CDZ What is socialist thinking ??

[Tehon]

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.

.

Capitalists resort to violence even when they are fairly compensated. Iran and Guatemala in the 50s are two fine examples.

 

[Pete7469]

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.

I'm not saying have NO trust, but when it comes to "providing everything everyone needs" that's impossible.

 

[MarathonMike]

I believe student loan debt and the pressure it puts on young people is the major factor in the shift toward Socialism for those under 35. So think about that for a minute, it was government intervention into student loans that enabled runaway college costs. That resulted in millions upon millions carrying debt burdens of $50K to $500K.
Then Bernie Sanders and the new Democratic Socialists show up with "The government will save you, debt forgiveness, free college for all! YAY!"

Socialists need a crisis to gain leverage and student loan debt is a crisis IMO.

 

[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.

I'm not saying have NO trust, but when it comes to "providing everything everyone needs" that's impossible.

You are right, that's impossible.

However, not to dilute the original premise, I think we can do way on better than we have done. The important thing is to listen to the right people, and to elect the right people in our government. We have done a terrible job for years now, and it has cost us big time.

 

[Mac1958]

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.

I'm not saying have NO trust, but when it comes to "providing everything everyone needs" that's impossible.

Of course. So striking the right balance is the key. That ends up happening at the ballot box, so it's a matter of persuasion.

So, calling people who believe in a strong safety net "freeloaders" probably isn't a very good idea, any more so than the way the Left constantly screams RACISM.

We need some calm and intelligent communication right now, and I'm afraid we've lost that skill.
.

 

[initforme]

Work steady and don't kill yourself for your employer because frankly they don't care about you. You shouldn't care about them either. Words to live by.

 

[beagle9]

Work steady and don't kill yourself for your employer because frankly they don't care about you. You shouldn't care about them either. Words to live by.

And this has what to do with the OP ??

 

[Pete7469]

You are right, that's impossible.

However, not to dilute the original premise, I think we can do way on better than we have done. The important thing is to listen to the right people, and to elect the right people in our government. We have done a terrible job for years now, and it has cost us big time.

On that premise I do agree, we do have the richest "poor" people in the world by any perspective. We could do a lot better though. It blows my mind that we have homeless people. Most of them are nuts, and should be housed and cared for rather than out on the streets, but as soon as you establish something acceptable, you'll have all sorts of parasites pretending to be nuts in order to live well with minimal effort.

I know of no efficient way to solve that, and I wonder if there is a way.

Then we have people born disabled that should not be living in some of the squalid conditions they're in because resources have to be limited as they are. That is why I am more inclined to have private enterprise do the work, with government oversight to ensure donations and tax payer funding (if any) is used to fulfill that end and not end up with a horde of administrators lording over the lives of people who're dependent on them.

.

 

[Pete7469]

Of course. So striking the right balance is the key. That ends up happening at the ballot box, so it's a matter of persuasion.

So, calling people who believe in a strong safety net "freeloaders" probably isn't a very good idea, any more so than the way the Left constantly screams RACISM.

We need some calm and intelligent communication right now, and I'm afraid we've lost that skill.
.

The "freeloaders" as applied here aren't those who believe in the safety net. I'm not a freeloader, I don't mind the concept of a safety net, it's more of a matter of how it's funded and administered. The "freeloaders" in my perspective are those who are able, but want to loaf off in the net as if it's a hammock, as well as the sociopaths in government who do as little as possible in order to prolong the existence of an easy job, rather than help get people back up and out of the net.

That is why I'm far more inclined to have religious institutions or private charities do the leg work. We need results from such endeavors, not prolonged dependency and generations of people living in squalid ghettos infested with crime. As you're pointing out though, any attempt to wrest government stooges out of their comfortable offices, get positive results and an actual REDUCTION in poverty is met with howls of "bigotry", or "you hate (insert victim class here)". Until the nattering drones gain self awareness and realize they're wrong, which I don't see happening, they absolutely must be defeated by ballots.

.

 

[Mac1958]

Of course. So striking the right balance is the key. That ends up happening at the ballot box, so it's a matter of persuasion.

So, calling people who believe in a strong safety net "freeloaders" probably isn't a very good idea, any more so than the way the Left constantly screams RACISM.

We need some calm and intelligent communication right now, and I'm afraid we've lost that skill.
.

The "freeloaders" as applied here aren't those who believe in the safety net. I'm not a freeloader, I don't mind the concept of a safety net, it's more of a matter of how it's funded and administered. The "freeloaders" in my perspective are those who are able, but want to loaf off in the net as if it's a hammock, as well as the sociopaths in government who do as little as possible in order to prolong the existence of an easy job, rather than help get people back up and out of the net.

That is why I'm far more inclined to have religious institutions or private charities do the leg work. We need results from such endeavors, not prolonged dependency and generations of people living in squalid ghettos infested with crime. As you're pointing out though, any attempt to wrest government stooges out of their comfortable offices, get positive results and an actual REDUCTION in poverty is met with howls of "bigotry", or "you hate (insert victim class here)". Until the nattering drones gain self awareness and realize they're wrong, which I don't see happening, they absolutely must be defeated by ballots.

.

Well, you have a lot of heavy lifting in front of you, and time is short. Personally, I don't see this approach winning a lot of converts (especially since your political competition continues to pound away), nor do I see much effort to respectfully change hearts and minds. A hands-off, they're-on-their-own, maybe-they'll-wake-up-one-day attitude isn't going to attract people who have been the happy recipients of maternal smothering for generations.
.
.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

What is socialist thinking?

an oxymoron.

 

[beagle9]

What is socialist thinking?

an oxymoron.

Didn't read the OP eh ?

 

[ding]

Wrong?

 

[jasonnfree]

All these rants about socialism but in reality it's socialism for the very wealthy and corporations but capitalism for the little guy. I heard that saying over a half a century ago but don't hear it too much any more since we now have paid professionals such as limbaugh and most of fox news hammering the right wing 'socialism' message day and night. Look at the ratio of lobbyists to politicians. They're just playing us average Americans off against each other while most of the gains go to those at the very top.

Lobbyists Have Numbers To Influence Congress