How Can You Be A Socialist….

[WillMunny]

I'm against socialism for a fairly simple reason: I prefer low taxes and a minimum of government bureaucracy in my life. Believe it or not, I'm a big boy who doesn't need any government to babysit me.

 

[regent]

I'm against socialism for a fairly simple reason: I prefer low taxes and a minimum of government bureaucracy in my life. Believe it or not, I'm a big boy who doesn't need any government to babysit me.

Will you always be a big boy and never need help? The problem is people change, and someday you may be just another old sick boy. But not only do people change but economies change. A number of all those proud big boys in 1929 ended up in a bread line, scared and hungry.

 

[bripat9643]

When did I consent to this "contract?"

Renounce your citizenship, Person of the People.

I'll take that to mean I never consented to it, so it isn't binding on me.

You were born with it. You have to renounce it and move to an AnCap, even illegals have to pay taxes in the US.

I never heard of a contract that I consented to before I was born.

I can't see any posts from danielpalos, because he is an idiot, so I ignored him. But, this is a funny discussion.

When a child is born with an obligation to work for the benefit of other people, we call that child a slave. The Marxists try to sugar coat it and make it sound like a noble responsibility, but the result is the same.

The proponents of communism and its resulting socialist state (yes, it works just the opposite of the way Marx described it) misuse and bastardize the "social contract" theory. Social contract is simply the agreement of individuals (implicitly) to surrender some of their natural freedoms to a government in exchange for that government's protection of their remaining freedoms. That's it.

The Marxists claim that we have surrendered our all of our rights to property to their State, in exchange for (I presume) protection from economic failure. Assuming (but never conceding) that is true, a serious question remains. In the minds of Marxists (or Socialists) have we surrendered our right to revoke our consent?

The so-called "social contract" is bullshit. It's how statists justify their desire to plunder and enslave you.

 

[regent]

Renounce your citizenship, Person of the People.

I'll take that to mean I never consented to it, so it isn't binding on me.

You were born with it. You have to renounce it and move to an AnCap, even illegals have to pay taxes in the US.

I never heard of a contract that I consented to before I was born.

I can't see any posts from danielpalos, because he is an idiot, so I ignored him. But, this is a funny discussion.

When a child is born with an obligation to work for the benefit of other people, we call that child a slave. The Marxists try to sugar coat it and make it sound like a noble responsibility, but the result is the same.

The proponents of communism and its resulting socialist state (yes, it works just the opposite of the way Marx described it) misuse and bastardize the "social contract" theory. Social contract is simply the agreement of individuals (implicitly) to surrender some of their natural freedoms to a government in exchange for that government's protection of their remaining freedoms. That's it.

The Marxists claim that we have surrendered our all of our rights to property to their State, in exchange for (I presume) protection from economic failure. Assuming (but never conceding) that is true, a serious question remains. In the minds of Marxists (or Socialists) have we surrendered our right to revoke our consent?

The so-called "social contract" is bullshit. It's how statists justify their desire to plunder and enslave you.

Does obeying the Constitution make one a statist? How about stopping at red lights?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Some of us have jobs. You'll have to wait, politi-hick, for us to allot you some of our precious time.

The OP has admitted on the forum that she doesn't work. She is apparently well off on account of the labors of others. Just my speculation.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Only capitalism is moral.....socialism, and every iteration of coercion and force by government, is immoral.

Immoral to the extent that it has resulted in the slaughter of well over 100 million men, women and children.

Capitalism requires that the entrepreneur serve his fellow man.

She just proclaimed slavery moral. Big surprise.

Bud , you need to check history and while slavery in the US was at first indentured servitude, it was Whites first then Blacks, but it was a black man who turn servitude into slavery.

View attachment 170764

That's fascinating baloney but has nothing to do with what I posted.

btw, indentured servants consented to their 'slavery' by contract. I've yet to see the contracts that Africans signed when they were abducted.

 

[danielpalos]

Renounce your citizenship, Person of the People.

I'll take that to mean I never consented to it, so it isn't binding on me.

