Where do you stand on State succession?

[kaz]

We the Thinking Public do not let the likes of far right reactionaries redefine traditional and historical terms.

Ever.

Hey dude, you're one of us now. You have been arguing that the law is set, we can't change anything. Don't try back peddling.

 

[Edgetho]

From the link above, which redefines socialism inaccurately to further less than noble aims.

Different self-described socialists have used the term socialism to refer to different things, such as an economic system, a type of society, a philosophical outlook, a collection of moral values and ideals, or even a certain kind of human character.

Socialism is "a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." https://www.google.com/#q=socialism+definition

If that had been tried in a government, history, economic, etc, class in college, the argument would have failed on definition of terms.

Words have meanings, and you, edgetho, don't get to change the meanings.

I guess, with your 9th grade education level, that's about as far as you can get and still have a comprehension level suitable for discussion in a libturd/commie forum.

But it's bullshit. The whole thinking world knows it's bullshit. It is simplistic and it is wrong.

Just like you.

BTW, Poland's communism was quite different from the Soviets'. They had privately owned farms.... Some of them quite large.

Near the end, near the collapse of the Soviet disease, they tried to stave off failure by allowing the privatization of Capital assets.

And do, please, explain the phenomenon known as Communist China who is currently one of the most powerful Capitalist forces on Earth..... But with a socialist government haveing a firm grasp on the tiller of the Capitalist Boat.

You're just stupid. You keep on believing those 9th Grade definitions of political systems.

It's about as far as you can intellectually advance anyway.

How's it feel to have peaked at 15, loser?

 

[Edgetho]

From the link above, which redefines socialism inaccurately to further less than noble aims.

Different self-described socialists have used the term socialism to refer to different things, such as an economic system, a type of society, a philosophical outlook, a collection of moral values and ideals, or even a certain kind of human character.

Socialism is "a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." https://www.google.com/#q=socialism+definition

If that had been tried in a government, history, economic, etc, class in college, the argument would have failed on definition of terms.

Words have meanings, and you, edgetho, don't get to change the meanings.

Socialism is a centrally planned economy. Marxism, crony capitalism, fascism and other forms of government dominated economic decisions are all just variations of socialism.

Capitalism is economic freedom where producers, consumers and employees make their own choices and drive economic efficiency.

Socialism makes the people who run government rich. Capitalism makes the people who make good choices rich. The difference is simple.

No, kaz. socialism doesn't have to include a 'Central Planning' aspect to its nature these days.

marxism does. And Marxists should be shot on sight, AFAIC. And I would gleefully join in.

socialism in Europe is real. socialists in Europe are real. France's PM, or President or whatever the **** he is (Allande) is from France's SOCIALIST PARTY. But they don't contain universal Central Planning, government ownership aspects, in their platform. THAT is marxism.

I skipped a few chapters in explaining this, but.... Just trust me on this one.

 

[NYcarbineer]

In this country now you have to secede to succeed! And that's a non answer, the question is what do you support. As if I don't know the answer of a big government "conservative." But I do like the formality.

1. A state can't legally, or constitutionally if you prefer, secede. For starters, the Supremacy Clause prevents it.

That argument has been shot down 1000 times.

2. U.S. citizens have a right to the protections of the federal government that cannot be taken away from them by state law, including any act of secession.

Only so long as it remains part of the union.

Since you're an anarchist, you must also concede that the individual states have no authortiy, in principle (i.e. your principles), to force their subsets,

whether it be counties, cities, townships, or individuals for that matter, to agree to follow a state out of the Union.

 

[TooTall]

You daffy Conservatives! You don't know what big government is! You yowl and shriek whenever a Democrat is in the White House. You whine and ***** that the sky is falling at every proposal from any legislator with a (D) behind their name.

And once again you're kicking around the failed notion of secession. The last time a group of Conservatives thought that was a grand idea, their lives and fortunes were rightly ruined for their traitorous actions. All because they thought that keeping human beings in captivity and taking all the fruits of their labor was the right, noral and ethical choice.

Today, you are scared of health care reforms. Once again the hew and cry is let forth that doing anything will bring ruin, while doing nothing was indeed ruining our standard of living.

Come down from the ledge. Cash your Social Security check and stop bitching about socialism when you do so. Read a history book and learn lessons from your predecessors.

While you're at it, check out societies that function under real socialism and societies that fail to function under weak central governments. You'll be back waving the flag in no time.

North Korea and Cuba come to mind.

Sorry. Check your dictionary. Those are Authoritarian states. I'm thinking more like Norway and Sweden.

