Socialism is evil

[BlackAsCoal]

You’re same old reliable comeback and it's lame one. Like I said head counts don't mean a thing

Another really dumb response.

Of course head counts matter. It's a sign of diversity of opinion and thought .. of course that is if one values diversity of opinion and thought .. which republicans do not. Just follow B'wana.

Frankly, I love challenging right-wing "thought" .. becauuse it's ignorant. They'll resort to stupid shit .. like head counts don't matter.

All message boards should have at least one of two of them so people with brains can see just how illogical and out of touch with planet earth they are.

Diversity? Maybe the government to should decide what is diverse. How is it a "diversity of thought" to be beholden to one party? Maybe you could explain that to me. Just to let you know I grew up in Detroit, lived there all my life, moved out about nine years ago, but I still love the city and all my friends are still there, but the democrats, and the unions who have run that city for 40 yrs have ran it into the ground. So why don't you explain to me what the democrat party has done for black people, I've asked you this before still no good answer. So what does that tell us? Oh one more thing because you choose to ignore the abortion rate amongst the black population does not make it any less relevant to the conversation

If you don't get it, you just don't get it. No big deal. How many times do I have to post the same thing?

You need it in crayon too?

I grew up in Detroit too. Unions and the Democratic Party did very well there for a long time .. neither of which brought the city down .. being vested in only one industry did. If American cars were still doing well, so would Detroit.

Wonder if you are able to step outside the city into the rest of Michigan .. which is not a democratic state. Both parties do well there .. however, the entire state has been devasted by the same economic downfall that is effecting every state, every municipality.

But again, if you don't get it .. then you don't.

Republicans have done WHAT exactly for African-Americans? Never got that answer.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Another really dumb response.

Of course head counts matter. It's a sign of diversity of opinion and thought .. of course that is if one values diversity of opinion and thought .. which republicans do not. Just follow B'wana.

Frankly, I love challenging right-wing "thought" .. becauuse it's ignorant. They'll resort to stupid shit .. like head counts don't matter.

All message boards should have at least one of two of them so people with brains can see just how illogical and out of touch with planet earth they are.

Diversity? Maybe the government to should decide what is diverse. How is it a "diversity of thought" to be beholden to one party? Maybe you could explain that to me. Just to let you know I grew up in Detroit, lived there all my life, moved out about nine years ago, but I still love the city and all my friends are still there, but the democrats, and the unions who have run that city for 40 yrs have ran it into the ground. So why don't you explain to me what the democrat party has done for black people, I've asked you this before still no good answer. So what does that tell us? Oh one more thing because you choose to ignore the abortion rate amongst the black population does not make it any less relevant to the conversation

If you don't get it, you just don't get it. No big deal. How many times do I have to post the same thing?

You need it in crayon too?

I grew up in Detroit too. Unions and the Democratic Party did very well there for a long time .. neither of which brought the city down .. being vested in only one industry did. If American cars were still doing well, so would Detroit.

Wonder if you are able to step outside the city into the rest of Michigan .. which is not a democratic state. Both parties do well there .. however, the entire state has been devasted by the same economic downfall that is effecting every state, every municipality.

But again, if you don't get it .. then you don't.

Republicans have done WHAT exactly for African-Americans? Never got that answer.

They freed them; does that count for anything?

Oh I get it...
What I get from you is that blacks should think and vote a certain way otherwise their opinion is worth less.

 

[Jroc]

But that's all ancient history, altered by Nixon's southern strategy.

We return you now to the present .. where the Republican Party is a mere shadow of its former self.

Nixon’s Southern Strategy Was Not A Racist Appeal

In the arsenal of the Democrats is a condemnation of Republican President Richard Nixon for his so-called “Southern Strategy.” These same Democrats expressed no concern when the racially segregated South voted solidly for Democrats for over 100 years, yet unfairly deride Republicans because of the thirty-year odyssey of the South switching to the Republican Party that began in the 1970's. Nixon's "Southern Strategy” was an effort on his part to get fair-minded people in the South to stop voting for Democrats who did not share their values and were discriminating against blacks. Georgia did not switch until 2004, and Louisiana was controlled by Democrats until the election of Republican Governor Bobby Jindal in 2007.

