CDZ What is socialist thinking ??

[beagle9]

If a president wanted to have his lawmakers create legislation in order to set aside one month (4 weeks) in the winter time (pick your days in the month to use by temperature forecast), and all in order that people get relief in their living quarters from huge electric bills due to heating cost, is that socialism ???

Example: This would be for said month, and/or days chosen within the month, that would see temps drop to levels where people find themselves choosing to be extremely cold or to not be cold over the cost of affording their groceries for that week or month ???? So I ask is this socialist thinking if a president were to pursue such a thing in America ??

The same could apply for a peak summer "month" where temps do reach extreme life threatening conditions also.

I just think about poor people who would have to tell their children that they will have to be cold or miss some meals if they turn up the thermostat to be warm during some of the coldest days in the winter or through some of the hottest days in the summer.

Most of my thinking is along the lines of "yes" we need to keep a system that encourages and incentivises growth, responsibility, and positive outcomes in families always, and we should continue to do it through such a system as we have been successful with over these years here.

However, can't we help the poor better without it demeaning them, humiliating them, destroying them, and crippling them for years to come in America ???

Not talking about adding to the dependency by those who would exploit the helping hand given them in which we have seen also done in the past, but we should just target better the needs in order that the children aren't suffering due to their being brought into this world by no choice of their own.

Some essentials in life are nessesary, but we shouldn't take this humanatarion proposed thinking, and to then turn it into "dependency" or free stuff as we have seen so much of as a result of within the past.

How to help the poor without us becoming a socialist country is the question that should always be pondered and studied agreed ?

Helping people in need does not make one a socialist, even if done collectively. It is called being charitable.

Yes, but using government, is that being charitable with other people's money or can it be done within reason, and in a targeted way as the OP explores ?

 

[Tehon]

The people who administer charitable organizations are a piece of shit? That seems harsh, even for you.

The people who administer charitable institutions can not take money from my employer before he pays me, with a threat of lethal force for non-compliance.

That's what makes the sort of "charity" you promote the refuge for pieces of shit who aggrandize and empower themselves at the expense of the poor and those forced to sacrifice.

I recall discussing such issues with you, and I don't believe you're the sort who is mindlessly devoted to collectivism. You do seem to have put some independent thought into your beliefs. I vehemently disagree with your conclusions and the history of mankind is the evidence I submit to defend my assertions.




.

I haven't promoted any such thing. I merely replied to the op's query.
Caring about the welfare of your fellow human does not make you a socialist. It makes you human.

 

[Pete7469]

I haven't promoted any such thing. I merely replied to the op's query.
Caring about the welfare of your fellow human does not make you a socialist. It makes you human.

I'm not going to get into your posting history. It's there for everyone else to see and judge just like what's left of the history that hasn't been revised by leftist "intellectuals" given the task of recording it.

I said exactly what you're parroting that being charitable is being a decent empathetic human being sacrificing what you have earned or even just your time willingly for no other purpose than assisting other people.

Forcing others to be charitable through the threat of collective violence is being a socialist, marxist, regressive, or any other term you want to use, but in the end it makes a person a piece of shit, not a human being.

.

 

[Tehon]

If a president wanted to have his lawmakers create legislation in order to set aside one month (4 weeks) in the winter time (pick your days in the month to use by temperature forecast), and all in order that people get relief in their living quarters from huge electric bills due to heating cost, is that socialism ???

Example: This would be for said month, and/or days chosen within the month, that would see temps drop to levels where people find themselves choosing to be extremely cold or to not be cold over the cost of affording their groceries for that week or month ???? So I ask is this socialist thinking if a president were to pursue such a thing in America ??

The same could apply for a peak summer "month" where temps do reach extreme life threatening conditions also.

I just think about poor people who would have to tell their children that they will have to be cold or miss some meals if they turn up the thermostat to be warm during some of the coldest days in the winter or through some of the hottest days in the summer.

Most of my thinking is along the lines of "yes" we need to keep a system that encourages and incentivises growth, responsibility, and positive outcomes in families always, and we should continue to do it through such a system as we have been successful with over these years here.

However, can't we help the poor better without it demeaning them, humiliating them, destroying them, and crippling them for years to come in America ???

Not talking about adding to the dependency by those who would exploit the helping hand given them in which we have seen also done in the past, but we should just target better the needs in order that the children aren't suffering due to their being brought into this world by no choice of their own.

Some essentials in life are nessesary, but we shouldn't take this humanatarion proposed thinking, and to then turn it into "dependency" or free stuff as we have seen so much of as a result of within the past.