Unless you either really don't know what socialism is or your thought process is clouded by Right Wing propaganda, conflating Communist authoritarianism and socialism is a foolish argument.

Do you really think we can be like Norway? If we were on the North Sea perhaps we could afford it, but we aren't. I do not see the word 'socialist' in the description of their economy.

The economy of Norway is a developed mixed economy with heavy state-ownership in strategic areas of the economy.
The country has a very high standard of living compared with other European countries, and a strongly integrated welfare system. Norway's modern manufacturing and welfare system rely on a financial reserve produced by exploitation of natural resources, particularly North Sea oil.

Here are the reasons Sweden can afford it's welfare state. Once again I do not see 'socialism' in the economy description.

Because Sweden as a neutral country did not actively participate in World War II, it did not have to rebuild its economic base, banking system, and country as a whole, as did many other European countries. Sweden has achieved a high standard of living under a mixed system of high-tech capitalism and extensive welfare benefits. Sweden has the second highest total tax revenue behind Denmark, as a share of the country's income.

I do believe the definition of socialism for most of us low information folks is "the means of production are owned and run by the government and most of the labor force is employed by the state." I do see socialism describing their economy.

The Cuban state adheres to socialist principles in organizing its largely state-controlled planned economy. Most of the means of production are owned and run by the government and most of the labor force is employed by the state. [/B]

I must admit that North Korea does not have an economic system other than Communism and a continuation of 1 year, 3 year and 6 year plans that always fail.

 

[bendog]

It's interesting that the arguments for are not really any different from those in 1860. Progressives are disenfranchising " conservatives", (i.e. rebels, and taking economic rights and political power from them are the radicals' grievances.

 

[kaz]

Socialism is a centrally planned economy. Marxism, crony capitalism, fascism and other forms of government dominated economic decisions are all just variations of socialism.

No, kaz. socialism doesn't have to include a 'Central Planning' aspect to its nature these days.

I'm not see how that's possible, but I'm wondering if we're more in semantics here. When I say "centrally planned," that does not necessarily mean that the government is overtly making the decisions as they do in Marxism. Note I included crony capitalism and fascism as examples of socialism. The point is that if government has the power to override decisions or reject them or pick winners and consequently losers in the marketplace, then that is a centrally planned economy. Government will make those choices to it's own benefit, the difference just being the implementation of the central planning.

Capitalism and socialism are polar opposites. China is an interesting discussion between capitalism and socialism because while they do reserve the power to make the final central decisions, they are deciding not to. Though they do step in for things like Google and foreign ownership and investment. While China imitates and has many aspects of capitalism, they really are just a smarter socialist country because in the end, government has the say even if they generally chose not to use it.

Your Russia/Poland example was another example of that. In Poland, the central planners chose to give farms more autonomy. However, I'm sure neither of us believes that if the Polish government ever wanted to override that, they would in a heartbeat.

Anyway, how are things going with you, Jake? Want a ball to play with? It's bouncy...

 

[kaz]

It's interesting that the arguments for are not really any different from those in 1860. Progressives are disenfranchising " conservatives", (i.e. rebels, and taking economic rights and political power from them are the radicals' grievances.

It's completely different. In 1860, the secessionists wanted to maintain slavery. Today, we want freedom from it. What you call progressives in 1860 where not socialists like the progressives are today.

 

[Edgetho]

North Korea and Cuba come to mind.

Sorry. Check your dictionary. Those are Authoritarian states. I'm thinking more like Norway and Sweden.

Unless you either really don't know what socialism is or your thought process is clouded by Right Wing propaganda, conflating Communist authoritarianism and socialism is a foolish argument.

Do you really think we can be like Norway? If we were on the North Sea perhaps we could afford it, but we aren't. I do not see the word 'socialist' in the description of their economy.



Here are the reasons Sweden can afford it's welfare state. Once again I do not see 'socialism' in the economy description.

Because Sweden as a neutral country did not actively participate in World War II, it did not have to rebuild its economic base, banking system, and country as a whole, as did many other European countries. Sweden has achieved a high standard of living under a mixed system of high-tech capitalism and extensive welfare benefits. Sweden has the second highest total tax revenue behind Denmark, as a share of the country's income.

I do believe the definition of socialism for most of us low information folks is "the means of production are owned and run by the government and most of the labor force is employed by the state." I do see socialism describing their economy.

The Cuban state adheres to socialist principles in organizing its largely state-controlled planned economy. Most of the means of production are owned and run by the government and most of the labor force is employed by the state. [/B]

I must admit that North Korea does not have an economic system other than Communism and a continuation of 1 year, 3 year and 6 year plans that always fail.