As the co-architect of Nixon’s “Southern Strategy”, Pat Buchanan provided a first-hand account of the origin and intent of that strategy in a 2002 article that can be found on the Internet at: The Neocons and Nixon's southern strategy

In that article, Buchanan wrote that when Nixon kicked off his historic comeback in 1966 with a column about the South (written by Buchanan), Nixon declared that the Republican Party would be built on a foundation of states rights, human rights, small government and a strong national defense, and leave it to the “party of Maddox, Mahoney and Wallace to squeeze the last ounce of political juice out of the rotting fruit of racial injustice”.

During the 1966 campaign, Nixon was personally thanked by Dr. King for his help in passing the Civil Rights Act of 1957. Nixon also endorsed all Republicans, except the members of the John Birch Society.

Notably, the enforcement of affirmative action began with Richard Nixon‘s 1969 Philadelphia Plan (crafted by black Republican Art Fletcher who became know as “the father of affirmative action enforcement”) that set the nation‘s first goals and timetables. Nixon was also responsible for the passage of civil rights legislation in the 1970’s, including the Equal Employment Act of 1972.

Fletcher, as president of the United Negro College Fund, coined the phrase “the mind is a terrible thing to waste.” Fletcher was also one of the original nine plaintiffs in the famous “Brown v. Topeka Board of Education” decision. Fletcher briefly pursued a bid for the Republican presidential nomination in 1995.

Nixon began his merit-based affirmative action program to overcome the harm caused by Democrat President Woodrow Wilson who, after he was elected in 1912, kicked blacks out of federal government jobs and prevented blacks from obtaining federal contracts. Also, while Wilson was president and Congress was controlled by the Democrats, more discriminatory bills were introduced in Congress than ever before in our nation’s history. Today, Democrats have turned affirmative action into an unfair quota system that even most blacks do not support.

Frequently Asked Questions | National Black Republican Association

Again, this is why I love having these conversations with the right. All you have in one ignorant thing after another.

Nixon, who frequently used the "n" word, knew exactly who and what he was courting. He knew exactly who dixiecrats were and what they stood for. That strategy was created by Barry Goldwater who was a racist .. he called it the "white-interests" strategy.

... and they wonder why black republicans are so scorned.

You know how many Dems have used the N word? give me a break with that, I don't care if Nixon personally liked blacks or not, the post was just ment to show that the strategy itself was not racist.

 

[Jroc]

Another really dumb response.

Of course head counts matter. It's a sign of diversity of opinion and thought .. of course that is if one values diversity of opinion and thought .. which republicans do not. Just follow B'wana.

Frankly, I love challenging right-wing "thought" .. becauuse it's ignorant. They'll resort to stupid shit .. like head counts don't matter.

All message boards should have at least one of two of them so people with brains can see just how illogical and out of touch with planet earth they are.

Diversity? Maybe the government to should decide what is diverse. How is it a "diversity of thought" to be beholden to one party? Maybe you could explain that to me. Just to let you know I grew up in Detroit, lived there all my life, moved out about nine years ago, but I still love the city and all my friends are still there, but the democrats, and the unions who have run that city for 40 yrs have ran it into the ground. So why don't you explain to me what the democrat party has done for black people, I've asked you this before still no good answer. So what does that tell us? Oh one more thing because you choose to ignore the abortion rate amongst the black population does not make it any less relevant to the conversation

If you don't get it, you just don't get it. No big deal. How many times do I have to post the same thing?

You need it in crayon too?

I grew up in Detroit too. Unions and the Democratic Party did very well there for a long time .. neither of which brought the city down .. being vested in only one industry did. If American cars were still doing well, so would Detroit.

Wonder if you are able to step outside the city into the rest of Michigan .. which is not a democratic state. Both parties do well there .. however, the entire state has been devasted by the same economic downfall that is effecting every state, every municipality.

But again, if you don't get it .. then you don't.

Republicans have done WHAT exactly for African-Americans? Never got that answer.

