Socialism: Friend or foe?

[Mac1958]

Always need to ask: Are we talking about Venezuelan socialism or Germany socialism? The word means anything, or nothing, at this point.

Which is what democrats want. The dumbest thing ever was allowing Nazi Germany to be labeled anything other than socialism. It was.

I'm talking about the Euro-socialism of today.
.

There’s no real difference. It all ends up in the same place.

Examples?
.

 

[there4eyeM]

"Socialism" is neither friend nor enemy. It is a method of functioning that can be well or poorly operated. As said before, the only '-ism' we need is eclecticism. Just find what works and let whoever wants to apply whatever label they like.

 

[Votto]

"Socialism" is neither friend nor enemy. It is a method of functioning that can be well or poorly operated. As said before, the only '-ism' we need is eclecticism. Just find what works and let whoever wants to apply whatever label they like.

The issue is centralized power. As has been observed, power corrupts, so if that is the case why increase such power? This is why most have a aversion to dictatorships. and why the US was founded on Federalism and a distribution of power with the notion of limited government.

Problem is, the most efficient form of government is a dictatorship. There is no dissent, so "things get done". So they sacrifice personal freedom for efficiency and cross their fingers that the centralized planners remain benevolent.

Progressives at the turn of the 20th century opted for more efficient government and disdained the obstacles that Federalism presented, so they usurped the system by empowering the federal government through an income tax, created their own personal bank in the Fed, and began expanding the Executive branch.

 

[iceberg]

Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude

Alexis de Tocqueville

Is this correct?

missing an option or 2. socialism in pure form is one thing but borrowing what makes sense, we've been doing that for a long long time in our own society, just not full bore like the left is pushing for now.

there are things we can socialize that would make the overall republic a better place. we don't need to replace one with another we just need to do the right things and use the right pieces at proper times.

 

[Votto]

Always need to ask: Are we talking about Venezuelan socialism or Germany socialism?

The word means anything, or nothing, at this point.

That is a problem. The word socialism is thrown around to describe different things. For example, the classic usage of the term socialism means a government that is in control of all production. This applies to Venezuela but not to Germany. History shows that governments that are in control of production fail miserably. It was modified by the Nazi regime. Hitler understood that industry is best run by those that know what they are doing. It is akin to going to a doctor for medical help rather than consulting with a lawyer. It just makes sense. However, Hitler still controlled industry in large measure. He once said, "Why nationalize industry when you can nationalize the people"? The issue for Hitler was control, which he had 100% of.

This is the same model that Germany uses today in large part, although the power may be more equally distributed than during Hitler's time.

 

[basquebromance]

Norway & Sweden have LOWER tax rates than the US. they're not socialist, they're Nordic capitalist

 

[Votto]

Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude

Alexis de Tocqueville

Is this correct?

missing an option or 2. socialism in pure form is one thing but borrowing what makes sense, we've been doing that for a long long time in our own society, just not full bore like the left is pushing for now.

there are things we can socialize that would make the overall republic a better place. we don't need to replace one with another we just need to do the right things and use the right pieces at proper times.

Socialism does "good" things. If it did not, then there would be no reason to embrace it.

The question becomes, does it set us on a "good" trajectory as a society?

I could go out and get high on heroin. At that very moment, it would feel great, but what sort of trajectory does that set me on?

One thing about socialism is, it's never enough. There is always a push for more and more and more, as society is slowly transformed into a socialist nation of servitude.

It was not long ago that the collectivist Barak Obama pushed for Obamacare. The ink on the legislation is not even dry and now they are pushing for a single payer system. Not only that, they are demanding free college and started electing open socialists.

Another issue is, once you surrender power to the collective, you never get it back. They simply infect the system and metastasize till the host is dead.

Case in point is the CEO of Starbucks. He is a Left winger and considered running for President. The problem is, he sees the massive debt the US has created and, as a result, said that we cannot afford all of these entitlements any longer. He based this opinion on his expertise in the business world and knowledge of economics, but desperately wants entitlements. The scary part is, not only could he never win the democratic nomination for President, the GOP would toss him aside as well for such a position. The US has already created a society of dependent drones, largely engaged in self destruction via narcotics as they die at a rate of about 200 per day.

 

[iceberg]

Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude

Alexis de Tocqueville

Is this correct?

missing an option or 2. socialism in pure form is one thing but borrowing what makes sense, we've been doing that for a long long time in our own society, just not full bore like the left is pushing for now.

there are things we can socialize that would make the overall republic a better place. we don't need to replace one with another we just need to do the right things and use the right pieces at proper times.

Socialism does "good" things. If it did not, then there would be no reason to embrace it.

The question becomes, does it set us on a "good" trajectory as a society?

I could go out and get high on heroin. At that very moment, it would feel great, but what sort of trajectory does that set me on?

One thing about socialism is, it's never enough. There is always a push for more and more and more, as society is slowly transformed into a socialist nation of servitude.

