CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 148,628
- 71,932
- 2,330
Socialism is supposed to fail, its goal is to fill the plantation and keep it filled
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Lets go back to the late 1800's.
A period in our history where it's safe we experience the greatest innovation and growth the world has ever seen. If you've been watching The Men Who Built America you'll know what I'm referring to.
The railroad system, electric light, gasoline, the mass-produced automobile, steel, and more. All because a few men had a relentless desire to succeed, whether from good-will or greed.
And while working conditions did get pretty bad for the workers, the fact still remains that it was the greatest period of growth and innovation we've ever seen. My question is;
What would have happened under socialism? How would the innovation have come if the freedom of success and accumulation of wealth (or greed) that drove men like Vanderbilt, Morgan, Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Ford didn't exist?
Is it fair to say that under socialism, where people simply work for the collective good of others, that we'd probably still be taking horses to work and lighting candles at night?
Socialism is supposed to fail, its goal is to fill the plantation and keep it filled
Lets go back to the late 1800's.
A period in our history where it's safe we experience the greatest innovation and growth the world has ever seen. If you've been watching The Men Who Built America you'll know what I'm referring to.
The railroad system, electric light, gasoline, the mass-produced automobile, steel, and more. All because a few men had a relentless desire to succeed, whether from good-will or greed.
And while working conditions did get pretty bad for the workers, the fact still remains that it was the greatest period of growth and innovation we've ever seen. My question is;
What would have happened under socialism? How would the innovation have come if the freedom of success and accumulation of wealth (or greed) that drove men like Vanderbilt, Morgan, Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Ford didn't exist?
Is it fair to say that under socialism, where people simply work for the collective good of others, that we'd probably still be taking horses to work and lighting candles at night?
What do you call what Gates, Jobs and others in the hi-tech world have done? That's innovation that rivals anything done before. In the 60s and 70s aerospace got us to the moon and beyond. Innovation didn't end in the 1800s, it was just getting started.
Socialism leads to Natonal Parks. National Forests. National Grasslands. City Fire Departments. City Police Departments. City Water and Sewage Utilities. Public Utility Districts. Army. Navy. Air Force. Coast Guard. Social Security. MediCare. MediAid.
And worst of all. A Middle Class!!!!!!!!!
Switzerland is the most innovative country in the world buoyed up by a high turnover of patent registrations according to the latest Global Innovation Index (GII), heading a list dominated by Europe.
Socialism leads to Natonal Parks. National Forests. National Grasslands. City Fire Departments. City Police Departments. City Water and Sewage Utilities. Public Utility Districts. Army. Navy. Air Force. Coast Guard. Social Security. MediCare. MediAid.
And worst of all. A Middle Class!!!!!!!!!
Socialism leads to the equal distribution of poverty.
The minute you take away a man's incentive to personal gains, you take away his incentive to produce along with it. Go into any retail store and tell a random employee you're going to lower his paycheck so his coworkers can all get a little bit more. Then see if he still works as hard.
Then you might say, that's not what socialism is about. Yes it is. At least, true socialism. We have all the things you mentioned, yet we're not a "socialist" country. Although they are socialist policies.
Socialists believe that a society is stronger when men work together for the common good.
Yeah, that sounds great. But men don't operate like that, and never will. Tell me about significant advancement and innovation that have taken place under a socialist regime.
There aren't any. Because sadly, man isn't as motivated to work as hard when he won't see a bigger slice of the pie.
Socialism leads to Natonal Parks. National Forests. National Grasslands. City Fire Departments. City Police Departments. City Water and Sewage Utilities. Public Utility Districts. Army. Navy. Air Force. Coast Guard. Social Security. MediCare. MediAid.
And worst of all. A Middle Class!!!!!!!!!
Socialism leads to the equal distribution of poverty.
The minute you take away a man's incentive to personal gains, you take away his incentive to produce along with it. Go into any retail store and tell a random employee you're going to lower his paycheck so his coworkers can all get a little bit more. Then see if he still works as hard.
Then you might say, that's not what socialism is about. Yes it is. At least, true socialism. We have all the things you mentioned, yet we're not a "socialist" country. Although they are socialist policies.
Socialists believe that a society is stronger when men work together for the common good.
Yeah, that sounds great. But men don't operate like that, and never will. Tell me about significant advancement and innovation that have taken place under a socialist regime.
There aren't any. Because sadly, man isn't as motivated to work as hard when he won't see a bigger slice of the pie.
Whoever told you that there is no such thing as a stupid question.......was lying.
Socialism leads to the equal distribution of poverty.