Detroit has been devastated long before the auto companies melt down, which was do in part to the unions, and the executives fleecing those companies and making bad deals with unsustainable legacy costs. They all got paid, executives got their big bonuses, and the union got their big lifetime benefits. I'll tell you what you answer me on the abortion issue and I'll explain to you why conservatism which is what the (Republican party is supposed to be about) and why you're liberal big government democrat party is bad for blacks

 

[NYcarbineer]

It appears to me that, in comparing the more socialist countries with the less socialist countries,

one of the clear distinctions is that the gap between rich and poor is consistently less in the former than in the latter.

Is that a good indicator of a well functioning capitalist society/economy? A relatively greater gap between rich and poor?

Is that a good measure of capitalism's success, vs. socialism's failure??

That's a very good observation and question.

One that I fear will not elicit much in the way of discussion.

 

[Neotrotsky]

It appears to me that, in comparing the more socialist countries with the less socialist countries,

one of the clear distinctions is that the gap between rich and poor is consistently less in the former than in the latter.

Is that a good indicator of a well functioning capitalist society/economy? A relatively greater gap between rich and poor?

Is that a good measure of capitalism's success, vs. socialism's failure??

That's a very good observation and question.

One that I fear will not elicit much in the way of discussion.

Not at all



The socialist countries of Europe have always maintained higher unemployment rates than the US and slower growth rates
due to the "crowding out" effect and over regulation of socialist policies. In fact, their norm has
been around 10 percent. It is only recently that the US finds itself "catching" up to Europe on this number.

The socialist countries that due the least worse also tend to have export surpluses, Germany, Sweden etc.
Why, because in a closed economy no matter how much you redistribute the wealth, it will not create any more
wealth overall. A nation needs to bring in increasing amounts of money to offset the economic dampening
of their fiscal policies to just maintain their standard of living.

Sadly, the US has chosen debt to serve this function; not a good choice.


We see how well Greece, Spain and Italy are doing. (nations in Europe with the highest debt and no trade surplus)
If economic collapse is doing great then the US is on her way

 

[Neotrotsky]

which is still socialism.
Most parents school taxes paid do not come near to the actual const of educating their child. If they did people without children would not have to pay any school tax.

Not at all, it is no more "socialist" than say the military.
The free market allows for things public goods and natural monopolies.
It is nothing more than creating access to a "public good"

Granted, one could argue that it is statist but socialist, no.

It is smarter move and more market orientated than say creating a huge Federal Dep't that spends a lot of money and has little to show for it

sort of like we have now

So you do support socialism then?
And support the non limited for the welfare of the citizens part of the constitution?

Most all of the money the US govt spends on domestic issues is rolled back into the economy. We have lots to show for it. Schools, dams, roads, etc.

Socialism- no

A Free market is not 'laissez faire'

A gov't that uses its power to keep markets open and competitive by removing market distortions is good and not "socialist", eg. anti-trust laws; natural monopolies etc

A gov't that uses it power to protect property rights is not socialist

A gov't that uses its power of taxation to provide for public goods is not socialist.

Of course in both above, the means is the big question. The most efficient way is to always use the market as much as possible. In some cases, say the military, this may not be feasible or practical. With education, I do not not believe this to be the case which is why I would love to see a larger use of vouchers.

 

[Richard-H]

Socialism is evil

Walter E. Williams


What is socialism? We miss the boat if we say it's the agenda of left-wingers and Democrats. According to Marxist doctrine, socialism is a stage of society between capitalism and communism where private ownership and control over property are eliminated. The essence of socialism is the attenuation and ultimate abolition of private property rights. Attacks on private property include, but are not limited to, confiscating the rightful property of one person and giving it to another to whom it doesn't belong. When this is done privately, we call it theft. When it's done collectively, we use euphemisms: income transfers or redistribution. It's not just left-wingers and Democrats who call for and admire socialism but right-wingers and Republicans as well.

Republicans and right-wingers support taking the earnings of one American and giving them to farmers, banks, airlines and other failing businesses. Democrats and left-wingers support taking the earnings of one American and giving them to poor people, cities and artists. Both agree on taking one American's earnings to give to another; they simply differ on the recipients. This kind of congressional activity constitutes at least two-thirds of the federal budget.

