The religion of atheists is socialism

[ding]

Maybe, maybe not. It doesn't matter. You can't make the argument for socialism because there is no consistent socialism other than vague rosy notions of goodness of an idealized utopia which is ridiculously fantasized with a heavy handed government. The fervor is almost nazi like.

only in right wing fantasy.

capitalism died in 1929 and socialism has been bailing it out, ever since. We even have a Central Bank.

No, not in fantasy. You can't make the argument for socialism because there is no consistent socialism other than vague rosy notions of goodness of an idealized utopia which is ridiculously fantasized with a heavy handed government. Socialism intentionally denies examination. There is no formal defined dogma. Instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something noble and good, of equality, communal ownership, and justice: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach. World socialism as a whole, and all the figures associated with it, are shrouded in legend; its contradictions are forgotten or concealed; it does not respond to arguments but continually ignores them--all this stems from the mist of irrationality that surrounds socialism and from its instinctive aversion to scientific analysis. Socialism dismisses its defeats and ignores its incongruities. Socialism seeks to reduce human personality to its most primitive levels and to extinguish the highest, most complex, and "God-like" aspects of human individuality. And even equality itself, that powerful appeal and great promise of socialists throughout the ages, turns out to signify not equality of rights, of opportunities, and of external conditions, but equality qua identity, equality seen as the movement of variety toward uniformity.

of course i can; true capitalism doesn't work beyond the third world.

Free enterprise is Darwinian and has proven to not only work but to raise everyone up. Socialism is not Darwinian in nature and seeks equality via uniformity. You'd rather the poor be poor as long as the rich were less rich.

there are no True AnCaps, it is Only theory. There are truer forms of communism in actual practice, today.

Darwinian behaviors transcend all people because it is the natural state. Theory is based upon reason and reason dictates that competition raises the bar. So my point still stands. You'd rather the poor be poor as long as the rich were less rich.

 

[ding]

No, I have more than that. I have more than that. Socialism behaves like a religion which worships big government and social policy. It is based on atheism and deification of man. It proceeds in almost all its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and communality or equality. The religious nature of socialism explains the extraordinary attraction to socialist doctrines and its capacity to inflame individuals and inspire popular movements and condemn respect for any who believe in Christianity. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. Their hostility towards traditional religions is that of an animosity between a rival religion. They can be identified by an external locus of control. They worship science but are the first to reject it.

Our form of socialism starts with our social Contract and Constitution.

You keep saying that but when I press you on on the extent or magnitude, you run away from the logical conclusion. Thus proving that your beliefs deny examination. If it is really in the general public welfare for government to control pricing, wages and profits then if they don't do those things they are not meeting your understanding of the social contract.

dear, you have nothing but fallacy. begging the question is a fallacy.

our form of Socialism is limited by our Social Contract.

You'd rather the poor be poor as long as the rich were less rich.

poor is a relative term. so is rich. we have a First World economy.

Socialism may try to help fools and horses, not Have to work. that is all.

Yes, poor and rich are relative to one another. And yes, we are a 1st world country where an annual income $33,000 puts one in the top 5% of the world. Socialism does much more damage than that. It destroys the spirit of man.

 

[danielpalos]

only in right wing fantasy.

capitalism died in 1929 and socialism has been bailing it out, ever since. We even have a Central Bank.

No, not in fantasy. You can't make the argument for socialism because there is no consistent socialism other than vague rosy notions of goodness of an idealized utopia which is ridiculously fantasized with a heavy handed government. Socialism intentionally denies examination. There is no formal defined dogma. Instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something noble and good, of equality, communal ownership, and justice: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach. World socialism as a whole, and all the figures associated with it, are shrouded in legend; its contradictions are forgotten or concealed; it does not respond to arguments but continually ignores them--all this stems from the mist of irrationality that surrounds socialism and from its instinctive aversion to scientific analysis. Socialism dismisses its defeats and ignores its incongruities. Socialism seeks to reduce human personality to its most primitive levels and to extinguish the highest, most complex, and "God-like" aspects of human individuality. And even equality itself, that powerful appeal and great promise of socialists throughout the ages, turns out to signify not equality of rights, of opportunities, and of external conditions, but equality qua identity, equality seen as the movement of variety toward uniformity.

of course i can; true capitalism doesn't work beyond the third world.

Free enterprise is Darwinian and has proven to not only work but to raise everyone up. Socialism is not Darwinian in nature and seeks equality via uniformity. You'd rather the poor be poor as long as the rich were less rich.

there are no True AnCaps, it is Only theory. There are truer forms of communism in actual practice, today.