The minute you take away a man's incentive to personal gains, you take away his incentive to produce along with it. Go into any retail store and tell a random employee you're going to lower his paycheck so his coworkers can all get a little bit more. Then see if he still works as hard.
Then you might say, that's not what socialism is about. Yes it is. At least, true socialism. We have all the things you mentioned, yet we're not a "socialist" country. Although they are socialist policies.
Socialists believe that a society is stronger when men work together for the common good.
Yeah, that sounds great. But men don't operate like that, and never will. Tell me about significant advancement and innovation that have taken place under a socialist regime.
There aren't any. Because sadly, man isn't as motivated to work as hard when he won't see a bigger slice of the pie.
Whoever told you that there is no such thing as a stupid question.......was lying.
There's not a single question mark in my entire post.
If you're not going to provide a valid argument then don't bother posting at all. It just makes you look stupid.
Whoever told you that there is no such thing as a stupid question.......was lying.
There's not a single question mark in my entire post.
If you're not going to provide a valid argument then don't bother posting at all. It just makes you look stupid.
Question....challenge for info.....same thing. You want people to tell you about significant advancement and innovation taking place in a Socialist economy.
Stupid. There are TOO MANY to warrant the challenge. Responding to it seriously would be an exercise in IQ reduction. Get it now?
Lets go back to the late 1800's.
A period in our history where it's safe we experience the greatest innovation and growth the world has ever seen. If you've been watching The Men Who Built America you'll know what I'm referring to.
The railroad system, electric light, gasoline, the mass-produced automobile, steel, and more. All because a few men had a relentless desire to succeed, whether from good-will or greed.
And while working conditions did get pretty bad for the workers, the fact still remains that it was the greatest period of growth and innovation we've ever seen. My question is;
What would have happened under socialism? How would the innovation have come if the freedom of success and accumulation of wealth (or greed) that drove men like Vanderbilt, Morgan, Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Ford didn't exist?
Is it fair to say that under socialism, where people simply work for the collective good of others, that we'd probably still be taking horses to work and lighting candles at night?
Socialism leads to Natonal Parks. National Forests. National Grasslands. City Fire Departments. City Police Departments. City Water and Sewage Utilities. Public Utility Districts. Army. Navy. Air Force. Coast Guard. Social Security. MediCare. MediAid.
And worst of all. A Middle Class!!!!!!!!!
There's not a single question mark in my entire post.
If you're not going to provide a valid argument then don't bother posting at all. It just makes you look stupid.
Question....challenge for info.....same thing. You want people to tell you about significant advancement and innovation taking place in a Socialist economy.
Stupid. There are TOO MANY to warrant the challenge. Responding to it seriously would be an exercise in IQ reduction. Get it now?
Because pure socialism goes nowhere.
And communism goes backward. You've been arguing this for the length of this thread, yet can't explain how people living in a purely socialist society can bring forth any substantial growth and development.
The only worthy innovation brought to us by those regimes is a real-life time machine.
Lets go back to the late 1800's.
A period in our history where it's safe we experience the greatest innovation and growth the world has ever seen. If you've been watching The Men Who Built America you'll know what I'm referring to.
The railroad system, electric light, gasoline, the mass-produced automobile, steel, and more. All because a few men had a relentless desire to succeed, whether from good-will or greed.
And while working conditions did get pretty bad for the workers, the fact still remains that it was the greatest period of growth and innovation we've ever seen. My question is;
What would have happened under socialism? How would the innovation have come if the freedom of success and accumulation of wealth (or greed) that drove men like Vanderbilt, Morgan, Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Ford didn't exist?
Is it fair to say that under socialism, where people simply work for the collective good of others, that we'd probably still be taking horses to work and lighting candles at night?
Socialism leads to Natonal Parks. National Forests. National Grasslands. City Fire Departments. City Police Departments. City Water and Sewage Utilities. Public Utility Districts. Army. Navy. Air Force. Coast Guard. Social Security. MediCare. MediAid.
And worst of all. A Middle Class!!!!!!!!!
Natonal Parks. National Forests. National Grasslands, could you please show me the constitutional authority for these? I've looked, and can't find it.
Lets go back to the late 1800's.
A period in our history where it's safe we experience the greatest innovation and growth the world has ever seen. If you've been watching The Men Who Built America you'll know what I'm referring to.
The railroad system, electric light, gasoline, the mass-produced automobile, steel, and more. All because a few men had a relentless desire to succeed, whether from good-will or greed.