Regardless of the purpose, such behavior is immoral. It's a reduced form of slavery. After all, what is the essence of slavery? It's the forceful use of one person to serve the purposes of another person. When Congress, through the tax code, takes the earnings of one person and turns around to give it to another person in the forms of prescription drugs, Social Security, food stamps, farm subsidies or airline bailouts, it is forcibly using one person to serve the purposes of another.

The moral question stands out in starker relief when we acknowledge that those spending programs coming out of Congress do not represent lawmakers reaching into their own pockets and sending out the money. Moreover, there's no tooth fairy or Santa Claus giving them the money. The fact that government has no resources of its very own forces us to acknowledge that the only way government can give one American a dollar is to first -- through intimidation, threats and coercion -- take that dollar from some other American.

Some might rejoin that all of this is a result of a democratic process and it's legal. Legality alone is no guide for a moral people. There are many things in this world that have been, or are, legal but clearly immoral. Slavery was legal. Did that make it moral? South Africa's apartheid, Nazi persecution of Jews, and Stalinist and Maoist purges were all legal, but did that make them moral?

Can a moral case be made for taking the rightful property of one American and giving it to another to whom it does not belong? I think not. That's why socialism is evil. It uses evil means (coercion) to achieve what are seen as good ends (helping people). We might also note that an act that is inherently evil does not become moral simply because there's a majority consensus.




Socialism is evil

Well, according to the OP, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton and of course, the worst, Thomas Paine were theives.

You don't like paying taxes, huh? Motivated by single-minded greed?

You live in a soceity, and everything that you own is because of the hardwork and sacrifices of the people in that soceity and only in accordance with that soceity's rules. One of which is: you have to pay taxes.

If you don't like it, you are free to move into the deep amazon or perhaps to Antartica. Let's see how much wealth you accumulate there!

Wake up an smell the reality, idiot!

 

[shintao]

I grew up in Detroit,.,...I still love the city..., but the democrats, and the unions who have run that city for 40 yrs have ran it into the ground.

How did Unions run Detriot into the ground?

 

[Meister]

Socialism is evil

Walter E. Williams


What is socialism? We miss the boat if we say it's the agenda of left-wingers and Democrats. According to Marxist doctrine, socialism is a stage of society between capitalism and communism where private ownership and control over property are eliminated. The essence of socialism is the attenuation and ultimate abolition of private property rights. Attacks on private property include, but are not limited to, confiscating the rightful property of one person and giving it to another to whom it doesn't belong. When this is done privately, we call it theft. When it's done collectively, we use euphemisms: income transfers or redistribution. It's not just left-wingers and Democrats who call for and admire socialism but right-wingers and Republicans as well.

Republicans and right-wingers support taking the earnings of one American and giving them to farmers, banks, airlines and other failing businesses. Democrats and left-wingers support taking the earnings of one American and giving them to poor people, cities and artists. Both agree on taking one American's earnings to give to another; they simply differ on the recipients. This kind of congressional activity constitutes at least two-thirds of the federal budget.

Regardless of the purpose, such behavior is immoral. It's a reduced form of slavery. After all, what is the essence of slavery? It's the forceful use of one person to serve the purposes of another person. When Congress, through the tax code, takes the earnings of one person and turns around to give it to another person in the forms of prescription drugs, Social Security, food stamps, farm subsidies or airline bailouts, it is forcibly using one person to serve the purposes of another.

The moral question stands out in starker relief when we acknowledge that those spending programs coming out of Congress do not represent lawmakers reaching into their own pockets and sending out the money. Moreover, there's no tooth fairy or Santa Claus giving them the money. The fact that government has no resources of its very own forces us to acknowledge that the only way government can give one American a dollar is to first -- through intimidation, threats and coercion -- take that dollar from some other American.

Some might rejoin that all of this is a result of a democratic process and it's legal. Legality alone is no guide for a moral people. There are many things in this world that have been, or are, legal but clearly immoral. Slavery was legal. Did that make it moral? South Africa's apartheid, Nazi persecution of Jews, and Stalinist and Maoist purges were all legal, but did that make them moral?

Can a moral case be made for taking the rightful property of one American and giving it to another to whom it does not belong? I think not. That's why socialism is evil. It uses evil means (coercion) to achieve what are seen as good ends (helping people). We might also note that an act that is inherently evil does not become moral simply because there's a majority consensus.