It was not long ago that the collectivist Barak Obama pushed for Obamacare. The ink on the legislation is not even dry and now they are pushing for a single payer system. Not only that, they are demanding free college and started electing open socialists.

Another issue is, once you surrender power to the collective, you never get it back. They simply infect the system and metastasize till the host is dead.

Case in point is the CEO of Starbucks. He is a Left winger and considered running for President. The problem is, he sees the massive debt the US has created and, as a result, said that we cannot afford all of these entitlements any longer. He based this opinion on his expertise in the business world and knowledge of economics, but desperately wants entitlements. The scary part is, not only could he never win the democratic nomination for President, the GOP would toss him aside as well for such a position. The US has already created a society of dependent drone, largely engaged in self destruction via narcotics as they die at a rate of about 200 per day.

oh i agree "pure" socialism wouldn't play well in most places. human nature will always have those who don't want to give and only take. i think we're saying the same thing but perhaps doing some nit-picking in that there are some socialistic measures we can take to improve our society w/o becoming socialist.

the poll however is yes/no and doesn't allow for the middle ground.

 

[Votto]

Norway & Sweden have LOWER tax rates than the US. they're not socialist, they're Nordic capitalist

People make the mistake of comparing the US to a small European country like Sweden, when in reality, there is no comparison. The best way to compare is the European Union and the US. And as we have seen, the European Union seems to be doomed with the UK wanting to pull out.

The larger the socialist system, the more problems it takes on. But once all the eggs are in one basket, one problem can bring an entire nation down.

This is why the Founding Father embraced Federalism. States in the US, like countries in Europe, were once free to decide things like health care. In fact, MA created their own health care with Romneycare. They liked it so much, they voted in a Republican for the first time in over 50 years to stop Obamacare, but the Dims used Reconciliation to bypass the democratic vote to ram Obamacare through anyway.

The great thing about federalism is, you have 50 states engaging in trial and error, and if one goes bad, you have 49 more states to help you right the ship and try again. Also, if something goes good, then you have 49 other states that can look at it and try it themselves.

It sure beats forcing everyone into an unproven system that may destroy the nation.

 

[basquebromance]

capitalism is great when a country's trying to get back on its feet, but when it reaches its peak, there ought to be a shift to socialism.

 

[Votto]

Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude

Alexis de Tocqueville

Is this correct?

missing an option or 2. socialism in pure form is one thing but borrowing what makes sense, we've been doing that for a long long time in our own society, just not full bore like the left is pushing for now.

there are things we can socialize that would make the overall republic a better place. we don't need to replace one with another we just need to do the right things and use the right pieces at proper times.

Socialism does "good" things. If it did not, then there would be no reason to embrace it.

The question becomes, does it set us on a "good" trajectory as a society?

I could go out and get high on heroin. At that very moment, it would feel great, but what sort of trajectory does that set me on?

One thing about socialism is, it's never enough. There is always a push for more and more and more, as society is slowly transformed into a socialist nation of servitude.

It was not long ago that the collectivist Barak Obama pushed for Obamacare. The ink on the legislation is not even dry and now they are pushing for a single payer system. Not only that, they are demanding free college and started electing open socialists.

Another issue is, once you surrender power to the collective, you never get it back. They simply infect the system and metastasize till the host is dead.

Case in point is the CEO of Starbucks. He is a Left winger and considered running for President. The problem is, he sees the massive debt the US has created and, as a result, said that we cannot afford all of these entitlements any longer. He based this opinion on his expertise in the business world and knowledge of economics, but desperately wants entitlements. The scary part is, not only could he never win the democratic nomination for President, the GOP would toss him aside as well for such a position. The US has already created a society of dependent drone, largely engaged in self destruction via narcotics as they die at a rate of about 200 per day.

oh i agree "pure" socialism wouldn't play well in most places. human nature will always have those who don't want to give and only take. i think we're saying the same thing but perhaps doing some nit-picking in that there are some socialistic measures we can take to improve our society w/o becoming socialist.

the poll however is yes/no and doesn't allow for the middle ground.

Society may not embrace pure socialism, but they will always push for more.

That is the problem that cannot be fixed.

 

[Votto]

capitalism is great when a country's trying to get back on its feet, but when it reaches its peak, there ought to be a shift to socialism.

Wait....wut?

So you need to embrace capitalism to "get back on your feet"?

In other words, embrace a system that will create economic health so that you can go eat junk food, only to embrace capitalism again if you need to get back on your feet later on?

It don't work that way. Once the socialists move in, they never leave.

They are like roaches.

 

[danielpalos]

Promote the general welfare

Done in many ways.

As we all know, the General Welfare is in the Constitution.

And as we all know, James Madison is considered to be the father of the Constitution.

Here is what Madison said about the General Welfare clause:

James Madison, (1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President

“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”

Congress only has authority for the Union, not the several States.