How to help the poor without us becoming a socialist country is the question that should always be pondered and studied agreed ?

Helping people in need does not make one a socialist, even if done collectively. It is called being charitable.

Yes, but using government, is that being charitable with other people's money or can it be done within reason, and in a targeted way as the OP explores ?

In a capitalist system there is no other way to do it than with other people's money. Targeted or not, it is still other people's money. Is it reasonable? That is in the eye of the beholder. I know of at least one other poster in this thread that doesn't believe it is.

 

[beagle9]

The people who administer charitable organizations are a piece of shit? That seems harsh, even for you.

The people who administer charitable institutions can not take money from my employer before he pays me, with a threat of lethal force for non-compliance.

That's what makes the sort of "charity" you promote the refuge for pieces of shit who aggrandize and empower themselves at the expense of the poor and those forced to sacrifice.

I recall discussing such issues with you, and I don't believe you're the sort who is mindlessly devoted to collectivism. You do seem to have put some independent thought into your beliefs. I vehemently disagree with your conclusions and the history of mankind is the evidence I submit to defend my assertions.




.

I haven't promoted any such thing. I merely replied to the op's query.
Caring about the welfare of your fellow human does not make you a socialist. It makes you human.

Agree, but your answer doesn't cover the entire query. Should government play a role in promoting the general welfare or safety of American citizens when it comes to life saving nessesities such as heating and cooling in extreme conditions, clean drinking water, clean air, and healthy food for proper nourishment ??

Should soup kitchens be required in every densly populated area if not already the case ? At these kitchens should there be social workers on hand to assess the situation of the population frequenting the kitchens (must pull duty at the soup kitchen at minimum 20 hours per week as a social worker) ???

 

[beagle9]

If a president wanted to have his lawmakers create legislation in order to set aside one month (4 weeks) in the winter time (pick your days in the month to use by temperature forecast), and all in order that people get relief in their living quarters from huge electric bills due to heating cost, is that socialism ???

Example: This would be for said month, and/or days chosen within the month, that would see temps drop to levels where people find themselves choosing to be extremely cold or to not be cold over the cost of affording their groceries for that week or month ???? So I ask is this socialist thinking if a president were to pursue such a thing in America ??

The same could apply for a peak summer "month" where temps do reach extreme life threatening conditions also.

I just think about poor people who would have to tell their children that they will have to be cold or miss some meals if they turn up the thermostat to be warm during some of the coldest days in the winter or through some of the hottest days in the summer.

Most of my thinking is along the lines of "yes" we need to keep a system that encourages and incentivises growth, responsibility, and positive outcomes in families always, and we should continue to do it through such a system as we have been successful with over these years here.

However, can't we help the poor better without it demeaning them, humiliating them, destroying them, and crippling them for years to come in America ???

Not talking about adding to the dependency by those who would exploit the helping hand given them in which we have seen also done in the past, but we should just target better the needs in order that the children aren't suffering due to their being brought into this world by no choice of their own.

Some essentials in life are nessesary, but we shouldn't take this humanatarion proposed thinking, and to then turn it into "dependency" or free stuff as we have seen so much of as a result of within the past.

How to help the poor without us becoming a socialist country is the question that should always be pondered and studied agreed ?

Helping people in need does not make one a socialist, even if done collectively. It is called being charitable.

Yes, but using government, is that being charitable with other people's money or can it be done within reason, and in a targeted way as the OP explores ?

In a capitalist system there is no other way to do it than with other people's money. Targeted or not, it is still other people's money. Is it reasonable? That is in the eye of the beholder. I know of at least one other poster in this thread that doesn't believe it is.

What should happen to those who abuse the people's trust ? Otherwise if you as a government official allow programs to help the needy become huge poverty promoting programs that lead to huge dependent population's, then how should these officials be dealt with in the future ??

This is very important for those who are truly struggling, and do need the help, but instead people are abusing the situation thus threatening a vital shut down every 4 to 8 years of the programs because they are being abused.

 

[Pete7469]

In a capitalist system there is no other way to do it than with other people's money. Targeted or not, it is still other people's money. Is it reasonable? That is in the eye of the beholder. I know of at least one other poster in this thread that doesn't believe it is.

So in a "non-capitalist" system there is a pot of gold at the end of some fuckin rainbow?

Last I looked forcing people to give up their time and labor for an objective they're not volunteering to accomplish is slavery.

Can we at least accept that as a simple truth?

.

 

[Tehon]

The people who administer charitable organizations are a piece of shit? That seems harsh, even for you.

The people who administer charitable institutions can not take money from my employer before he pays me, with a threat of lethal force for non-compliance.