Read this:

Hal Draper: The Two Souls of Socialism (1966)

Modern socialism was born in the course of the half century or so that lies between the Great French Revolution and the revolutions of 1848. So was modern democracy. But they were not born linked like Siamese twins. They traveled at first along separate lines. When did the two lines first intersect?

Out of the wreckage of the French Revolution rose different kinds of socialism. We will consider three of the most important in the light of our question.

3. What Marx Did​

Utopianism was elitist and anti-democratic to the core because it was utopian – that is, it looked to the prescription of a prefabricated model, the dreaming-up of a plan to be willed into existence. Above all, it was inherently hostile to the very idea of transforming society from below, by the upsetting intervention of freedom-seeking masses, even where it finally accepted recourse to the instrument of a mass movement for pressure upon the Tops. In the socialist movement as it developed before Marx, nowhere did the line of the Socialist Idea intersect the line of Democracy-from-Below.

Read it. Afterwards, I'll give you another one to read.

It's much easier to just talk (type) with no idea of what you're doing, however.

Your call

 

[LoneLaugher]

For most of my life, I could not have contemplated the idea that I would support such a thing. But the curve of the country towards socialism and away from liberty is so steep that I would now not only embrace the idea, but move to a State that secession. What say you?

I say you are a butthurt whiner who is upset that your party can't stay away from elevating idiots to positions of national prominence.

I also say that you cannot be considered a serious opponent in a discussion involving politics if you do not know the difference between secession and succession.

 

[Edgetho]

Socialism is a centrally planned economy. Marxism, crony capitalism, fascism and other forms of government dominated economic decisions are all just variations of socialism.

No, kaz. socialism doesn't have to include a 'Central Planning' aspect to its nature these days.

I'm not see how that's possible, but I'm wondering if we're more in semantics here. When I say "centrally planned," that does not necessarily mean that the government is overtly making the decisions as they do in Marxism. Note I included crony capitalism and fascism as examples of socialism. The point is that if government has the power to override decisions or reject them or pick winners and consequently losers in the marketplace, then that is a centrally planned economy. Government will make those choices to it's own benefit, the difference just being the implementation of the central planning.

Capitalism and socialism are polar opposites. China is an interesting discussion between capitalism and socialism because while they do reserve the power to make the final central decisions, they are deciding not to. Though they do step in for things like Google and foreign ownership and investment. While China imitates and has many aspects of capitalism, they really are just a smarter socialist country because in the end, government has the say even if they generally chose not to use it.

Your Russia/Poland example was another example of that. In Poland, the central planners chose to give farms more autonomy. However, I'm sure neither of us believes that if the Polish government ever wanted to override that, they would in a heartbeat.

Anyway, how are things going with you, Jake? Want a ball to play with? It's bouncy...

Fascism and National Socialism (very different from each other) certainly are the bastard children of the diseased whore, socialism.

Though not marxist, (Hitler and Mussolini both hated Marx) they were still socialist to the core.

socialism and marxism are not the same thing.

ALL marxists are socialists but not all socialists are marxists.

'socialism' was around a LONG time (about 2,400 years) before marx and it developed dozens of offshoots after marx. Few of which he would recognize.

 

[Dutch]

I'm surprised to see the poll two to one for the right of succession. Who knew?

There was no option that really spoke to my view. I believe it is a state's right, but I am not eager for it. I think it would be dangerous to have the United States broken into two or more smaller countries for a multitude of reasons that are not worth pursuing in this discussion, but if given a straight up decision of staying as is or leaving for a system more closely resembling the government of the Constitution, I'd leave.

As for why I think succession is the right of any State, there are two reasons. First, I find the idea that the Founding Fathers who had to fight a war to gain their own independence would have created a system wherein you would be locked into it and have no right to peacefully leave absolutely laughable. The idea that people must continue to be in bonds to a government which goes against their own principles and no longer represents their interests goes against the very foundation principle that the government gets it authority from the consent of the governed. I could go on with this train of thought for awhile explaining exactly how it is inconsistent with every principle of the Founding Fathers, but why belabor this self-evident point?

Second, the only alternative to the right of succession is to grant the Federal government a right which was never given to them in the Constitution. Since the Federal government has only certain specified areas of authority, anything not spelled out in the Constitution as the power of the Federal Government is something that the federal government is not allowed to do. I don't see any provision in the Constitution that says a state cannot peacefully leave the Union, so it should be allowed.



Dutch, you speak of this as if it has never before been done that a nation has begun and formed its own currency. It happens quite frequently, actually, though that is not to say that it is an easy task.

