America was tricked into anti-Communism

[mapleoak]

Nobody denies that feeding the hungry is a noble cause. But when it is used as the solution to poverty, as opposed to the development of an equitable society, then you have a problem.

Methinks the reason mapeloak prefers soup kitchens to fair wealth distribution is that a soup kitchen forces people to crawl, to show their gratitude to him.

Is this why you don’t help out at the soup kitchens, because you don’t want to be a big bad monster who looks down at people as low lifes coming in to get some food from you. Probably working in a soup kitchen would actually do you some good as it would teach humility and (get this) self sacrifice rather than pride.

He gets to look them square in the eye, and make sure they are not actually homeless and with a mobile phone (Re. statement from Ruthie!?!??!).

I am not quite sure what this is in reference to. However, no, anybody coming in wanting something to eat can eat. Doesn’t matter if they are wearing a suit and tie. Not a good enough reason not to help out.

Somehow this gives him such a nice big fuzzy feeling inside he can justify hording his money to make sure nobody is getting too much without the requisite grovelling.

Actually my money and time makes it to the table. Where is yours, in the bank? Oh, right, you are hording it so you don’t have to appear as the big bad scrooge demanding people prove they are actually poor enough to eat off of your table.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Problem is that people like you want to take away public education, or government funding for education (vouchers). Basically removing access for a large number of children, all because you are being taxed.

Sure, take away the means to become self-sufficient as adults, but help out serving the same group soup in a shelter. Nice.

www.schoolandstate.org

 

[thomfra]

Is this why you don’t help out at the soup kitchens, because you don’t want to be a big bad monster who looks down at people as low lifes coming in to get some food from you. Probably working in a soup kitchen would actually do you some good as it would teach humility and (get this) self sacrifice rather than pride…

The concept of a soup kitchens don’t really exist where I live. Do you know why? Because people just accept that they pay a little extra tax to give all people a half decent standard of living, and a fair wage is paid for a fair days work. It’s called Social Democracy.

Actually my money and time makes it to the table. Where is yours, in the bank?

Sorry bud. I won’t take the bait. Usually it is only those who are in desperate need for recognition (even in an anonymous internet forum!?!?!?!) who sprout off about:

a) Academic qualifications
b) The extent of personal charitable donations.

Neither of the above can be verified - conveniently enough.
The mere fact that you seem to jump at the chance to mention this without prompting speaks volumes.

 

[mapleoak]

The concept of a soup kitchens don’t really exist where I live. Do you know why? Because people just accept that they pay a little extra tax to give all people a half decent standard of living, and a fair wage is paid for a fair days work. It’s called Social Democracy.

You don’t need soup kitchens where you live. How fortunate of you to not know of poverty where you live. Everybody just accepts that they get a free half decent living from the little extra tax that you pay in your socialist county.

Sorry bud. I won’t take the bait. Usually it is only those who are in desperate need for recognition (even in an anonymous internet forum!?!?!?!) who sprout off about:

a) Academic qualifications
b) The extent of personal charitable donations.

Neither of the above can be verified - conveniently enough.
The mere fact that you seem to jump at the chance to mention this without prompting speaks volumes.

Yep. Just as I thought. Let’s bash those who are actually doing something to help the poor when we feel guilty for not doing anything because the government is supposed to be doing it for us. Apparently the government doesn’t care much about the people needing something to eat tonight where I live. Maybe they should bus them all to your county where there are no soup kitchens?

 

[thomfra]

How fortunate of you to not know of poverty where you live. Everybody just accepts that they get a free half decent living from the little extra tax that you pay in your socialist county.

err…yeah…That’s the point mapleoak.

You pay some more tax, and you don’t have people living in cardboard boxes in supposedly “developed” countries… Works well. Like I said before. It’s called Social Democracy. “The Welfare state”. Google it!

 

[Oscarthecat]

err…yeah…That’s the point mapleoak.

You pay some more tax, and you don’t have people living in cardboard boxes in supposedly “developed” countries… Works well. Like I said before. It’s called Social Democracy. “The Welfare state”. Google it!

Are you back to this again?
You really can’t see the forest for the trees, can you.

Your comments, again and again, demonstrate your fervent belief that individual rights are subordinate to government policy.

But like Reagan said- government isn’t the solution, government is the problem.

History has proven time and time again that a government is only as secure and reliable as the will of the people to keep their leaders in check. Societies crumble shortly after people trade their liberty and self sufficiency for the false promise of government security and guarantees. This pattern was just as obvious in the feudal system as it is in the modern welfare state. Feudal lords subjugated their “constituents” by demanding high taxes in exchange for the often empty promise of protection from outside aggressors, and the modern welfare state demands high taxes in exchange for the empty promises of protection from our modern fears- personal financial loss, poor health, second hand smoke, basic cable, crazy cat hoarders, transfats, or whatever else you can come up with.