Socialism is evil

Well, according to the OP, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton and of course, the worst, Thomas Paine were theives.

You don't like paying taxes, huh? Motivated by single-minded greed?

You live in a soceity, and everything that you own is because of the hardwork and sacrifices of the people in that soceity and only in accordance with that soceity's rules. One of which is: you have to pay taxes.

If you don't like it, you are free to move into the deep amazon or perhaps to Antartica. Let's see how much wealth you accumulate there!

Wake up an smell the reality, idiot!

I don't think anyone is opposed to paying a "fair tax".......idiot!

 

[NYcarbineer]

That's a very good observation and question.

One that I fear will not elicit much in the way of discussion.

Not at all



The socialist countries of Europe have always maintained higher unemployment rates than the US and slower growth rates
due to the "crowding out" effect and over regulation of socialist policies. In fact, their norm has
been around 10 percent. It is only recently that the US finds itself "catching" up to Europe on this number.

The socialist countries that due the least worse also tend to have export surpluses, Germany, Sweden etc.
Why, because in a closed economy no matter how much you redistribute the wealth, it will not create any more
wealth overall. A nation needs to bring in increasing amounts of money to offset the economic dampening
of their fiscal policies to just maintain their standard of living.

Sadly, the US has chosen debt to serve this function; not a good choice.


We see how well Greece, Spain and Italy are doing. (nations in Europe with the highest debt and no trade surplus)
If economic collapse is doing great then the US is on her way

That doesn't address what I was talking about in the least.

 

[shintao]

I don't think anyone is opposed to paying a "fair tax".......idiot!

What do you call a fair tax, considering the defict & budget?

 

[shintao]

The socialist countries of Europe have always maintained higher unemployment rates than the US... In fact, their norm has
been around 10 percent. It is only recently that the US finds itself "catching" up to Europe on this number

I think you are wrong. The US caught up when America began using "honest" numbers to represent the unemployed, and extended the length of time one could be considered unemployed. Now you are seeing the honest numbers. We used to hide our unemployed under a variety of lables: disabled, not looking, homeless, part-time worker, welfare, only 52 weeks, etc. Obama is counting actually people unemployed for years, and that is why you are getting a higher N & accuracy for the 10% stat.

 

[dilloduck]

We don't have enough real jobs for those who need an income so we have invented positions to put people in. Job welfare. Half of them could be laid of and we would see no decrease in production. Technology had taken over as predicted. Some people can and never will be able to compete in the market place. What are we going to do with them ?
I think socialism thinks they have the answer. It just doesn't take human nature into consideration.

 

[Neotrotsky]

One that I fear will not elicit much in the way of discussion.

Not at all



The socialist countries of Europe have always maintained higher unemployment rates than the US and slower growth rates
due to the "crowding out" effect and over regulation of socialist policies. In fact, their norm has
been around 10 percent. It is only recently that the US finds itself "catching" up to Europe on this number.

The socialist countries that due the least worse also tend to have export surpluses, Germany, Sweden etc.
Why, because in a closed economy no matter how much you redistribute the wealth, it will not create any more
wealth overall. A nation needs to bring in increasing amounts of money to offset the economic dampening
of their fiscal policies to just maintain their standard of living.

Sadly, the US has chosen debt to serve this function; not a good choice.


We see how well Greece, Spain and Italy are doing. (nations in Europe with the highest debt and no trade surplus)
If economic collapse is doing great then the US is on her way

That doesn't address what I was talking about in the least.

Sure it does

The "gap", if any, that you see is not real or long term.
The recent move by European countries to cut back their socialist spending is due in part to a large decrease in trade surpluses and no foreseeable large growth n the future.

It would be impossible for all nations to follow Europe's model at the same time. All nations could not all have a trade surplus at the same time. WIth trade surpluses, it requires you have some losers and some winners.

Which is why Europeans, China and Japan have no vested interest in the US developing trade to the point of surplus with them, who would fund their economies. In fact, China and Japan needs to give us money and probably prefers if we stay in debt. Until and if the rest of the world develops more, who is going to buy their crap?