Darwinian behaviors transcend all people because it is the natural state. Theory is based upon reason and reason dictates that competition raises the bar. So my point still stands. You'd rather the poor be poor as long as the rich were less rich.

We have the Nurture of socialism to bailout the Nature of capitalism. It is why we have a First World economy.

My point is, the poor have no need care how rich the rich get, if we solve for simple poverty. Why do the "richer" instead they have to micromanage the poor?

 

[danielpalos]

Our form of socialism starts with our social Contract and Constitution.

You keep saying that but when I press you on on the extent or magnitude, you run away from the logical conclusion. Thus proving that your beliefs deny examination. If it is really in the general public welfare for government to control pricing, wages and profits then if they don't do those things they are not meeting your understanding of the social contract.

dear, you have nothing but fallacy. begging the question is a fallacy.

our form of Socialism is limited by our Social Contract.

You'd rather the poor be poor as long as the rich were less rich.

poor is a relative term. so is rich. we have a First World economy.

Socialism may try to help fools and horses, not Have to work. that is all.

Yes, poor and rich are relative to one another. And yes, we are a 1st world country where an annual income $33,000 puts one in the top 5% of the world. Socialism does much more damage than that. It destroys the spirit of man.

The Only reason we have a First World economy, is due to socialism bailing out capitalism.

 

[ding]

No, not in fantasy. You can't make the argument for socialism because there is no consistent socialism other than vague rosy notions of goodness of an idealized utopia which is ridiculously fantasized with a heavy handed government. Socialism intentionally denies examination. There is no formal defined dogma. Instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something noble and good, of equality, communal ownership, and justice: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach. World socialism as a whole, and all the figures associated with it, are shrouded in legend; its contradictions are forgotten or concealed; it does not respond to arguments but continually ignores them--all this stems from the mist of irrationality that surrounds socialism and from its instinctive aversion to scientific analysis. Socialism dismisses its defeats and ignores its incongruities. Socialism seeks to reduce human personality to its most primitive levels and to extinguish the highest, most complex, and "God-like" aspects of human individuality. And even equality itself, that powerful appeal and great promise of socialists throughout the ages, turns out to signify not equality of rights, of opportunities, and of external conditions, but equality qua identity, equality seen as the movement of variety toward uniformity.

of course i can; true capitalism doesn't work beyond the third world.

Free enterprise is Darwinian and has proven to not only work but to raise everyone up. Socialism is not Darwinian in nature and seeks equality via uniformity. You'd rather the poor be poor as long as the rich were less rich.

there are no True AnCaps, it is Only theory. There are truer forms of communism in actual practice, today.

Darwinian behaviors transcend all people because it is the natural state. Theory is based upon reason and reason dictates that competition raises the bar. So my point still stands. You'd rather the poor be poor as long as the rich were less rich.

We have the Nurture of socialism to bailout the Nature of capitalism. It is why we have a First World economy.

My point is, the poor have no need care how rich the rich get, if we solve for simple poverty. Why do the "richer" instead they have to micromanage the poor?

There is no need to micromanage anyone. That is what you are effectively doing when you advocate pareto optimal. We're all adults here. We don't need to be micromanaged.

 

[ding]

You keep saying that but when I press you on on the extent or magnitude, you run away from the logical conclusion. Thus proving that your beliefs deny examination. If it is really in the general public welfare for government to control pricing, wages and profits then if they don't do those things they are not meeting your understanding of the social contract.

dear, you have nothing but fallacy. begging the question is a fallacy.

our form of Socialism is limited by our Social Contract.

You'd rather the poor be poor as long as the rich were less rich.

poor is a relative term. so is rich. we have a First World economy.

Socialism may try to help fools and horses, not Have to work. that is all.

Yes, poor and rich are relative to one another. And yes, we are a 1st world country where an annual income $33,000 puts one in the top 5% of the world. Socialism does much more damage than that. It destroys the spirit of man.

The Only reason we have a First World economy, is due to socialism bailing out capitalism.

No. That's not the only reason. In fact, it probably doesn't even make the list of reasons. Would you like to expand the social contract for the general welfare of all Americans?

 

[bt404]

dear, you have nothing but fallacy. begging the question is a fallacy.

our form of Socialism is limited by our Social Contract.

You'd rather the poor be poor as long as the rich were less rich.

poor is a relative term. so is rich. we have a First World economy.

