35 soul-crushing facts about American income inequality

[danielpalos]

I have to stay relevant to my point and arguments; unlike those of the opposing view.

This is socialism:

Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers--The Federalist Number 2

Capitalism has no such requirement.

Thus, Government is Socialism.

 

[bedowin62]

I have to stay relevant to my point and arguments; unlike those of the opposing view.

This is socialism:

Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers--The Federalist Number 2

Capitalism has no such requirement.

Thus, Government is Socialism.

um; no you dont

because your premise is absurd
and pointless and a comparison of two different things; an economic system and a political systen

thanks for playing though

 

[bedowin62]

I have to stay relevant to my point and arguments; unlike those of the opposing view.

This is socialism:

Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers--The Federalist Number 2

Capitalism has no such requirement.

Thus, Government is Socialism.

this is socialism??

no you retard; something isnt what you say it is, BECAUSE you say it is.

 

[bedowin62]

your article concerns the dangers of foreign powers and has nothing to do with socialism

 

[Uncensored2008]

I have to stay relevant to my point and arguments; unlike those of the opposing view.

This is socialism:

Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers--The Federalist Number 2

Capitalism has no such requirement.

Thus, Government is Socialism.

LOL

You're a fucking retard. You've destroyed every brain cell you once had.

 

[boedicca]

I have to stay relevant to my point and arguments; unlike those of the opposing view.

This is socialism:

Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers--The Federalist Number 2

Capitalism has no such requirement.

Thus, Government is Socialism.

Wrong. In Socialism, one has no rights to cede in the first place.

 

[danielpalos]

Just the right being clueless and Causeless and proving it with nothing but diversion. How much combined education do y'all have? If, as is claimed by some, that i failed primary education, then i do have reason to appeal to simple ignorance. Not so with Persons who completed tertiary education....

 

[bedowin62]

Just the right being clueless and Causeless and proving it with nothing but diversion. How much combined education do y'all have? If, as is claimed by some, that i failed primary education, then i do have reason to appeal to simple ignorance. Not so with Persons who completed tertiary education....

it's tough when you're debating someone not mature enough to admit he's wrong. all he does is say you are the clueless one when in fact his argument is so easily rebutted it's pathetic. He's quoting a Federalist Paper written in 1787, that deals with the dangers of foreign powers, and flat out said of it "This is socialism"

 

[bedowin62]

it doesnt matter if you have a doctorate degree; nothing you have said makes a lick of sense.

arrogance isnt intelligence, nor is mental illness

 

[danielpalos]

Here is the argument:

This is socialism:

Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers--The Federalist Number 2

Capitalism has no such requirement.

Thus, Government is Socialism.

Any Thing more than fallacy from the clueless and Causeless Right?

 

[bedowin62]

Here is the argument:

This is socialism:

Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers--The Federalist Number 2

Capitalism has no such requirement.

Thus, Government is Socialism.

Any Thing more than fallacy from the clueless and Causeless Right?

NON SEQUITUR

try again

 

[bedowin62]

CAPITALISM: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods



SOCIALISM: A POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC THEORY of social organization

try again

 

[Bombur]

Socialism begins with the desire of some to rule over others, and the desire of others to live without the responsibility for their own lives.

This is really not true. Socialism begins with an attempt to give power to everyone so they are not ruled over by others. It is also a system that is based on everyone needing to take responsibility for their own lives.

Your understanding of socialism seems to come from modern politics more than a real understanding of it as a political philosophy.

Socialism can be implemented in many different ways and there can be many different versions of it. Socialism can also adapt over time.

A socialist form of government may lead to someone coming to power that simply wants to rule over others but that is also true of Democracy.

 

[bedowin62]

Socialism begins with the desire of some to rule over others, and the desire of others to live without the responsibility for their own lives.

This is really not true. Socialism begins with an attempt to give power to everyone so they are not ruled over by others. It is also a system that is based on everyone needing to take responsibility for their own lives.

Your understanding of socialism seems to come from modern politics more than a real understanding of it as a political philosophy.

Socialism can be implemented in many different ways and there can be many different versions of it. Socialism can also adapt over time.