Under the failed feudal system, people believed themselves to be safe and secure right up until they were ultimately betrayed or abandoned by the inbred, incompetent, and corrupt royals entrusted with their protection. Likewise, with the failed welfare state, people will just keep believing they are safe right up until their government collapses under its own weight, and the politicians abandon everyone and disappear behind their golden parachutes. The end result is always the same, though- individuals shed off their misguided belief that they don’t have to be responsible for themselves, and they swear that they will never again give up their liberty for the false promise of security. That promise is usually forgotten after a few generations, and the cycle starts again.

So you can provide all the statistics you want, you can make up any measure that pleases you, but like all those before you, you’re celebrating a doomed system at its zenith. When the welfare state implodes, you had better hope that there are enough people left who know how to take care of themselves, because they’re the only ones who will know how to put things back together.

So, like I, and so many others have said, you can keep your great system with all of its many accomplishments. We’re not applauding you, we’re just waving goodbye to another “Great Society.”

Just think about this the next time you are asked to hand over another one of your personal liberties because your government promises to take care you.

 

[thomfra]

So you can provide all the statistics you want…

That about sums up your argument Oscarthecat…

I provide the cold hard facts.

You spew out (or is it “implode”?) rhetoric…

 

[wynnejj]

There is good communism and there is bad. Bad communism is a forced ideology and denies God. Good communism centers itself on the worship of God, and includes a voluntary promise to pool all wealth and share according to the needs of individuals in the community. A monastery is an example of good communism. Good communism is depicted in Act 2, 42-47 describing early Christian communal life. In effect, members of the that community professed that they had contributed their all to the needs of all, in a spirit of “one for all, and all for one” - and all for the glory of God.

But, there is a big “or else”. Ananias and Sapphira were summarily dropped dead at the feet of Saint Peter, without a chance for a last confession. The story of Ananias & Sapphira in Acts 5, 1-11 describes “blasphemy of the Holy Spirit”, the unforgivable sin. In the context of the times, there was a belief that the 2nd coming of Jesus was imminent, so to profess that they had contributed all their wealth to the community voluntarily for the good of the commonwealth, but were in fact holding out despite the prospect of Jesus’s imminent return, meant unequivocally that they were agnostics who were hedging their bets on the truth of Jesus as Lord. It meant inherent un-belief in Jesus as Lord.

The story should be considered at a different level too. What if one enters monastic life only to find that your treasures that you had wholeheartedly contributed for the good of all was used to enforce acceptance of tolerance of practices of homosexuality and murder and worship of a false god & ideology? Obviously, that too is bad communism / socialism. What if this monastery reached out into the world through evangelization and, gained prominence in national affairs through democratic processes and, with the perception of holiness, such a religious cult had gained a majority of their representatives in the House, Senate and Presidency?

Welcome to the monastery of “secular humanism” which separates God from Law, church from state, the soul of the nation from the body politic.

Their agenda: Share the wealth and the filth.

 

[Oscarthecat]

That about sums up your argument Oscarthecat…

I provide the cold hard facts.

You spew out (or is it “implode”?) rhetoric…

That brings up an interesting difference in our positions…

When proponents of methods of mass social control look at society, like socialism, communism and other big government models, they reduce everything and everyone to “cold, hard facts.” They don’t see or care to understand unquantifiable properties, like human freedom and inalientable rights. So when things like that get in the way of their “cold, hard facts,” the easily brush them aside using the most expedient means to achieve their ends. They have no use for rhetoric, because it takes time to change people’s minds- instead, they use force to make people fall into line. This is why you are so intolerant of those who don’t agree with you- because ultimately, you see them as just being in the way of your “cold, hard facts.”

But others understand that human beings living in society with one another are more than the sum of the “cold, hard facts.” When proponents of freedom look at the world, we understand that living in society with others requires us to deal with those factors which can’t be quantified. We understand that the “cold, hard facts” are only a part of finding the greater good.We don’t resent having to engage in dialogue, or needing to come to an understanding of one another’s values. We reject the idea of disregarding individual rights just because it is expedient, or because the “ends” are just. We understand that non-violent tools of persuasion, such as rhetoric, are the best means for encouraging individuals to share our worldview.

So, you can stick to your “cold, hard facts,” but you’re missing the big picture.

 

[Man]

The objective of socialism and communism isn’t simply to protect people rights, but goes far beyond that. It actually redistributes power, especially in the hands of the government, which, so often has a limited world view that rejects other peoples positions. Our government has actually moved in this direction, but cannot.

From an economic perspective, it is not justifiable to take things from people that don’t =need= to be taken. Millions of people starved to death in China and the Ukraine, for instance, because of these this. The government can kill entire communities by demanding what people cannot or should not have to afford.

This is an instance in which the equilibrium between the governments need for resources, and especially those to meet the basic needs of the people has been taken to an extreme, to the point of consolidating all temporal power in the government and infringing on the rights of people to own property.

You don’t put programs in place, just so you can be richer and consume more, such a system is destined to destroy.

 

[cynic]

History has proven time and time again that a government is only as secure and reliable as the will of the people to keep their leaders in check. Societies crumble shortly after people trade their liberty and self sufficiency for the false promise of government security and guarantees. This pattern was just as obvious in the feudal system as it is in the modern welfare state.