That's what makes the sort of "charity" you promote the refuge for pieces of shit who aggrandize and empower themselves at the expense of the poor and those forced to sacrifice.

I recall discussing such issues with you, and I don't believe you're the sort who is mindlessly devoted to collectivism. You do seem to have put some independent thought into your beliefs. I vehemently disagree with your conclusions and the history of mankind is the evidence I submit to defend my assertions.




.

I haven't promoted any such thing. I merely replied to the op's query.
Caring about the welfare of your fellow human does not make you a socialist. It makes you human.

Agree, but your answer doesn't cover the entire query. Should government play a role in promoting the general welfare or safety of American citizens when it comes to life saving nessesities such as heating and cooling in extreme conditions, clean drinking water, clean air, and healthy food for proper nourishment ??

Should soup kitchens be required in every densly populated area if not already the case ? At these kitchens should their be social workers on hand to access the situation of the population frequenting the kitchens (must pull duty at the soup kitchen at minimum 20 hours per week as a social worker) ???

Agree, but your answer doesn't cover the entire query. Should government play a role in promoting the general welfare or safety of American citizens when it comes to life saving nessesities such as heating and cooling in extreme conditions, clean drinking water, clean air, and healthy food for proper nourishment ??

We, as a society, should be able to provide the necessities of life for everyone in this country. The question is, how do we go about doing it because the capitalist economic model in this country has failed to do it.

 

[Tehon]

In a capitalist system there is no other way to do it than with other people's money. Targeted or not, it is still other people's money. Is it reasonable? That is in the eye of the beholder. I know of at least one other poster in this thread that doesn't believe it is.

So in a "non-capitalist" system there is a pot of gold at the end of some fuckin rainbow?

Last I looked forcing people to give up their time and labor for an objective they're not volunteering to accomplish is slavery.

Can we at least accept that as a simple truth?

.

I don't disagree with you.

 

[Tehon]

If a president wanted to have his lawmakers create legislation in order to set aside one month (4 weeks) in the winter time (pick your days in the month to use by temperature forecast), and all in order that people get relief in their living quarters from huge electric bills due to heating cost, is that socialism ???

Example: This would be for said month, and/or days chosen within the month, that would see temps drop to levels where people find themselves choosing to be extremely cold or to not be cold over the cost of affording their groceries for that week or month ???? So I ask is this socialist thinking if a president were to pursue such a thing in America ??

The same could apply for a peak summer "month" where temps do reach extreme life threatening conditions also.

I just think about poor people who would have to tell their children that they will have to be cold or miss some meals if they turn up the thermostat to be warm during some of the coldest days in the winter or through some of the hottest days in the summer.

Most of my thinking is along the lines of "yes" we need to keep a system that encourages and incentivises growth, responsibility, and positive outcomes in families always, and we should continue to do it through such a system as we have been successful with over these years here.

However, can't we help the poor better without it demeaning them, humiliating them, destroying them, and crippling them for years to come in America ???

Not talking about adding to the dependency by those who would exploit the helping hand given them in which we have seen also done in the past, but we should just target better the needs in order that the children aren't suffering due to their being brought into this world by no choice of their own.

Some essentials in life are nessesary, but we shouldn't take this humanatarion proposed thinking, and to then turn it into "dependency" or free stuff as we have seen so much of as a result of within the past.

How to help the poor without us becoming a socialist country is the question that should always be pondered and studied agreed ?

Helping people in need does not make one a socialist, even if done collectively. It is called being charitable.

Yes, but using government, is that being charitable with other people's money or can it be done within reason, and in a targeted way as the OP explores ?

In a capitalist system there is no other way to do it than with other people's money. Targeted or not, it is still other people's money. Is it reasonable? That is in the eye of the beholder. I know of at least one other poster in this thread that doesn't believe it is.

What should happen to those who abuse the people's trust ? Otherwise if you as a government official allow programs to help the needy become huge poverty promoting programs that lead to huge dependent population's, then how should these officials be dealt with in the future ??

This is very important for those who are truly struggling, and do need the help, but instead people are abusing the situation thus threatening a vital shut down every 4 to 8 years of the programs because they are being abused.

What should happen to those who abuse the people's trust ?

It's called an election.

 

[beagle9]

The people who administer charitable organizations are a piece of shit? That seems harsh, even for you.

The people who administer charitable institutions can not take money from my employer before he pays me, with a threat of lethal force for non-compliance.

That's what makes the sort of "charity" you promote the refuge for pieces of shit who aggrandize and empower themselves at the expense of the poor and those forced to sacrifice.

