Explaining Socialism to a Republican

[nat4900]

Just for education sake.....please entertain this term and tell us if this applies to our current political system.
plutocracy
A government by the richest people
A country that is ruled by the richest people
A group of very rich people who have a lot of power and employ that power to corrupt politicans to do their bidding.

Under this, every democracy in the world is a plutocracy.

Not quite, except for the two extremes......The U.S. and Russia.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Just for education sake.....please entertain this term and tell us if this applies to our current political system.
plutocracy
A government by the richest people
A country that is ruled by the richest people
A group of very rich people who have a lot of power and employ that power to corrupt politicans to do their bidding.

Under this, every democracy in the world is a plutocracy.

Not quite, except for the two extremes......The U.S. and Russia.

Quite.
Every democracy exhibits the characteristics noted above. Every one.

 

[nat4900]

Says he who knows he cannot answer my question.

I guess I'll have to reiterate since you weren't bright enough to get it the first time.

1) Freedom means different things to different people.
2) Cons are simplemindedly forcing their version of freedom for the upper class on to the rest of us.

And now a recap of your way of 'winning':

1) Misunderstand the opposing point of view.
2) Declare yourself the victor.

So declining to loot the wealthy is "forcing our version of freedom" on you?

Apparently it is immoral to let people keep their wealth, especially when that wealth can be used to buy votes for Democrats.

You mean, like accepting money from AIPAC by right wing senator Cotton?

Non sequitur.
Red herring.
Try harder.

Don't have to try harder......(unless Englsih is not your primary language...if so, let me know)....You stated that wealth is used to "buy votes from democrats..."

I just gave you some food for thought that not only to right wingers accept money (as good whores) but they do so from FOREIGN lobbyists.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I guess I'll have to reiterate since you weren't bright enough to get it the first time.

1) Freedom means different things to different people.
2) Cons are simplemindedly forcing their version of freedom for the upper class on to the rest of us.

And now a recap of your way of 'winning':

1) Misunderstand the opposing point of view.
2) Declare yourself the victor.

So declining to loot the wealthy is "forcing our version of freedom" on you?

Apparently it is immoral to let people keep their wealth, especially when that wealth can be used to buy votes for Democrats.

You mean, like accepting money from AIPAC by right wing senator Cotton?

Non sequitur.
Red herring.
Try harder.

Don't have to try harder......(unless Englsih is not your primary language...if so, let me know)....You stated that wealth is used to "buy votes from democrats..."

:doh:
I did -not- say that
Once you figure out what I said, then maybe you'll have some idea what I meant -- and then maybe you'll understand how what you said was indeed a non-sequitur and/or a red herring.
Try harder.

 

[daws101]

All forms of government pretty much suck.

If you think you have good government now just wait because it will change into bad government.

If you have bad government now (like we do in the US) then just wait because it will get worse.

Democracies may start out not sucking but always ends up where the greedy majority uses government to steal from the minority. That is why socialism always fails.

A Republic has the same problems as a Democracy but usually creates a ruling elite of professional politicians that protects their power.

Having a Bill of Rights is theoretically a good thing but eventually it will be ignored or reinterpreted for nefarious reasons. We have seen that big time with Obama.

Courts can't protect people from the abuses of government when the judges are just as stupid and corrupt as the politicians.

All government will eventually fail the people.

All a revolution does is start the clock all over again. It may be better for awhile but will eventually evolve into bad government.

Screw government.

might want to think that through again, if possible

How a world without governments would actually work – a typical conversation

No government! There would be chaos! Who sets the rules?

The short answer is private property, whoever owns the property sets the rules.

Take Disneyland as example, this is a large private area with its own rules, set by the owners/managers. Rules such as no murder, no fighting, no dangerous behaviour etc. The rules reflect what the customers want most, and therefore what will make Disneyland the most money. Disneyland employs its own security staff to enforce these rules. And sure enough, the crime rate in Disneyland is very low.
Household, roads, pavements, parks, beaches, offices, bars, resultants etc would be all privately owned, and each have their own rules. By entering the property, one would be agreeing to its rules. In practice, the rules are likely to all be very similar as we all generally want the same things.
Should there be an area of property that no one wants to own, for example a remote beach, anyone entering this area would do so, and knowingly, at their own risk.