Socialism may try to help fools and horses, not Have to work. that is all.

Yes, poor and rich are relative to one another. And yes, we are a 1st world country where an annual income $33,000 puts one in the top 5% of the world. Socialism does much more damage than that. It destroys the spirit of man.

The Only reason we have a First World economy, is due to socialism bailing out capitalism.

No. That's not the only reason. In fact, it probably doesn't even make the list of reasons. Would you like to expand the social contract for the general welfare of all Americans?

Ding, there has never been a country that has been purely "capitalist" or purely "socialist." Stalin's Soviet Union and Mao's China were more right-wing authoritarian than "socialist" in the real sense. Stalin and Mao didn't allow the population to democratically control the means of production. Democratic control of production is a CORE tenant of any socialist/communist policy. Those men controlled the country through a hierarchal one-party system, which is FAR from anything democratic or socialist.

Furthermore, the poster who said that the first world economy is due to "socialism bailing out capitalism" is partially right. The "golden age of Capitalism" in the United States--the period between the 1950s to 1970s--was catalyzed by social welfare programs, namely the G.I Bill which ensured healthcare and free college education, and which subsequently led to a rise in consumer spending--affordable housing, cars etc. In other words, it's almost a truism, since the age of enlightenment, that the government has a primary responsible to at least ensure that their population has the basic means of survival. Ensuring that the population has at least housing, healthcare, and education does not mean that a state is reverting to primitivism, which is what I assume you really mean when you talk about "communism."

Overall, we are all using terms but not defining them....accusing someone of being "socialist" or "capitalist", as if simply throwing the terms proves an argument, doesn't move the argument anywhere. If we want to truly debate economic/political systems, we'll have to argue them by how they've been ACTUALLY implemented.

 

[danielpalos]

of course i can; true capitalism doesn't work beyond the third world.

Free enterprise is Darwinian and has proven to not only work but to raise everyone up. Socialism is not Darwinian in nature and seeks equality via uniformity. You'd rather the poor be poor as long as the rich were less rich.

there are no True AnCaps, it is Only theory. There are truer forms of communism in actual practice, today.

Darwinian behaviors transcend all people because it is the natural state. Theory is based upon reason and reason dictates that competition raises the bar. So my point still stands. You'd rather the poor be poor as long as the rich were less rich.

We have the Nurture of socialism to bailout the Nature of capitalism. It is why we have a First World economy.

My point is, the poor have no need care how rich the rich get, if we solve for simple poverty. Why do the "richer" instead they have to micromanage the poor?

There is no need to micromanage anyone. That is what you are effectively doing when you advocate pareto optimal. We're all adults here. We don't need to be micromanaged.

just more right wing fantasy? we have laws. any laws, gains say your contention.

 

[danielpalos]

dear, you have nothing but fallacy. begging the question is a fallacy.

our form of Socialism is limited by our Social Contract.

You'd rather the poor be poor as long as the rich were less rich.

poor is a relative term. so is rich. we have a First World economy.

Socialism may try to help fools and horses, not Have to work. that is all.

Yes, poor and rich are relative to one another. And yes, we are a 1st world country where an annual income $33,000 puts one in the top 5% of the world. Socialism does much more damage than that. It destroys the spirit of man.

The Only reason we have a First World economy, is due to socialism bailing out capitalism.

No. That's not the only reason. In fact, it probably doesn't even make the list of reasons. Would you like to expand the social contract for the general welfare of all Americans?

Yes, that is the Only reason. Our social Contract already applies to all Americans.

 

[ding]

Free enterprise is Darwinian and has proven to not only work but to raise everyone up. Socialism is not Darwinian in nature and seeks equality via uniformity. You'd rather the poor be poor as long as the rich were less rich.

there are no True AnCaps, it is Only theory. There are truer forms of communism in actual practice, today.

Darwinian behaviors transcend all people because it is the natural state. Theory is based upon reason and reason dictates that competition raises the bar. So my point still stands. You'd rather the poor be poor as long as the rich were less rich.

We have the Nurture of socialism to bailout the Nature of capitalism. It is why we have a First World economy.

My point is, the poor have no need care how rich the rich get, if we solve for simple poverty. Why do the "richer" instead they have to micromanage the poor?

There is no need to micromanage anyone. That is what you are effectively doing when you advocate pareto optimal. We're all adults here. We don't need to be micromanaged.

just more right wing fantasy? we have laws. any laws, gains say your contention.