I recall discussing such issues with you, and I don't believe you're the sort who is mindlessly devoted to collectivism. You do seem to have put some independent thought into your beliefs. I vehemently disagree with your conclusions and the history of mankind is the evidence I submit to defend my assertions.




.

I haven't promoted any such thing. I merely replied to the op's query.
Caring about the welfare of your fellow human does not make you a socialist. It makes you human.

Agree, but your answer doesn't cover the entire query. Should government play a role in promoting the general welfare or safety of American citizens when it comes to life saving nessesities such as heating and cooling in extreme conditions, clean drinking water, clean air, and healthy food for proper nourishment ??

Should soup kitchens be required in every densly populated area if not already the case ? At these kitchens should their be social workers on hand to access the situation of the population frequenting the kitchens (must pull duty at the soup kitchen at minimum 20 hours per week as a social worker) ???

Agree, but your answer doesn't cover the entire query. Should government play a role in promoting the general welfare or safety of American citizens when it comes to life saving nessesities such as heating and cooling in extreme conditions, clean drinking water, clean air, and healthy food for proper nourishment ??

We, as a society, should be able to provide the necessities of life for everyone in this country. The question is, how do we go about doing it because the capitalist economic model in this country has failed to do it.

Very complicated situation, because we have had so many bad actors over the years doing the wrong things in government, that the trust has been damaged badly over the years.

We have a very crucial balance to keep in order to spur growth, independence, freedom from tyrannical forces, to nourish a self sustainable independence by a system that promotes it, promote and support free enterprise, stand on the merit system of rewarding good productive actions in people, and all the while taking care of those that might fall through the cracks due to no fault of their own.

This is not what has been happening to a large degree, and we need to get back to the basics of truly giving only to those in need in order to make the system work for everyone involved, and to stop playing politics with people's lives by using the system to generate poverty and dependency to no end.

 

[Pete7469]

We, as a society, should be able to provide the necessities of life for everyone in this country. The question is, how do we go about doing it because the capitalist economic model in this country has failed to do it.

All you have done with this post is parrot regressive agitprop.

How do we " provide the necessities of life for everyone in this country " without STEALING or enslaving people who are not interested in making sure people outside their nation, state, town, village, family, or list of fuckers they like benefit from their efforts?

I REFUSE to willingly sacrifice my wages for people who don't want to work, or just want to do things half assed.

Not even just because I loathe pieces of shit like that, but it's detrimental to them as people to subsidize their slothfulness.

I'm FORCED to do so through the threat of collective violence.

So the "question" of how we " provide the necessities of life for everyone in this country " is a stupid question no one with any brains should have ever asked. It has no moral, ethical or even effective answer. To illustrate once again that the "answer" at the extreme end of regressive marxist "philosophy" of creating a "utopia" results in a disaster, besides the mass graves filled by regressive sociopaths I will again post the video of a scientific experiment that proves marxist philosophy is regressive and not even just for species with complicated cultures, societies and individuals.

 

[Pete7469]

What should happen to those who abuse the people's trust ?

Don't trust them to accomplish the impossible in the first place.

 

[Tehon]

We, as a society, should be able to provide the necessities of life for everyone in this country. The question is, how do we go about doing it because the capitalist economic model in this country has failed to do it.

All you have done with this post is parrot regressive agitprop.

How do we " provide the necessities of life for everyone in this country " without STEALING or enslaving people who are not interested in making sure people outside their nation, state, town, village, family, or list of fuckers they like benefit from their efforts?

I REFUSE to willingly sacrifice my wages for people who don't want to work, or just want to do things half assed.

Not even just because I loathe pieces of shit like that, but it's detrimental to them as people to subsidize their slothfulness.

I'm FORCED to do so through the threat of collective violence.

So the "question" of how we " provide the necessities of life for everyone in this country " is a stupid question no one with any brains should have ever asked. It has no moral, ethical or even effective answer. To illustrate once again that the "answer" at the extreme end of regressive marxist "philosophy" of creating a "utopia" results in a disaster, besides the mass graves filled by regressive sociopaths I will again post the video of a scientific experiment that proves marxist philosophy is regressive and not even just for species with complicated cultures, societies and individuals.

We can provide the necessities of life to everyone in this country without stealing or enslaving people by abolishing capital. It's called Socialism.

 

[Pete7469]

We can provide the necessities of life to everyone in this country without stealing or enslaving people by abolishing capital. It's called Socialism.

"Abolishing capital"?

How do you propose to do that? Inform everyone they no longer own anything, that nothing has any intrinsic value and murder them if they disagree?