The major difference is that in a democracy people are able to vote to determine the extent to which government interferes with liberty, or subsidises the living costs of others. In a feudal system they don’t.

It must infuriate you that the workers still don’t vote for maximum-liberty, zero-government, as you think they should, but they probably just need educating.

 

[bbarrick8383]

The major difference is that in a democracy people are able to vote to determine the extent to which government interferes with liberty, or subsidises the living costs of others. In a feudal system they don’t.

It must infuriate you that the workers still don’t vote for maximum-liberty, zero-government, as you think they should, but they probably just need educating.

In a democracy we hope they go in there and do what they say they will do. Which they normally dont.

It infuriates me.

The Federal Government needs to keep it’s nose out of social services and focus on what it was created for.

The State Government needs to focus on the people of that State. It’s why we have 50 of them, because when one stinks there are 49 others to choose from. People need to be educated.

 

[thomfra]

We understand that non-violent tools of persuasion, such as rhetoric, are the best means for encouraging individuals to share our worldview.

That’s a bit rich from a citizen of a country that has imposed it’s world view in south America and the middle east on numerous occasions (but I digress).

My question is: How exactly are Swedes, or Norwegians, or most of Western Europe “less free” because they pay more tax, and have free education and medical? They have more transparent governments, less poverty, live longer, and are better educated.

May I also re-iterate. That I am talking about social democracy, and the welfare state. Not communism. Not pure socialism. Think “mixed economy”, and you are getting closer.

 

[KingAlfred]

Communism is evil. Never, ever forget that. One of its primary tenets is that religion must be systematically destroyed, because God doesn’t exist. Don’t go there. Stay away from Communism.

 

[Oscarthecat]

The major difference is that in a democracy people are able to vote to determine the extent to which government interferes with liberty, or subsidises the living costs of others. In a feudal system they don’t.

No, in a democracy, 50.1% of the people who get to vote are able to determine the extent to which they are able to use government to interfere with the 49.9% of people who they don’t like.

It must infuriate you that the workers still don’t vote for maximum-liberty, zero-government, as you think they should, but they probably just need educating.

What an odd statement for you to make.

I’m not infuriated when people freely make decisions for themselves, even when I disagree with them.

I just don’t like it when they make decisions that actively hurt people, or when the feel some compulsion to force their bad decisions on everyone else.

So, you can have all the socialism you want, on your own private property, with your socialist comrades.

Just don’t try to make me pay for it, participate in it, or be restricted by it.

In fact, when it all comes tumbling down, I might even offer you a job to help get you back on your feet.

 

[cynic]

I’m not a socialist, and you are infuriated when people vote in governments that make you pay, and restrict your freedom. That’s obvious

Keep implying that only the ‘leeches’ - welfare recipients, civil servants and politicians - are the ones that vote for a mixed socialist/capitalist style of government, but it isn’t true. Almost every working, self-sufficient individual voted for that aswell. Therefore they must be misguided, and in need of the benefit of your wisdom

 

[bbarrick8383]

That’s a bit rich from a citizen of a country that has imposed it’s world view in south America and the middle east on numerous occasions (but I digress).

My question is: How exactly are Swedes, or Norwegians, or most of Western Europe “less free” because they pay more tax, and have free education and medical? They have more transparent governments, less poverty, live longer, and are better educated.

May I also re-iterate. That I am talking about social democracy, and the welfare state. Not communism. Not pure socialism. Think “mixed economy”, and you are getting closer.

Population of Sweden 10 million, give or take.
Population of U.S. 300 million, give or take.
Population of Texas 23 million…

Sweden has a monarchy, the king is nothing more than a symbolic figure…

The U.S. actually would be set up in a similar way if it were done correctly…

The Federal Government would be kind of like the monarchy, leave everyone alone economically. Make certain laws, foreign affairs and national defense. Taxes should only go to what they need them for…not fresh flowers every single day for every single congressman or woman. Not a 757 because Mrs. Pelosi’s could not make it to California without refueling…

The States should be set up on a more of a social democracy. That way when Michigan stinks like it does now, they can move to the South and start over forcing Michigan’s crooked Democrats which now have power in the White House as well to rethink what they are doing.

 

[thomfra]

Communism is evil.

You’re preaching to the converted .

 

[RobbyS]

That’s a bit rich from a citizen of a country that has imposed it’s world view in south America and the middle east on numerous occasions (but I digress).

My question is: How exactly are Swedes, or Norwegians, or most of Western Europe “less free” because they pay more tax, and have free education and medical? They have more transparent governments, less poverty, live longer, and are better educated.

May I also re-iterate. That I am talking about social democracy, and the welfare state. Not communism. Not pure socialism. Think “mixed economy”, and you are getting closer.

Europeans have more regimented lives and have less opportunity to create personal wealth than Americans do. Voluntary organizations are less common, and the Churches are not free because they are more reliant on the State. If you want a perfect model for a socialist state, think of the military. Good things come with the military life but at the cost of personal freedoms. The welfare state is equally paternalistic. In fact, the first historic example is Bismarck’s Germany.

 

[thomfra]

Europeans have more regimented lives

How so?