Why do you feel socialism is bad?

[CPA2]

I believe in minimizing myself as a target for discrimination lawsuits. On the other hand, I know that I am discriminated in the workforce because of my age; however, if an employer is smart, I will never be able to prove it.

Why do we need discrimination laws? We have 6% of the world’s population, 25% of the world’s prison population and 40% of the world’s lawyers. Doesn’t that tell you that this law making business is out of control? People are in jail for nonviolent crimes that were not in existence when I was growing up. The only law that I want is the sunset law. Eliminate all laws and start all over again. I am for throwing the baby out with the bathwater if the baby is Rosemary’s baby (socialism).

 

[sedonaman]

… People are in jail for nonviolent crimes that were not in existence when I was growing up. The only law that I want is the sunset law. Eliminate all laws and start all over again. I am for throwing the baby out with the bathwater if the baby is Rosemary’s baby (socialism).

While I agree that this law-making business is out of control, and your comment about socialism, I don’t think the only laws there should be are anti-violence laws. If there were only anti-violence laws, thieves could burglarize your house while you were away, and it wouldn’t be illegal. Do you want that? Then there are non-violent activities that lead to violence by their very nature. Wherever there are big bucks involved, the inevitable conflict will result in violence.

If we were to start over, where would we begin?

 

[jimpres]

If we were to start over, where would we begin?

We would start with the Constitution and not get away from it like the progressives want.

 

[sedonaman]

We would start with the Constitution and not get away from it like the progressives want.

Fair enough, but the progressives control the Supreme Court, and the Constitution is what the Court says it is.

 

[jimpres]

We need to make better choices when we vote…
We only have ourselves to blame.

 

[wabrams]

Fair enough, but the progressives control the Supreme Court, and the Constitution is what the Court says it is.

Which is sad, b/c the founders didn’t set-up the SCOTUS to interpret the Constitution. It is something we have unfortunately progresses too.

 

[sedonaman]

We need to make better choices when we vote…
We only have ourselves to blame.

Well, this is true. However, here is the situation:Pathological Politics

“…Because voters are rationally ignorant (the costs of gaining particular kinds of information are greater than the benefits since one vote is essentially meaningless), politicians must employ a language designed to evoke emotion – enough emotion to motivate the right people to turn out and vote. Thus, politicians rarely speak with precise meanings, marginal calculations, or logical reasoning; instead they manipulate affect, raw emotions, group identifications, and even hatred, envy, and threats. Because premature commitment to an issue can cause one to end up in a minority position, successful politicians equivocate, hint, exaggerate, procrastinate, ‘straddle fences,’ adopt code words, and speak in non-sequiturs. Understanding the politician is therefore extremely frustrating for those who value precise statements. But note that this problem is not the fault of the politician; it is rooted in the rational ignorance of voters, the distribution of conflicting sentiments among voters, and the nature of collective endeavor. What all this means is clear: Political communication is rarely conducive to rational or efficient allocation of scarce resources. This does not mean that the individual politicians are irrational in their choice of language and symbolic activities. Waving the flag and kissing babies are practiced because of their tactical value in an activity that is at once a rational game and a morality play; in that conjunction lies the endless fascination and frustration of politics.”

Beyond Politics, by Mitchell & Simmons

We also have the problem of how people are manipulated. For example, during the last campaign, 0bama kept saying “change” without ever defining what he intended it to be. This was on purpose: it was left up to the individual to read into the statements what change they wanted and would naturally assume that is what he meant. I will admit, though, that it doesn’t take much political savoir faire to realize and ask what “change” means.

 

[jimpres]

You are right I took his words to mean fundamentally change America. And since he is associated with many socialist I figured that is where he wanted to take us. He is still trying to do that in my mind.
Have had a family member spend and spend I know you can not spend your way to wealth.
And mathematically it is impossible. But if you can print money well???

 

[Ignatius]

Hello there! I’m a supporter of the United States becoming a socialist democracy, and having systems such as socialized health care.

Every government service is a dismal failure, from the DMV to the Post office they are all running in the red. That means fees must be increased. The government is totally inept and incapable of operating anything effectively. If the government takes over health care, you will have all of the heart and sympathy of the IRS and the efficiency
of the DMV.

 

[sedonaman]

… I took his words to mean fundamentally change America. …

Was he going to scrap the Constitution and replace it with something else, or nothing at all? Just what does “fundamentally change America” supposed to mean ? Make the U.S. a monarchy? A dictatorship? Or what?

You see? It can mean whatever the hearer wants it to mean.

 

[jimpres]

Exactly it can mean anything but the events that are occurring are leaning toward socialism.
When the government gets to large it will fail. And this admin is increasing the size of the government.

 

[tjm190]

Our inner cities are stong and vibrant. So are many other country’s. We have suburbs too after WWII but our inner cities did not decline.

Come to downtown Toronto, see the stores, the shopping malls, the plays, the museums, the hotels, the concerts and sports events. Beautiful beautiful place! ( I used to live there)

I’m aware- other nations, while they did develop suburbs, did not see the mass exodus from the cities that America did, and as such did not have crime havens popping up. Meaning what? That socialism vs. capitalism has no bearing on the scenario.

 

[tjm190]

These are terrible symptoms which appear in capitalist societies, but tend to disappear as socialism makes inroads.

People wanting to move and rent out their old homes is terrible? Does socialism prevent this?

 

[jimpres]

Some interesting reading on socialism.

thefreemanonline.org/featured/why-socialism-failed/

 

[sedonaman]

Exactly it can mean anything but the events that are occurring are leaning toward socialism.
When the government gets to large it will fail. And this admin is increasing the size of the government.

Agreed, but I don’t think the events are just occurring; I think they are caused.

 

[sedonaman]

The burden of proof is on the advocate of change. Therefore, those here in favor of socialism have to prove that it is preferable to capitalism. I challenge you, therefore, to analyze The Economic Organization of a P.O.W. Camp
by R.A. Radford, from Economica, November, 1945, and explain what would be different about the camp’s economic activity if a socialist took over.

Others are welcome to read it as well for their further edification.

 

[jimpres]

Since I had relatives in Stutthof the organization was to control the prisoners. They tried to survive and live another day. Progressivism wants to eliminate the undesirables. This dates back to the 1920. Hitler put it to use. History will repeat itself if we do not learn from it.

 

[CPA2]

The burden of proof is on the advocate of change. Therefore, those here in favor of socialism have to prove that it is preferable to capitalism. I challenge you, therefore, to analyze The Economic Organization of a P.O.W. Camp
by R.A. Radford, from Economica, November, 1945, and explain what would be different about the camp’s economic activity if a socialist took over.

Others are welcome to read it as well for their further edification.

I remember the POW example from economics class in college. Money was so importnat that the prisoners reinvented the concept. It was a wonderful study that shows how scarce resources are allocated using cigarettes as money in a free market system.

 

[Seeker100]

I’m aware- other nations, while they did develop suburbs, did not see the mass exodus from the cities that America did, and as such did not have crime havens popping up. Meaning what? That socialism vs. capitalism has no bearing on the scenario.

Your crime havens pop up where people are oppressed by society. When the system is against a portion of the society something is going to give.

Give everyone their dignity as human beings and watch your crime rate drop.

 

[Seeker100]

People wanting to move and rent out their old homes is terrible? Does socialism prevent this?

Come to Canada! Our highrise appartments in the down town are being rented and sold faster than they can be built and at prices that basically only the quite weathy can afford.