I guess it worked for Stalin....


.

 

[Tehon]

We can provide the necessities of life to everyone in this country without stealing or enslaving people by abolishing capital. It's called Socialism.

"Abolishing capital"?

How do you propose to do that? Inform everyone they no longer own anything, that nothing has any intrinsic value and murder them if they disagree?

I guess it worked for Stalin....


.

But things do have an intrinsic value, don't they? They contain human labor. And so if you labor to produce something, you essentially own it.

Unless, of course, you sold your labor to someone else (the capitalist). Then he owns what you produced. This relationship needs to be abolished. It wouldn't take violence to accomplish, only understanding. The violence would be perpetrated by the capitalists. This is what history has shown to be true.

 

[Pete7469]

But things do have an intrinsic value, don't they? They contain human labor. And so if you labor to produce something, you essentially own it.

Unless, of course, you sold your labor to someone else (the capitalist). Then he owns what you produced. This relationship needs to be abolished. It wouldn't take violence to accomplish, only understanding. The violence would be perpetrated by the capitalists. This is what history has shown to be true.

You essentially VALUE it.

Other people VALUE it, and are willing to trade something of value to OWN it.

If you attempt to take it, without compensating them, they can choose to resist violently.

The violence is justified.

The violence perpetrated by collectivists is NOT JUSTIFIED, and that is what history has proven.

.

 

[beagle9]

We, as a society, should be able to provide the necessities of life for everyone in this country. The question is, how do we go about doing it because the capitalist economic model in this country has failed to do it.

All you have done with this post is parrot regressive agitprop.

How do we " provide the necessities of life for everyone in this country " without STEALING or enslaving people who are not interested in making sure people outside their nation, state, town, village, family, or list of fuckers they like benefit from their efforts?

I REFUSE to willingly sacrifice my wages for people who don't want to work, or just want to do things half assed.

Not even just because I loathe pieces of shit like that, but it's detrimental to them as people to subsidize their slothfulness.

I'm FORCED to do so through the threat of collective violence.

So the "question" of how we " provide the necessities of life for everyone in this country " is a stupid question no one with any brains should have ever asked. It has no moral, ethical or even effective answer. To illustrate once again that the "answer" at the extreme end of regressive marxist "philosophy" of creating a "utopia" results in a disaster, besides the mass graves filled by regressive sociopaths I will again post the video of a scientific experiment that proves marxist philosophy is regressive and not even just for species with complicated cultures, societies and individuals.

So basically what Calhoun learned was that the out of control protmoting of birthrates to high levels without any form of regulational stopping point, therefore causes the eventual destruction of a community if left unchecked and unregulated either by ones moral compass, ones governing actions and/or ones religious beliefs for far too long.

So just throwing food, water, and bedding material at the miceland, didn't control the supposed self control that was expected of the mice, and all in order to retain their proper balance in their society.

Now as far as we as human beings go, we are supposed to be way on smarter than that of mice, and for us to be reduced to the population that made up miceland in Calhouns experiment, well is a crying shame to say the least.

Thank God we are not animals. Now let's once again start acting like we aren't.

 

[beagle9]

We, as a society, should be able to provide the necessities of life for everyone in this country. The question is, how do we go about doing it because the capitalist economic model in this country has failed to do it.

All you have done with this post is parrot regressive agitprop.

How do we " provide the necessities of life for everyone in this country " without STEALING or enslaving people who are not interested in making sure people outside their nation, state, town, village, family, or list of fuckers they like benefit from their efforts?

I REFUSE to willingly sacrifice my wages for people who don't want to work, or just want to do things half assed.

Not even just because I loathe pieces of shit like that, but it's detrimental to them as people to subsidize their slothfulness.

I'm FORCED to do so through the threat of collective violence.

So the "question" of how we " provide the necessities of life for everyone in this country " is a stupid question no one with any brains should have ever asked. It has no moral, ethical or even effective answer. To illustrate once again that the "answer" at the extreme end of regressive marxist "philosophy" of creating a "utopia" results in a disaster, besides the mass graves filled by regressive sociopaths I will again post the video of a scientific experiment that proves marxist philosophy is regressive and not even just for species with complicated cultures, societies and individuals.

We can provide the necessities of life to everyone in this country without stealing or enslaving people by abolishing capital. It's called Socialism.

Wrong !!!!! It's a bad platform, and we don't need to go there.

 

[beagle9]

What should happen to those who abuse the people's trust ?

Don't trust them to accomplish the impossible in the first place.

We must have trust or we have no nation or form of government.