So who enforces the rules; and what about courts, trials and juries to make sure it’s fair?

Private security companies would take the place of today’s police.
And private courts or what could be called ‘justice companies’ would take the place of the justice system.
Anything that there is a market need for would be solved by the market.
These companies would compete for customers. Compete in price, compete in efficiency, compete in what customers consider fair etc. Police beating would be a thing of the past.

(This is a very short answer to what deserves a very long explanation. See below example and other articles for more.)


Ok, let’s say someone attacks someone in a restaurant, talk me through the process?

Ok, so a man is enjoying his pizza in a restaurant when another man comes in and stabs him. What would happen?
If they are employing a private security guard, the guard would stop him. If there is no security, perhaps the staff or other customers could detain him, or finally he might escape onto the street. Let’s say he is stopped and held in the restaurant. As he is on their property, the owners/managers could do what they want to him. However they would most likely do what is best for business which would be what most customers find the fairest.
If the owners decided to torture and shoot him, this would scare away customers. If they simply let him go, this would also deter customers from future visits.
It is most likely he would be handed over to a justice company. The pizza restaurant would pick the justice company that is seen by the public as the most fair at the time. The justice company would hear the case from all sides and decide a suitable punishment.
Should he escape onto the street, the restaurant could inform the road company onto which he has escaped, who would then deal with him in the same way.


Who pays for the justice?

It is most likely that the perpetrator would be required to pay. However each case would be handled how customer and company would want and so many different arrangements could be made. Perhaps the restaurant pays or perhaps the victim or even a private charity pays.
If the perpetrator agrees, the punishment itself could be in a form of payment.


Ok. What about the military, would there be one?

Unlikely.
Again, anything there is a need for would be supplied by the market. It is unlikely that there would be a need for a military. Most people don’t want to kill others or be killed, most people don’t want to drop bombs on other people or have a bomb dropped on them.
It is easier to make and trade, than to kill; to get what you want. Especially if there is a high risk that that person could kill you in defence.
Coercive governments make the opposite true.
Of course, as anyone and everyone could have a gun, any invasion of any sort would be faced by essentially a whole nation of defensive soldiers.


Hmm, there are a lot of crazy people in this world; what if a mad man went on killing spree?

Yes, there are many crazy and strange people in the world.
Some very crazy people that want to kill all Jews, or some that want to kill all Muslims or Christians or Sunnis, Shiites, blacks, whites, poor, rich, some that even want to kill those with glasses! Very scary indeed.
That is why government, which gives one man or a small group of people absolute power over others, is such a dangerous institution; and history has shown so in the countless wars and genocides.
In a world with no government, the very worse a mad man could do is perhaps kill his family or those immediately around him, should he move onto a road, he would very quickly be stopped by security, or even shot by a private individual.
In a world with governments, the above is possible, plus he can also get into government!


What if a company got really big and tried to take over, or kill competitors or others to get to precious resources it needs?

Firstly it needs to be remembered that no company can get big without first satisfying its customers. No company can get “really big” without giving many customers, for a long period of time, exactly what they want. But say a large company does suddenly change and turn to violence. The customers would turn to the competitors. The income stream would quickly dry up, and they would be met with resistance from all sides. Compare this to government where the income is guaranteed and constant. Resistance is outlawed, and the victims are usually unable arm themselves.
As for killing competitors or suppliers, would a supermarket ever bomb or invade its rival? Not only is it expensive, but very bad for business. Customers don’t like death and destruction. And they risk a defence or retaliation attack. Either way, violence is bad for business. We see that even in undeveloped countries, where government is so corrupt that law has essentially broken down or can be bought, businesses don’t engage in violence.


Notes:

The above is taken from purely a financial standpoint, that is that all decisions and actions are taken by companies that would make them the most amount of money. The fact that the majority of people are moral and want to do the right thing is not considered.

It is not recommended here at WWG that we go from the current system to a world of no governments overnight. The setup now is unnatural; many people have grown dependent on the government, and there are people who are rich and powerful who shouldn’t be. It would take several years to wind down.

Pure freedom like this has never been truly tried before. No one is entirely sure how everything would work, but the above is a good approximation.

Also, how does the current system of legal mass murder in the form of wars and a nationwide system of theft in the form of taxes effect the national human psyche and crime rates?

