I think that this has already been answered.

But its because socialism means giving up ones choices (which could boil down to money) and/or rights for the supposed collective good.

Less choices, less freedom.

 

[Diuretic]

I can't let you get away with assumptions. Why does socialism mean less freedom?

I think that this has already been answered.

But its because socialism means giving up ones choices (which could boil down to money) and/or rights for the supposed collective good.

Less choices, less freedom.

And in a capitalist society who has the most freedom?

It's about choice in either case. People can choose to have a capitalistic society or they can choose to have a socialistic society. In a capitalistic society people can try to get more freedom by accumulation the one instrument that increases their freedom, money. In a socialistic society people can choose to limit the potential for increased positive freedom gained by the accumulation of wealth for individuals to create increased negative freedom from such things as poor health caused by an inability to purchase that which enhances health due to lack of money.

 

[RadiomanATL]

I can't let you get away with assumptions. Why does socialism mean less freedom?

I think that this has already been answered.

But its because socialism means giving up ones choices (which could boil down to money) and/or rights for the supposed collective good.

Less choices, less freedom.

And in a capitalist society who has the most freedom?

Whoever has the most money.

However, thats not ideal either. As was shown in the 19th century with the examples of industry barons and in many cases companies basically taking over the role of the government in many different capacities and ways in some towns and cities.

What is needed is an individualistic society, where the government protects the freedoms and choices that an individual makes (which also means letting them fail if they fail). This also means protecting the individual against a limitation of choices that a company, industry or others may try to impose on the individual. So there still would be workers rights laws etc. Which would be in direct conflict with a pure capitalistic society.

 

[Diuretic]

I think that this has already been answered.

But its because socialism means giving up ones choices (which could boil down to money) and/or rights for the supposed collective good.

Less choices, less freedom.

And in a capitalist society who has the most freedom?

Whoever has the most money.

However, thats not ideal either. As was shown in the 19th century with the examples of industry barons and in many cases companies basically taking over the role of the government in many different capacities and ways in some towns and cities.

What is needed is an individualistic society, where the government protects the freedoms and choices that an individual makes (which also means letting them fail if they fail). This also means protecting the individual against a limitation of choices that a company, industry or others may try to impose on the individual. So there still would be workers rights laws etc. Which would be in direct conflict with a pure capitalistic society.

And this is where the discussions about what we mean by "freedom" are important. If we - any of us - have differing views on what "freedom" means then we're essentially going to have that well-known dialogue of the deaf. It's simply not sufficient to claim that "capitalism means more freedom than socialism" just as it it's insufficient to claim it the other way around. Then we - all of us - can start to discuss what sort of society is most desirable.

 

[RadiomanATL]

And in a capitalist society who has the most freedom?

Whoever has the most money.

However, thats not ideal either. As was shown in the 19th century with the examples of industry barons and in many cases companies basically taking over the role of the government in many different capacities and ways in some towns and cities.

What is needed is an individualistic society, where the government protects the freedoms and choices that an individual makes (which also means letting them fail if they fail). This also means protecting the individual against a limitation of choices that a company, industry or others may try to impose on the individual. So there still would be workers rights laws etc. Which would be in direct conflict with a pure capitalistic society.

And this is where the discussions about what we mean by "freedom" are important. If we - any of us - have differing views on what "freedom" means then we're essentially going to have that well-known dialogue of the deaf. It's simply not sufficient to claim that "capitalism means more freedom than socialism" just as it it's insufficient to claim it the other way around. Then we - all of us - can start to discuss what sort of society is most desirable.

I don't think we're going to get everyone to agree on what exactly "freedom" means. So yer right, it's about herding cats. If you get 50% +1 to go in one direction you're doing good.

 

[KittenKoder]

I can't let you get away with assumptions. Why does socialism mean less freedom?

I think that this has already been answered.

But its because socialism means giving up ones choices (which could boil down to money) and/or rights for the supposed collective good.

Less choices, less freedom.

And in a capitalist society who has the most freedom?

It's about choice in either case. People can choose to have a capitalistic society or they can choose to have a socialistic society. In a capitalistic society people can try to get more freedom by accumulation the one instrument that increases their freedom, money. In a socialistic society people can choose to limit the potential for increased positive freedom gained by the accumulation of wealth for individuals to create increased negative freedom from such things as poor health caused by an inability to purchase that which enhances health due to lack of money.

No one has the most in a capitalist society, they all have the same exact freedoms, just some can buy more luxuries.

 

[Diuretic]

I think that this has already been answered.

But its because socialism means giving up ones choices (which could boil down to money) and/or rights for the supposed collective good.

Less choices, less freedom.

And in a capitalist society who has the most freedom?

It's about choice in either case. People can choose to have a capitalistic society or they can choose to have a socialistic society. In a capitalistic society people can try to get more freedom by accumulation the one instrument that increases their freedom, money. In a socialistic society people can choose to limit the potential for increased positive freedom gained by the accumulation of wealth for individuals to create increased negative freedom from such things as poor health caused by an inability to purchase that which enhances health due to lack of money.

No one has the most in a capitalist society, they all have the same exact freedoms, just some can buy more luxuries.

I have to ask. What are "freedoms"? Sorry, I know I'm being a difficult prick but I'm going to have to ask for your ideas.

 

[Intense]

And in a capitalist society who has the most freedom?

Whoever has the most money.

However, thats not ideal either. As was shown in the 19th century with the examples of industry barons and in many cases companies basically taking over the role of the government in many different capacities and ways in some towns and cities.

What is needed is an individualistic society, where the government protects the freedoms and choices that an individual makes (which also means letting them fail if they fail). This also means protecting the individual against a limitation of choices that a company, industry or others may try to impose on the individual. So there still would be workers rights laws etc. Which would be in direct conflict with a pure capitalistic society.

And this is where the discussions about what we mean by "freedom" are important. If we - any of us - have differing views on what "freedom" means then we're essentially going to have that well-known dialogue of the deaf. It's simply not sufficient to claim that "capitalism means more freedom than socialism" just as it it's insufficient to claim it the other way around. Then we - all of us - can start to discuss what sort of society is most desirable.

Seems like something you plagiarized from Winston Smith. Capitalism means more freedom than Socialism. Individual will as opposed to asking consent. Give it a break, put down the Kool-Aid. How about trying some original Thought.

 

[Diuretic]

Whoever has the most money.

However, thats not ideal either. As was shown in the 19th century with the examples of industry barons and in many cases companies basically taking over the role of the government in many different capacities and ways in some towns and cities.

What is needed is an individualistic society, where the government protects the freedoms and choices that an individual makes (which also means letting them fail if they fail). This also means protecting the individual against a limitation of choices that a company, industry or others may try to impose on the individual. So there still would be workers rights laws etc. Which would be in direct conflict with a pure capitalistic society.

And this is where the discussions about what we mean by "freedom" are important. If we - any of us - have differing views on what "freedom" means then we're essentially going to have that well-known dialogue of the deaf. It's simply not sufficient to claim that "capitalism means more freedom than socialism" just as it it's insufficient to claim it the other way around. Then we - all of us - can start to discuss what sort of society is most desirable.

Seems like something you plagiarized from Winston Smith. Capitalism means more freedom than Socialism. Individual will as opposed to asking consent. Give it a break, put down the Kool-Aid. How about trying some original Thought.

Not plagiarised at all and Winston Smith was a fictional character.

"Capitalism means more freedom than socialism". Okay, that's a sentence, it has words, but that's all it is, it proves nothing.

"Individual will as opposed to asking consent." Nothing proven, just a statement completely devoid of context and therefore meaning.

How about trying some thought?