So, the "gap" you see is only temporary and not sustainable. It is similar to what we see in some Middle East countries due to oil exports. Per capita, some of them look great due to their trade surplus from oil exports; but once the oil runs out, they will have nothing but a "sand box". If these counties do not develop an economy that is self-sustaining then the standard of living will have to drop for all in these countries.

Which is why some of the greatest growth periods in our history were combined with some of our greatest trade surpluses. I do not believe in protectionism for itself. However, it would be nice to see our country in position where we depended less on debt and more on trade surpluses to bring money into our economy.

 

[shintao]

We don't have enough real jobs for those who need an income so we have invented positions to put people in. Job welfare. Half of them could be laid of and we would see no decrease in production. Technology had taken over as predicted. Some people can and never will be able to compete in the market place. What are we going to do with them ?
I think socialism thinks they have the answer. It just doesn't take human nature into consideration.

Oh, I think it does, the social and altruistic traits of nature and nurture, with less risk taking in activities. We have seen how human nature to take risks, be competitive and selfish has resulted in a collapsed economy, and threatened the family social structure at all levels.

 

[Kat]

The socialist countries of Europe have always maintained higher unemployment rates than the US... In fact, their norm has
been around 10 percent. It is only recently that the US finds itself "catching" up to Europe on this number

I think you are wrong. The US caught up when America began using "honest" numbers to represent the unemployed, and extended the length of time one could be considered unemployed. Now you are seeing the honest numbers. We used to hide our unemployed under a variety of lables: disabled, not looking, homeless, part-time worker, welfare, only 52 weeks, etc. Obama is counting actually people unemployed for years, and that is why you are getting a higher N & accuracy for the 10% stat.

Kidding, right?

 

[syrenn]

Socialism is evil

Walter E. Williams


What is socialism? We miss the boat if we say it's the agenda of left-wingers and Democrats. According to Marxist doctrine, socialism is a stage of society between capitalism and communism where private ownership and control over property are eliminated. The essence of socialism is the attenuation and ultimate abolition of private property rights. Attacks on private property include, but are not limited to, confiscating the rightful property of one person and giving it to another to whom it doesn't belong. When this is done privately, we call it theft. When it's done collectively, we use euphemisms: income transfers or redistribution. It's not just left-wingers and Democrats who call for and admire socialism but right-wingers and Republicans as well.

Republicans and right-wingers support taking the earnings of one American and giving them to farmers, banks, airlines and other failing businesses. Democrats and left-wingers support taking the earnings of one American and giving them to poor people, cities and artists. Both agree on taking one American's earnings to give to another; they simply differ on the recipients. This kind of congressional activity constitutes at least two-thirds of the federal budget.

Regardless of the purpose, such behavior is immoral. It's a reduced form of slavery. After all, what is the essence of slavery? It's the forceful use of one person to serve the purposes of another person. When Congress, through the tax code, takes the earnings of one person and turns around to give it to another person in the forms of prescription drugs, Social Security, food stamps, farm subsidies or airline bailouts, it is forcibly using one person to serve the purposes of another.

The moral question stands out in starker relief when we acknowledge that those spending programs coming out of Congress do not represent lawmakers reaching into their own pockets and sending out the money. Moreover, there's no tooth fairy or Santa Claus giving them the money. The fact that government has no resources of its very own forces us to acknowledge that the only way government can give one American a dollar is to first -- through intimidation, threats and coercion -- take that dollar from some other American.

Some might rejoin that all of this is a result of a democratic process and it's legal. Legality alone is no guide for a moral people. There are many things in this world that have been, or are, legal but clearly immoral. Slavery was legal. Did that make it moral? South Africa's apartheid, Nazi persecution of Jews, and Stalinist and Maoist purges were all legal, but did that make them moral?

Can a moral case be made for taking the rightful property of one American and giving it to another to whom it does not belong? I think not. That's why socialism is evil. It uses evil means (coercion) to achieve what are seen as good ends (helping people). We might also note that an act that is inherently evil does not become moral simply because there's a majority consensus.




Socialism is evil

It is only evil if you are on the giving and working end of things.