You are not making any sense. You advocate pareto optimal which is based on micromanagement. I am arguing that we don't need to be micromanaged. This is independent of the fact that we have laws. Yes, we have laws. So what?

 

[ding]

You'd rather the poor be poor as long as the rich were less rich.

poor is a relative term. so is rich. we have a First World economy.

Socialism may try to help fools and horses, not Have to work. that is all.

Yes, poor and rich are relative to one another. And yes, we are a 1st world country where an annual income $33,000 puts one in the top 5% of the world. Socialism does much more damage than that. It destroys the spirit of man.

The Only reason we have a First World economy, is due to socialism bailing out capitalism.

No. That's not the only reason. In fact, it probably doesn't even make the list of reasons. Would you like to expand the social contract for the general welfare of all Americans?

Yes, that is the Only reason. Our social Contract already applies to all Americans.

No. It isn't. Would you like to expand the social contract for the general welfare of all Americans?

 

[hobelim]

poor is a relative term. so is rich. we have a First World economy.

Socialism may try to help fools and horses, not Have to work. that is all.

Yes, poor and rich are relative to one another. And yes, we are a 1st world country where an annual income $33,000 puts one in the top 5% of the world. Socialism does much more damage than that. It destroys the spirit of man.

The Only reason we have a First World economy, is due to socialism bailing out capitalism.

No. That's not the only reason. In fact, it probably doesn't even make the list of reasons. Would you like to expand the social contract for the general welfare of all Americans?

Yes, that is the Only reason. Our social Contract already applies to all Americans.

No. It isn't. Would you like to expand the social contract for the general welfare of all Americans?

You might not realize this but it is the interest of the wealthy and the nation itself to promote the general welfare of all Americans so that there are not millions and millions of people trapped in a cycle of abject poverty bearing intolerable burdens being forced by circumstances to do desperate things to survive and provide for their families..

One day the bottom will fall out.


You can't keep millions of people unjustly trapped in a maze of poverty, racism, and incarceration without consequence..

Eventually they will all say enough is enough and it will ruin your lazy days frolicking in the sun enjoying the bounty of life without a care as if having a lot of money made you safe..


How is money going help anyone when confronted with millions and millions of people filled with righteous indignation when they have gone past the point of caring?


What is your answer?


Build more prisons, hire more cops, defund social services?

Brilliant!

 

[danielpalos]

there are no True AnCaps, it is Only theory. There are truer forms of communism in actual practice, today.

Darwinian behaviors transcend all people because it is the natural state. Theory is based upon reason and reason dictates that competition raises the bar. So my point still stands. You'd rather the poor be poor as long as the rich were less rich.

We have the Nurture of socialism to bailout the Nature of capitalism. It is why we have a First World economy.

My point is, the poor have no need care how rich the rich get, if we solve for simple poverty. Why do the "richer" instead they have to micromanage the poor?

There is no need to micromanage anyone. That is what you are effectively doing when you advocate pareto optimal. We're all adults here. We don't need to be micromanaged.

just more right wing fantasy? we have laws. any laws, gains say your contention.

You are not making any sense. You advocate pareto optimal which is based on micromanagement. I am arguing that we don't need to be micromanaged. This is independent of the fact that we have laws. Yes, we have laws. So what?

The law is socialism. Any law is a limit on natural rights. We are managed, all the time; either by morals, laws, or culture.

 

[danielpalos]

poor is a relative term. so is rich. we have a First World economy.

Socialism may try to help fools and horses, not Have to work. that is all.

Yes, poor and rich are relative to one another. And yes, we are a 1st world country where an annual income $33,000 puts one in the top 5% of the world. Socialism does much more damage than that. It destroys the spirit of man.

The Only reason we have a First World economy, is due to socialism bailing out capitalism.

No. That's not the only reason. In fact, it probably doesn't even make the list of reasons. Would you like to expand the social contract for the general welfare of all Americans?

Yes, that is the Only reason. Our social Contract already applies to all Americans.

No. It isn't. Would you like to expand the social contract for the general welfare of all Americans?

Our federal Constitution applies to the People of our Republic. Any questions?

 

[ding]

Yes, poor and rich are relative to one another. And yes, we are a 1st world country where an annual income $33,000 puts one in the top 5% of the world. Socialism does much more damage than that. It destroys the spirit of man.

The Only reason we have a First World economy, is due to socialism bailing out capitalism.

No. That's not the only reason. In fact, it probably doesn't even make the list of reasons. Would you like to expand the social contract for the general welfare of all Americans?