Finally, no system is perfect. Humans are not perfect. There will never be a system with zero murders or crime. But a system with a couple of annual murders is much more preferable to a system with millions of annual murders.


Date added: January 30 2012

Article

 

[Flash]

[

How a world without governments would actually work – a typical conversation

I have thought it through quite a bit.

Anarchy sucks but that doesn't mean government doesn't also suck.

I can design a great form of government that I would be happy with.

It would be a Constitutional Republic with very limited government powers and taxation and a very strong Bill of Rights to protect my freedoms. There would be no welfare, subsidies, bailouts or entitlements.

About a day after that government was enacted somebody would try to change it for their own personal greed and power craving.

Eventually greedy people would find ways to change it or reinterpret it or whatever.

After awhile the Republic and the Bill of Rights would be just as bad as every other government. We saw that happen in a little over two hundred years with our Republic, didn't we?

All governments are just as frail, stupid, power hungry, greedy and corrupt as the human beings that run them.

 

[daws101]

[

How a world without governments would actually work – a typical conversation

I have thought it through quite a bit.

Anarchy sucks but that doesn't mean government doesn't also suck.

I can design a great form of government that I would be happy with.

It would be a Constitutional Republic with very limited government powers and taxation and a very strong Bill of Rights to protect my freedoms. There would be no welfare, subsidies, bailouts or entitlements.

About a day after that government was enacted somebody would try to change it for their own personal greed and power craving.

Eventually greedy people would find ways to change it or reinterpret it or whatever.

After awhile the Republic and the Bill of Rights would be just as bad as every other government. We saw that happen in a little over two years with our Republic, didn't we?

All governments are just as frail, stupid, power hungry, greedy and corrupt as the human beings that run them.

and you're the guy who can fix every thing.
ever heard the term extreme hubris

 

[nat4900]

Very few (if any) right wing republicans, especially on this forum, can exercise the needed objectivity that is ESSENTAIL when explaining.....and even less so, comprehending..... anything that challenges their ultra-conservative ideology.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Very few (if any) right wing republicans, especially on this forum, can exercise the needed objectivity that is ESSENTAIL when explaining.....and even less so, comprehending..... anything that challenges their ultra-conservative ideology.

Says he who apparently cannot read (See post # 224).

That said... get over yourself. I have yet to see you post anything not rooted in mindless partisan bigotry.

 

[Flash]

[

How a world without governments would actually work – a typical conversation

I have thought it through quite a bit.

Anarchy sucks but that doesn't mean government doesn't also suck.

I can design a great form of government that I would be happy with.

It would be a Constitutional Republic with very limited government powers and taxation and a very strong Bill of Rights to protect my freedoms. There would be no welfare, subsidies, bailouts or entitlements.

About a day after that government was enacted somebody would try to change it for their own personal greed and power craving.

Eventually greedy people would find ways to change it or reinterpret it or whatever.

After awhile the Republic and the Bill of Rights would be just as bad as every other government. We saw that happen in a little over two years with our Republic, didn't we?

All governments are just as frail, stupid, power hungry, greedy and corrupt as the human beings that run them.

and your the guy who can fix every thing.
ever heard the term extreme hubris

If you had actually read what I said you would understand that my point is that we will never have good government because of the greed and power seeking. I can design a great government but it won't last.

 

[Flash]

Very few (if any) right wing republicans, especially on this forum, can exercise the needed objectivity that is ESSENTAIL when explaining.....and even less so, comprehending..... anything that challenges their ultra-conservative ideology.

Very few Left Wingers can explain the failures of socialism all over the world no less be able to articulate why it is economically viable to use government to steal money from the productive to give to the unproductive.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

all white nationalists vote Conservative.

dear, what is a white nationalist and who are the white nationalists?

 

[JoeNormal]

The difference is in the harm to others.

So... in your book, it is OK to impose morality on others so long as you think it doesn't harm anyone. Hmm.

Where the **** did you get that? Just the opposite.

So... in your book, it is OK to impose morality on others so long as you think it harms someone?

Sorry, I've been scurrying around on an urgent work project and haven't been paying very close attention to this conversation.

