spike
New Member
There is certainly truth in what you said. But there are advantageous traits that are passed to insure survival most commonly. That trend doesn't work with people.
The Anti-Socialist Promise
- Thread starter MrBishop
- Start date
- Status
There is certainly truth in what you said. But there are advantageous traits that are passed to insure survival most commonly. That trend doesn't work with people.
spike
New Member
I'm for whatever makes sense. It'd be great if we could have rational discussions about something.
ResearchMonkey
Well-Known Member
lol at rational.
Ok you support what makes "sense" ....so I'm curious what that means. What criteria in general makes sense?
What I'm asking is what type of social benefits, as applied to most issues, are one s that make "sense".
No I'm not trying to play gotcha', Im looking more for a general ideal that make "sense".
spike
New Member
For profit healthcare doesn't make sense. The motivations are all wrong. I'd like to see a Medicare for any one that wants it type of thing but having a public option would be a big improvement.
Instead of talking about it rationally we get hysteria with all the death panel, eugenics, killing grandma, commie, socialist, hitler, muslim, antichrist bullshit.
Do I support a firm shift into more government socialism? No.
Each issue should be evaluated individually.
Instead of talking about it rationally we get hysteria with all the death panel, eugenics, killing grandma, commie, socialist, hitler, muslim, antichrist bullshit.
Do I support a firm shift into more government socialism? No.
Each issue should be evaluated individually.
ResearchMonkey
Well-Known Member
so interesting.
This needed to be moved.
As I drive around thinking about my day & all the things that happen, this thread occurs to me. It hits me that one of our problems, here in the RW, as well as in the real world, is our lack of cohesion.
Most of the things Bish writes in the opening post of this thread is hardly what he purports it to be.
Socialism is not equitable to a democratic republic. Limited tax dollars (for the common use) being used to fund goals are hardly comparable to a thorough socialist takeover of an economic system through extravagant taxation (for the common good) & regulation.
Maybe it'd be a good idea to look into the differnces.
As I drive around thinking about my day & all the things that happen, this thread occurs to me. It hits me that one of our problems, here in the RW, as well as in the real world, is our lack of cohesion.
Most of the things Bish writes in the opening post of this thread is hardly what he purports it to be.
Socialism is not equitable to a democratic republic. Limited tax dollars (for the common use) being used to fund goals are hardly comparable to a thorough socialist takeover of an economic system through extravagant taxation (for the common good) & regulation.
Maybe it'd be a good idea to look into the differnces.
ResearchMonkey
Well-Known Member
We should correct those mistakes.
Mistakes? They were blantant acts of theft. But, yes, they need to be remedied.
Show me.
randomJACKASS
Banned
Nobody here defines socialism in the same way.
Which is the problem.
Socialism is the economic system where the government controls business through law or regulation. It limits or controls competition. It limits the pay. It limits productivity. Overall, it regulates the complete business cycle.
It also limits private property rights & personal freedom.
Socialism, like progressivism (is there a fundamental difference?) , has removed the individual from the center of the system & placed "common good" above all. If it does not benefit the collective it may be unlawful.
Communism is the step above socialism where the state, or the collective, is the common owner. There is no private property nor individual rights. All goods & services are produced for all. If one has access, all must have equal & unfettered access.
Capitalism allows the private individual, or agreed-to collective of individuals (corporation) full control of all aspects of production or services. From purchase of goods for means of production to final delivery, the individual controlos his property & the means to regulate it. Only upon final delivery, for a pre-arranged obligation, does the original owner give up rights to his product or services.
Socialism is the economic system where the government controls business through law or regulation. It limits or controls competition. It limits the pay. It limits productivity. Overall, it regulates the complete business cycle.
It also limits private property rights & personal freedom.
Socialism, like progressivism (is there a fundamental difference?) , has removed the individual from the center of the system & placed "common good" above all. If it does not benefit the collective it may be unlawful.
Communism is the step above socialism where the state, or the collective, is the common owner. There is no private property nor individual rights. All goods & services are produced for all. If one has access, all must have equal & unfettered access.
Capitalism allows the private individual, or agreed-to collective of individuals (corporation) full control of all aspects of production or services. From purchase of goods for means of production to final delivery, the individual controlos his property & the means to regulate it. Only upon final delivery, for a pre-arranged obligation, does the original owner give up rights to his product or services.
spike
New Member
I do know. Our post office, roads, national parks, military, etc are all socialized. Our healthcare should be too.
so·cial·ize (ssh-lz)
v. so·cial·ized, so·cial·iz·ing, so·cial·iz·es
v.tr.
1. To place under government or group ownership or control.
2. To make fit for companionship with others; make sociable.
3. To convert or adapt to the needs of society.
Seems you don't really understand what it means.
Hell, the number one definition is what I wrote one post up.
Perhaps you'd be better off using nationalize when discussing the post office & teh military.
parks can fairly well be called socialist when placed under federal authority (although, in all fairness, I do prefer national parks to state parks. Fewer restricitons)
Perhaps you'd be better off using nationalize when discussing the post office & teh military.
parks can fairly well be called socialist when placed under federal authority (although, in all fairness, I do prefer national parks to state parks. Fewer restricitons)
- Status