Its a Fabulous deal if you are on the taking for doing nothing end of things.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Socialism is evil

Walter E. Williams


What is socialism? We miss the boat if we say it's the agenda of left-wingers and Democrats. According to Marxist doctrine, socialism is a stage of society between capitalism and communism where private ownership and control over property are eliminated. The essence of socialism is the attenuation and ultimate abolition of private property rights. Attacks on private property include, but are not limited to, confiscating the rightful property of one person and giving it to another to whom it doesn't belong. When this is done privately, we call it theft. When it's done collectively, we use euphemisms: income transfers or redistribution. It's not just left-wingers and Democrats who call for and admire socialism but right-wingers and Republicans as well.

Republicans and right-wingers support taking the earnings of one American and giving them to farmers, banks, airlines and other failing businesses. Democrats and left-wingers support taking the earnings of one American and giving them to poor people, cities and artists. Both agree on taking one American's earnings to give to another; they simply differ on the recipients. This kind of congressional activity constitutes at least two-thirds of the federal budget.

Regardless of the purpose, such behavior is immoral. It's a reduced form of slavery. After all, what is the essence of slavery? It's the forceful use of one person to serve the purposes of another person. When Congress, through the tax code, takes the earnings of one person and turns around to give it to another person in the forms of prescription drugs, Social Security, food stamps, farm subsidies or airline bailouts, it is forcibly using one person to serve the purposes of another.

The moral question stands out in starker relief when we acknowledge that those spending programs coming out of Congress do not represent lawmakers reaching into their own pockets and sending out the money. Moreover, there's no tooth fairy or Santa Claus giving them the money. The fact that government has no resources of its very own forces us to acknowledge that the only way government can give one American a dollar is to first -- through intimidation, threats and coercion -- take that dollar from some other American.

Some might rejoin that all of this is a result of a democratic process and it's legal. Legality alone is no guide for a moral people. There are many things in this world that have been, or are, legal but clearly immoral. Slavery was legal. Did that make it moral? South Africa's apartheid, Nazi persecution of Jews, and Stalinist and Maoist purges were all legal, but did that make them moral?

Can a moral case be made for taking the rightful property of one American and giving it to another to whom it does not belong? I think not. That's why socialism is evil. It uses evil means (coercion) to achieve what are seen as good ends (helping people). We might also note that an act that is inherently evil does not become moral simply because there's a majority consensus.

Socialism is evil

Hear ye', hear ye' .. it has been so declared by black neo-confederate Walter Williams that anything designated as "public" is evil. That all the examples of socialism in America .. such as police departments, libraries, and any service that benefits actual PEOPLE, not property, is evil.

Thank you Walter (Johnny Reb) Williams.

WRONG! Public safety is an essential government service. Libraries are not necessarily essential services but are not socialism.
This explanation use by you is merely a crutch used by the liberal Left as an excuse to introduce the notion of central government planning. It all boils down to the single issue of class envy.
You people want wealth to which you are not entitled. Your tact is to use the power of government to enrich yourselves off the backs of the producers.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The US is a socialist nation

We have a socialist retirement system (Social Security), health care (Medicare, Medicaid, and now Obamcare), military, fire depts, police dept, socialized supply of food, water, and electricity, socialized communications systems (telephone, cable, tv, internet), weather service, socialist transportation systems (roads and highways, Amtrack, airports and air traffic controllers) and on and on

We also have a solialist tax system (ie a progressive income tax)

Wingnuts hate the US so much they call it "evil"

Nice try...But full of shit..
Public safety is an essential government service.
utilities are NOT socialist. We have an option to NOT pay for them.
For example.....I have NO land line telephone service. MY choice...
If I choose to do so, I can dig a well and install a septic system......MY choice..
I can install a generator and tell the electric company to take a flying leap.
I can if I choose to do so, I can dump internet.
The Bush administration de-funded AMTRAK....The railroad union went ballistic. The US Government should divest itself of AMTRAK and the US Taxpayers. AMTRAK bleeds money like a stuck pig. It has to be privatized.
Where you got the ideal that taxation is socialism is a mystery.
I am well aware of your side's thought process on socialism. You think since we have some policies that are pseudo- socialist....why not go for the gold......