It's a hell of alot harder in the global economy if the 21st century the the 18th century.

If Texas and a few States went with us, then we would be one of the largest economies in the world. We would soon pass the Workers paradise we left behind.

Despite the bitterness that many leftists are expressing, the Countries would also be close economically and militarily and in other ways as well. We would just be a lot richer than you.

You are full of shit.
Every one of these States would immidiateley be in a recession. The feseral governtment would immidiatly cut highway and airport funding, reposess or shut down federal bases which pump billions into local economies. What are you idiots going to do about healthcare, disaster relief, social security?

 

[bripat9643]

Sorry. Check your dictionary. Those are Authoritarian states. I'm thinking more like Norway and Sweden..

Your belief that "socialist" and "authoritarian" are mutually exclusive is hilarious. Sweden and Norway are capitalist countries, BTW.

[Unless you either really don't know what socialism is or your thought process is clouded by Right Wing propaganda, conflating Communist authoritarianism and socialism is a foolish argument.

We conflate nothing. We aren't suffering from the leftwing delusion that socialism is a euphemism meaning "earthly paradise."

I pity the ignorant. You don't know enough about political terminology to form a cogent argument. Adios!

Running away isn't a good indication that you're winning the argument.

 

[bripat9643]

Your belief that "socialist" and "authoritarian" are mutually exclusive is hilarious. Sweden and Norway are capitalist countries, BTW.



We conflate nothing. We aren't suffering from the leftwing delusion that socialism is a euphemism meaning "earthly paradise."

Then you would be fine if we adopted the same healthcare practices as Sweden and Norway?

Not the same exact methods, but similar. I believe there are parts of the template used in Scandinavia that would work. I'm open to new ideas and suggestions as the old way of insurance companies denying coverage for pre-existing conditions and whenever a claim is made was nothing but the World's most elaborate Ponzi scheme.

He wasn't asking you, numskull. We already know you are fine with it.

 

[Redfish]

are we talking about states "succeeding" or "seceding" Does the OP know the difference?

 

[bripat9643]

1. A state can't legally, or constitutionally if you prefer, secede. For starters, the Supremacy Clause prevents it.

That argument has been shot down 1000 times.

2. U.S. citizens have a right to the protections of the federal government that cannot be taken away from them by state law, including any act of secession.

Only so long as it remains part of the union.

I'm a resident of New York State, but I'm a citizen of the United States. No state government has the right to revoke my U.S. citizenship,

and everything that comes with that.

Who says they are going to revoke your citizenship? However, that doesn't stop them from seceding. Anyone who wants to remain a citizen of the USA is free to do so.

 

[bripat9643]

If a state seceded, the US government would not recognize it. The fed could simply declare the state to be in rebellion, and,

For starters, the US government could abolish every federal government job in that state,

cancel every government contract going to businesses in that state, close every federal building and installation,

including all military bases in that state,

and then suspend all federal government payments to residents of that state,

not the least of which would be Social Security and Medicare.

Actually, it can't do the later if they retain their US citizenship. As for the rest, go right ahead. So long as they are free of the yoke of the federal government.

 

[bripat9643]

1. A state can't legally, or constitutionally if you prefer, secede. For starters, the Supremacy Clause prevents it.

That argument has been shot down 1000 times.

2. U.S. citizens have a right to the protections of the federal government that cannot be taken away from them by state law, including any act of secession.

Only so long as it remains part of the union.

Since you're an anarchist, you must also concede that the individual states have no authortiy, in principle (i.e. your principles), to force their subsets,

whether it be counties, cities, townships, or individuals for that matter, to agree to follow a state out of the Union.

I agree 100%. Not only should states be able to secede, but so should counties, cities, towns and even individuals.

 

[Nosmo King]

Your belief that "socialist" and "authoritarian" are mutually exclusive is hilarious. Sweden and Norway are capitalist countries, BTW.



We conflate nothing. We aren't suffering from the leftwing delusion that socialism is a euphemism meaning "earthly paradise."

I pity the ignorant. You don't know enough about political terminology to form a cogent argument. Adios!

Running away isn't a good indication that you're winning the argument.

I lack the will to educate you after your inculcation of right wing propaganda. It's the intellectual equivalent of pushing back the incoming tide with a whisk broom.

 

[bripat9643]

I pity the ignorant. You don't know enough about political terminology to form a cogent argument. Adios!

Running away isn't a good indication that you're winning the argument.

I lack the will to educate you after your inculcation of right wing propaganda. It's the intellectual equivalent of pushing back the incoming tide with a whisk broom.

You mean you realize that I'm not susceptible to left-wing bullshit.