I believe you were wondering why I had a problem with right wing morality being forced on others. The reason is because that right wing morality involves taking freedom from people who aren't harming anyone else. This differs from taking freedom to harm others from the ones who would do actual harm.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Addicting Info Explaining Socialism To A Republican

whats to explain?? Most Republicans know that socialism slowly starved about 120 million human beings to death.

 

[JoeNormal]

Apparently, you aren't bright enough to comprehend what I'm saying. Sorry, I tried to put it in terms you might understand.

I accept your surrender. It came sooner than I thought it would but that just means I waste less time on you.

Another self proclaimed victor. You cons just can't lose!

Says he who knows he cannot answer my question.

I guess I'll have to reiterate since you weren't bright enough to get it the first time.

1) Freedom means different things to different people.
2) Cons are simplemindedly forcing their version of freedom for the upper class on to the rest of us.

And now a recap of your way of 'winning':

1) Misunderstand the opposing point of view.
2) Declare yourself the victor.

So declining to loot the wealthy is "forcing our version of freedom" on you? I'll bet if you were caught burglering a house you would whine that the police were taking away your "freedom" to make a living.

I wouldn't burgle a house. But your viewpoint is one I've always found interesting in terms of encouraging corporate officers to turn a profit by any means they see fit, whether it's ethical or not just because it's their 'responsibility' to generate profit.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I accept your surrender. It came sooner than I thought it would but that just means I waste less time on you.

Another self proclaimed victor. You cons just can't lose!

Says he who knows he cannot answer my question.

I guess I'll have to reiterate since you weren't bright enough to get it the first time.

1) Freedom means different things to different people.
2) Cons are simplemindedly forcing their version of freedom for the upper class on to the rest of us.

And now a recap of your way of 'winning':

1) Misunderstand the opposing point of view.
2) Declare yourself the victor.

So declining to loot the wealthy is "forcing our version of freedom" on you? I'll bet if you were caught burglering a house you would whine that the police were taking away your "freedom" to make a living.

I wouldn't burgle a house. But your viewpoint is one I've always found interesting in terms of encouraging corporate officers to turn a profit by any means they see fit, whether it's ethical or not just because it's their 'responsibility' to generate profit.

profit is the guide post that got us from the stone age to here. Without it we would have no idea where to invest our resources. With out profit we'd get a soviet result.
You were the lib commie defending Castro's island concentration camp -right?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The difference is in the harm to others.

So... in your book, it is OK to impose morality on others so long as you think it doesn't harm anyone. Hmm.

Where the **** did you get that? Just the opposite.

So... in your book, it is OK to impose morality on others so long as you think it harms someone?

I believe you were wondering why I had a problem with right wing morality being forced on others. The reason is because that right wing morality involves taking freedom from people who aren't harming anyone else.

Your version of morality that you would impose on everyone also involves taking freedom from people who aren't harming anyone else -- and so, to oppose the RW imposition of morality for that reason, you should oppose the imposition of yours.
But, you don't.
Why?

 

[danielpalos]

Addicting Info Explaining Socialism To A Republican

whats to explain?? Most Republicans know that socialism slowly starved about 120 million human beings to death.

was it socialism or just incompetent public policies?

 

[daws101]

all white nationalists vote Conservative.

dear, what is a white nationalist and who are the white nationalists?

ever hear of google or bing?
don't call me dear I'm not you mom girlfriend or boy friend..

 

[danielpalos]

Another self proclaimed victor. You cons just can't lose!

Says he who knows he cannot answer my question.

I guess I'll have to reiterate since you weren't bright enough to get it the first time.

1) Freedom means different things to different people.
2) Cons are simplemindedly forcing their version of freedom for the upper class on to the rest of us.

And now a recap of your way of 'winning':

1) Misunderstand the opposing point of view.
2) Declare yourself the victor.

So declining to loot the wealthy is "forcing our version of freedom" on you? I'll bet if you were caught burglering a house you would whine that the police were taking away your "freedom" to make a living.

I wouldn't burgle a house. But your viewpoint is one I've always found interesting in terms of encouraging corporate officers to turn a profit by any means they see fit, whether it's ethical or not just because it's their 'responsibility' to generate profit.

profit is the guide post that got us from the stone age to here. Without it we would have no idea where to invest our resources. With out profit we'd get a soviet result.
You were the lib commie defending Castro's island concentration camp -right?

only until the right decided to practice their version of Communism, in Cuba.