You were born with it. You have to renounce it and move to an AnCap, even illegals have to pay taxes in the US.

I never heard of a contract that I consented to before I was born.

I can't see any posts from danielpalos, because he is an idiot, so I ignored him. But, this is a funny discussion.

When a child is born with an obligation to work for the benefit of other people, we call that child a slave. The Marxists try to sugar coat it and make it sound like a noble responsibility, but the result is the same.

The proponents of communism and its resulting socialist state (yes, it works just the opposite of the way Marx described it) misuse and bastardize the "social contract" theory. Social contract is simply the agreement of individuals (implicitly) to surrender some of their natural freedoms to a government in exchange for that government's protection of their remaining freedoms. That's it.

The Marxists claim that we have surrendered our all of our rights to property to their State, in exchange for (I presume) protection from economic failure. Assuming (but never conceding) that is true, a serious question remains. In the minds of Marxists (or Socialists) have we surrendered our right to revoke our consent?

The so-called "social contract" is bullshit. It's how statists justify their desire to plunder and enslave you.

Right wingers don't know what they are talking about.

Our social contract is our federal Constitution for the Union.

 

[Rustic]

I'm against socialism for a fairly simple reason: I prefer low taxes and a minimum of government bureaucracy in my life. Believe it or not, I'm a big boy who doesn't need any government to babysit me.

Will you always be a big boy and never need help? The problem is people change, and someday you may be just another old sick boy. But not only do people change but economies change. A number of all those proud big boys in 1929 ended up in a bread line, scared and hungry.

The federal government is certainly not a savior

 

[bripat9643]

I'll take that to mean I never consented to it, so it isn't binding on me.

You were born with it. You have to renounce it and move to an AnCap, even illegals have to pay taxes in the US.

I never heard of a contract that I consented to before I was born.

I can't see any posts from danielpalos, because he is an idiot, so I ignored him. But, this is a funny discussion.

When a child is born with an obligation to work for the benefit of other people, we call that child a slave. The Marxists try to sugar coat it and make it sound like a noble responsibility, but the result is the same.

The proponents of communism and its resulting socialist state (yes, it works just the opposite of the way Marx described it) misuse and bastardize the "social contract" theory. Social contract is simply the agreement of individuals (implicitly) to surrender some of their natural freedoms to a government in exchange for that government's protection of their remaining freedoms. That's it.

The Marxists claim that we have surrendered our all of our rights to property to their State, in exchange for (I presume) protection from economic failure. Assuming (but never conceding) that is true, a serious question remains. In the minds of Marxists (or Socialists) have we surrendered our right to revoke our consent?

The so-called "social contract" is bullshit. It's how statists justify their desire to plunder and enslave you.

Right wingers don't know what they are talking about.

Our social contract is our federal Constitution for the Union.

I just proved that the Constitution is not a contract.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Some of us have jobs. You'll have to wait, politi-hick, for us to allot you some of our precious time.

The OP has admitted on the forum that she doesn't work. She is apparently well off on account of the labors of others. Just my speculation.

I make over $200,000 a year in dividends which are taxed at around 5%. Am I well off on the account of the labors of others? You betcha. Why don't you have dividends coming in so you too can profit off the work of others? Because you are a stupid lazy fuck, who wants the government to take care of you, and punish me for what I have EARNED.. Worthless fuckers, all of you liberals.

 

[danielpalos]

You were born with it. You have to renounce it and move to an AnCap, even illegals have to pay taxes in the US.

I never heard of a contract that I consented to before I was born.

I can't see any posts from danielpalos, because he is an idiot, so I ignored him. But, this is a funny discussion.

When a child is born with an obligation to work for the benefit of other people, we call that child a slave. The Marxists try to sugar coat it and make it sound like a noble responsibility, but the result is the same.

The proponents of communism and its resulting socialist state (yes, it works just the opposite of the way Marx described it) misuse and bastardize the "social contract" theory. Social contract is simply the agreement of individuals (implicitly) to surrender some of their natural freedoms to a government in exchange for that government's protection of their remaining freedoms. That's it.