Yes, that is the Only reason. Our social Contract already applies to all Americans.

No. It isn't. Would you like to expand the social contract for the general welfare of all Americans?

You might not realize this but it is the interest of the wealthy and the nation itself to promote the general welfare of all Americans so that there are not millions and millions of people trapped in a cycle of abject poverty bearing intolerable burdens being forced by circumstances to do desperate things to survive and provide for their families..

One day the bottom will fall out.


You can't keep millions of people unjustly trapped in a maze of poverty, racism, and incarceration without consequence..

Eventually they will all say enough is enough and it will ruin your lazy days frolicking in the sun enjoying the bounty of life without a care as if having a lot of money made you safe..


How is money going help anyone when confronted with millions and millions of people filled with righteous indignation when they have gone past the point of caring?


What is your answer?


Build more prisons, hire more cops, defund social services?

Brilliant!

My answer is to not get there, but if we do, I hope we learn our lesson and return to the only kind of values that ends suffering. Just because I disagree on solutions does not mean I don't care, it means that I do care. I believe that what they are doing does not work.

Yes, eventually, no matter what, we will most likely go through at least one major societal upheaval in our long life. I have thought of at least 8 different scenarios. Most end in war. War is usually the cure.

 

[ding]

Darwinian behaviors transcend all people because it is the natural state. Theory is based upon reason and reason dictates that competition raises the bar. So my point still stands. You'd rather the poor be poor as long as the rich were less rich.

We have the Nurture of socialism to bailout the Nature of capitalism. It is why we have a First World economy.

My point is, the poor have no need care how rich the rich get, if we solve for simple poverty. Why do the "richer" instead they have to micromanage the poor?

There is no need to micromanage anyone. That is what you are effectively doing when you advocate pareto optimal. We're all adults here. We don't need to be micromanaged.

just more right wing fantasy? we have laws. any laws, gains say your contention.

You are not making any sense. You advocate pareto optimal which is based on micromanagement. I am arguing that we don't need to be micromanaged. This is independent of the fact that we have laws. Yes, we have laws. So what?

The law is socialism. Any law is a limit on natural rights. We are managed, all the time; either by morals, laws, or culture.

No. That law is not socialism. We have individual rights not group rights.

 

[ding]

Yes, poor and rich are relative to one another. And yes, we are a 1st world country where an annual income $33,000 puts one in the top 5% of the world. Socialism does much more damage than that. It destroys the spirit of man.

The Only reason we have a First World economy, is due to socialism bailing out capitalism.

No. That's not the only reason. In fact, it probably doesn't even make the list of reasons. Would you like to expand the social contract for the general welfare of all Americans?

Yes, that is the Only reason. Our social Contract already applies to all Americans.

No. It isn't. Would you like to expand the social contract for the general welfare of all Americans?

Our federal Constitution applies to the People of our Republic. Any questions?

Yes, I have a question. Would you like to expand the social contract for the general welfare of all Americans?

 

[Mudda]

I am a right leaning agnostic who hates socialism. Dingbat fails. Again.

 

[danielpalos]

We have the Nurture of socialism to bailout the Nature of capitalism. It is why we have a First World economy.

My point is, the poor have no need care how rich the rich get, if we solve for simple poverty. Why do the "richer" instead they have to micromanage the poor?

There is no need to micromanage anyone. That is what you are effectively doing when you advocate pareto optimal. We're all adults here. We don't need to be micromanaged.

just more right wing fantasy? we have laws. any laws, gains say your contention.

You are not making any sense. You advocate pareto optimal which is based on micromanagement. I am arguing that we don't need to be micromanaged. This is independent of the fact that we have laws. Yes, we have laws. So what?

The law is socialism. Any law is a limit on natural rights. We are managed, all the time; either by morals, laws, or culture.

No. That law is not socialism. We have individual rights not group rights.

rights involve the law; we have social justice; it is socialism.

 

[danielpalos]

The Only reason we have a First World economy, is due to socialism bailing out capitalism.

No. That's not the only reason. In fact, it probably doesn't even make the list of reasons. Would you like to expand the social contract for the general welfare of all Americans?

Yes, that is the Only reason. Our social Contract already applies to all Americans.

No. It isn't. Would you like to expand the social contract for the general welfare of all Americans?

Our federal Constitution applies to the People of our Republic. Any questions?

Yes, I have a question. Would you like to expand the social contract for the general welfare of all Americans?

No need to expand it; it already covers, all Americans.