And while working conditions did get pretty bad for the workers, the fact still remains that it was the greatest period of growth and innovation we've ever seen. My question is;
What would have happened under socialism? How would the innovation have come if the freedom of success and accumulation of wealth (or greed) that drove men like Vanderbilt, Morgan, Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Ford didn't exist?
Is it fair to say that under socialism, where people simply work for the collective good of others, that we'd probably still be taking horses to work and lighting candles at night?
Socialism leads to Natonal Parks. National Forests. National Grasslands. City Fire Departments. City Police Departments. City Water and Sewage Utilities. Public Utility Districts. Army. Navy. Air Force. Coast Guard. Social Security. MediCare. MediAid.
And worst of all. A Middle Class!!!!!!!!!
Natonal Parks. National Forests. National Grasslands, could you please show me the constitutional authority for these? I've looked, and can't find it.
A Republican president thought it a good idea so he withdrew 125 million acres for the public to use. Sure a lot thought it was illegal but the president thought it was OK.
Question....challenge for info.....same thing. You want people to tell you about significant advancement and innovation taking place in a Socialist economy.
Stupid. There are TOO MANY to warrant the challenge. Responding to it seriously would be an exercise in IQ reduction. Get it now?
Because pure socialism goes nowhere.
And communism goes backward. You've been arguing this for the length of this thread, yet can't explain how people living in a purely socialist society can bring forth any substantial growth and development.
The only worthy innovation brought to us by those regimes is a real-life time machine.
You keep adding qualifiers. Now we are talking "purely" Socialist. As if that ever existed.
Using the word "regime" also identifies you as someone who doesn't understand that Socialism is an economic system...not a political one. Which makes all of your contributions to the thread bogus.
Japan is a monarchy with a parliament....yet it has a national health care system, a national pension, nationally run industries and lots of other socialist economic attributes. It is incredibly innovative and advanced.
You are WRONG. Socialism does not kill innovation.
Socialism leads to Natonal Parks. National Forests. National Grasslands. City Fire Departments. City Police Departments. City Water and Sewage Utilities. Public Utility Districts. Army. Navy. Air Force. Coast Guard. Social Security. MediCare. MediAid.
And worst of all. A Middle Class!!!!!!!!!
Natonal Parks. National Forests. National Grasslands, could you please show me the constitutional authority for these? I've looked, and can't find it.
A Republican president thought it a good idea so he withdrew 125 million acres for the public to use. Sure a lot thought it was illegal but the president thought it was OK.
Because pure socialism goes nowhere.
And communism goes backward. You've been arguing this for the length of this thread, yet can't explain how people living in a purely socialist society can bring forth any substantial growth and development.
The only worthy innovation brought to us by those regimes is a real-life time machine.
You keep adding qualifiers. Now we are talking "purely" Socialist. As if that ever existed.
Using the word "regime" also identifies you as someone who doesn't understand that Socialism is an economic system...not a political one. Which makes all of your contributions to the thread bogus.
Japan is a monarchy with a parliament....yet it has a national health care system, a national pension, nationally run industries and lots of other socialist economic attributes. It is incredibly innovative and advanced.
You are WRONG. Socialism does not kill innovation.
Sorry, no.
First you deny this "absolutist" statement...
Now we are talking "purely" Socialist
Then you make your own.....
Socialism is an economic system...not a political one
Socialism is NEVER a "purely" economic system.
[COLOR=]"Red"Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy,[1] and a political philosophy advocating such a system. "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, or citizen ownership of equity.[2]][/COLOR]
Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It ALWAYS a Government enterprise FIRST.
Always.
You keep adding qualifiers. Now we are talking "purely" Socialist. As if that ever existed.
Using the word "regime" also identifies you as someone who doesn't understand that Socialism is an economic system...not a political one. Which makes all of your contributions to the thread bogus.
Japan is a monarchy with a parliament....yet it has a national health care system, a national pension, nationally run industries and lots of other socialist economic attributes. It is incredibly innovative and advanced.
You are WRONG. Socialism does not kill innovation.
Sorry, no.
First you deny this "absolutist" statement...
Now we are talking "purely" Socialist
Then you make your own.....
Socialism is an economic system...not a political one
Socialism is NEVER a "purely" economic system.
[COLOR=]"Red"Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy,[1] and a political philosophy advocating such a system. "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, or citizen ownership of equity.[2]][/COLOR]
Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It ALWAYS a Government enterprise FIRST.
Always.
What are you talking about? I denied nothing. You need to re-read for comprehension.
Socialism is not a political system. Democracy, Monarchy, Dictatorship......are political systems. You can have a socialist economy in any one of those. You are wrong. Please try harder.