The Marxists claim that we have surrendered our all of our rights to property to their State, in exchange for (I presume) protection from economic failure. Assuming (but never conceding) that is true, a serious question remains. In the minds of Marxists (or Socialists) have we surrendered our right to revoke our consent?

The so-called "social contract" is bullshit. It's how statists justify their desire to plunder and enslave you.

Right wingers don't know what they are talking about.

Our social contract is our federal Constitution for the Union.

I just proved that the Constitution is not a contract.

With what? I just "proved it is."

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

It is truly a puzzlement as to how little knowledge and experience influence the Leftists, the Democrat voter, the Liberal.



Just one example of what happens when the command and control sort of economy is cast off in favor of capitalism, the corollary to human nature:

"In 1939 Finland and its southern neighbor Estonia were identical in many ways. Then, in 1940, the USSR occupied Estonia, and it remained under communist rule for 50 years. Here are the words of Mart Laar, Estonia’s former prime minister, stating what communism did to his country:

“Look at what happened in this context during these fifty years and then you can understand how terrible the communist system really is. And it’s not only in the economy. This is in all fields of life—the social structure, cultural standards, education, healthcare, or whatever. When you compare those two countries, which were exactly the same in 1939[,] in 1989, then you will find what communism really means, and how bad it is. Our economy, our nature, and our environment was [sic] destroyed.”




The conclusion:

Their economic and social differences grew so large that no informed person could honestly dispute the pernicious effect that communist rule had on occupied Estonia."
Finland and Estonia

In 1991 Estonia became capitalist, and experienced massive economic growth. They discovered the errors of progressive class warfare.




When will the ersatz socialists, Democrats/Liberals, learn this lesson???

Ever?

Communism is i

Only capitalism is moral.....socialism, and every iteration of coercion and force by government, is immoral.

Immoral to the extent that it has resulted in the slaughter of well over 100 million men, women and children.

Capitalism requires that the entrepreneur serve his fellow man.

Fascism is what's right with the World.

Capitalism, and Communism are garbage.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Some of us have jobs. You'll have to wait, politi-hick, for us to allot you some of our precious time.

The OP has admitted on the forum that she doesn't work. She is apparently well off on account of the labors of others. Just my speculation.

I make over $200,000 a year in dividends which are taxed at around 5%. Am I well off on the account of the labors of others? You betcha. Why don't you have dividends coming in so you too can profit off the work of others? Because you are a stupid lazy fuck, who wants the government to take care of you, and punish me for what I have EARNED.. Worthless fuckers, all of you liberals.

lol, I ask this guy just to define a socialist, and eventually he ends up with the above loony post.

Can't ANY of you say what it takes to be a socialist by definition?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Some of us have jobs. You'll have to wait, politi-hick, for us to allot you some of our precious time.

The OP has admitted on the forum that she doesn't work. She is apparently well off on account of the labors of others. Just my speculation.

I make over $200,000 a year in dividends which are taxed at around 5%. Am I well off on the account of the labors of others? You betcha. Why don't you have dividends coming in so you too can profit off the work of others? Because you are a stupid lazy fuck, who wants the government to take care of you, and punish me for what I have EARNED.. Worthless fuckers, all of you liberals.

lol, I ask this guy just to define a socialist, and eventually he ends up with the above loony post.

Can't ANY of you say what it takes to be a socialist by definition?

The definition of socialist

Anyone who advocates or practices socialism.

 

[PoliticalChic]

When did I consent to this "contract?"

Renounce your citizenship, Person of the People.

I'll take that to mean I never consented to it, so it isn't binding on me.

You were born with it. You have to renounce it and move to an AnCap, even illegals have to pay taxes in the US.

I never heard of a contract that I consented to before I was born.

I can't see any posts from danielpalos, because he is an idiot, so I ignored him. But, this is a funny discussion.

When a child is born with an obligation to work for the benefit of other people, we call that child a slave. The Marxists try to sugar coat it and make it sound like a noble responsibility, but the result is the same.