A socialist form of government may lead to someone coming to power that simply wants to rule over others but that is also true of Democracy.

yup; just more true of socialism

 

[Bombur]

CAPITALISM: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods



SOCIALISM: A POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC THEORY of social organization

try again

I am not sure I even understand your argument honestly. If you want to define socialism as absolute ownership of all means of production then that is fine but what would you call it if the government owns some of the means of production or has complete ownership of certain means of production or whatever mix you can think of?

If socialism is an absolute then there is very little reason to discuss socialism at all. If socialism includes instances where there is a mix then all major capitalist nations have some mix of socialism and capitalism. I am not overly concerned which definition of socialism you use, it is just best if you are all consistent.

 

[Bombur]

Socialism begins with the desire of some to rule over others, and the desire of others to live without the responsibility for their own lives.

This is really not true. Socialism begins with an attempt to give power to everyone so they are not ruled over by others. It is also a system that is based on everyone needing to take responsibility for their own lives.

Your understanding of socialism seems to come from modern politics more than a real understanding of it as a political philosophy.

Socialism can be implemented in many different ways and there can be many different versions of it. Socialism can also adapt over time.

A socialist form of government may lead to someone coming to power that simply wants to rule over others but that is also true of Democracy.

yup; just more true of socialism

It is most true of certain situations as much as socialism itself. When the people lack power they are far more likely to give their power to a tyrant.

When you see nations moving towards a mix of socialism and capitalism gradually there can be a shift of power away from concentrated power. This means that more people have power.

 

[bedowin62]

CAPITALISM: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods



SOCIALISM: A POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC THEORY of social organization

try again

I am not sure I even understand your argument honestly. If you want to define socialism as absolute ownership of all means of production then that is fine but what would you call it if the government owns some of the means of production or has complete ownership of certain means of production or whatever mix you can think of?

If socialism is an absolute then there is very little reason to discuss socialism at all. If socialism includes instances where there is a mix then all major capitalist nations have some mix of socialism and capitalism. I am not overly concerned which definition of socialism you use, it is just best if you are all consistent.

why do you seek consistency when there isnt even one completely accepted definition of something?

you're stretching to find something and it isnt making you look good

 

[bedowin62]

Socialism begins with the desire of some to rule over others, and the desire of others to live without the responsibility for their own lives.

This is really not true. Socialism begins with an attempt to give power to everyone so they are not ruled over by others. It is also a system that is based on everyone needing to take responsibility for their own lives.

Your understanding of socialism seems to come from modern politics more than a real understanding of it as a political philosophy.

Socialism can be implemented in many different ways and there can be many different versions of it. Socialism can also adapt over time.

A socialist form of government may lead to someone coming to power that simply wants to rule over others but that is also true of Democracy.

yup; just more true of socialism

It is most true of certain situations as much as socialism itself. When the people lack power they are far more likely to give their power to a tyrant.

When you see nations moving towards a mix of socialism and capitalism gradually there can be a shift of power away from concentrated power. This means that more people have power.

ahhh; maybe you're thinkig of the european socialist democracies??

pretty sure you can ask greece and others how empowered they feel right about now

 

[bedowin62]

and i never said anything, either one, was an absolute

 

[Bombur]

CAPITALISM: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods



SOCIALISM: A POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC THEORY of social organization

try again

I am not sure I even understand your argument honestly. If you want to define socialism as absolute ownership of all means of production then that is fine but what would you call it if the government owns some of the means of production or has complete ownership of certain means of production or whatever mix you can think of?

If socialism is an absolute then there is very little reason to discuss socialism at all. If socialism includes instances where there is a mix then all major capitalist nations have some mix of socialism and capitalism. I am not overly concerned which definition of socialism you use, it is just best if you are all consistent.

why do you seek consistency when there isnt even one completely accepted definition of something?

you're stretching to find something and it isnt making you look good

If you take the less specific definition where socialism can mean a mix of ownership then your previous argument doesn't make much sense to me. I am not concerned about you using a completely accepted definition. I was pointing out the need for consistency in your use of the word.

Either way you seemed stuck in a pointless argument and my comments can help get you out of it or not.