The proponents of communism and its resulting socialist state (yes, it works just the opposite of the way Marx described it) misuse and bastardize the "social contract" theory. Social contract is simply the agreement of individuals (implicitly) to surrender some of their natural freedoms to a government in exchange for that government's protection of their remaining freedoms. That's it.

The Marxists claim that we have surrendered our all of our rights to property to their State, in exchange for (I presume) protection from economic failure. Assuming (but never conceding) that is true, a serious question remains. In the minds of Marxists (or Socialists) have we surrendered our right to revoke our consent?

Hegel, Marx, Hitler....or Democrats.....the Germanic thought that gave birth to Progressivism, all stemmed from this:

"The German state is the Volksgemeinschaft, or “Peoples Community,” where the individual has no rights, only duties."
Hayek on the Socialist Roots of Nazism | Byron Chiado

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm against socialism for a fairly simple reason: I prefer low taxes and a minimum of government bureaucracy in my life. Believe it or not, I'm a big boy who doesn't need any government to babysit me.

The single most obtrusive barrier to accumulating wealth is taxes.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm against socialism for a fairly simple reason: I prefer low taxes and a minimum of government bureaucracy in my life. Believe it or not, I'm a big boy who doesn't need any government to babysit me.

Will you always be a big boy and never need help? The problem is people change, and someday you may be just another old sick boy. But not only do people change but economies change. A number of all those proud big boys in 1929 ended up in a bread line, scared and hungry.

1. "Will you always be a big boy and never need help?"

Do you have life insurance?

Savings?

2. "A number of all those proud big boys in 1929 ended up in a bread line,..."

Are you referring to the economic downturn that Franklin Roosevelt engineered into a depression, one that lasted five times longer than any other such downturn in American history?

 

[Mac1958]

I'm against socialism for a fairly simple reason: I prefer low taxes and a minimum of government bureaucracy in my life. Believe it or not, I'm a big boy who doesn't need any government to babysit me.

I'm glad that you use words like "low" and "minimum".

That reflects the fact that this entire issue lies on a continuum, and that there will not be any such condition as "socialist" or "not socialist".

The task, then, is to find the most workable point of equilibrium, and not in screaming platitudes.
.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Renounce your citizenship, Person of the People.

I'll take that to mean I never consented to it, so it isn't binding on me.

You were born with it. You have to renounce it and move to an AnCap, even illegals have to pay taxes in the US.

I never heard of a contract that I consented to before I was born.

I can't see any posts from danielpalos, because he is an idiot, so I ignored him. But, this is a funny discussion.

When a child is born with an obligation to work for the benefit of other people, we call that child a slave. The Marxists try to sugar coat it and make it sound like a noble responsibility, but the result is the same.

The proponents of communism and its resulting socialist state (yes, it works just the opposite of the way Marx described it) misuse and bastardize the "social contract" theory. Social contract is simply the agreement of individuals (implicitly) to surrender some of their natural freedoms to a government in exchange for that government's protection of their remaining freedoms. That's it.

The Marxists claim that we have surrendered our all of our rights to property to their State, in exchange for (I presume) protection from economic failure. Assuming (but never conceding) that is true, a serious question remains. In the minds of Marxists (or Socialists) have we surrendered our right to revoke our consent?

The so-called "social contract" is bullshit. It's how statists justify their desire to plunder and enslave you.

Said 'Social Contract' was, in fact, the doctrine of the French Revolution that demanded all march lock-step with government policy,.....or be put to death.

Although attributed to Rousseau, it was Diderot who gave the model for totalitarianism of reason: “We must reason about all things,” and anyone who ‘refuses to seek out the truth’ thereby renounces his human nature and “should be treated by the rest of his species as a wild beast.” So, once ‘truth’ is determined, anyone who doesn’t accept it was “either insane or wicked and morally evil.” It is not the individual who has the “ right to decide about the nature of right and wrong,” but only “the human race,” expressed as the general will." Himmelfarb, “The Roads to Modernity,” p. 167-68

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'll take that to mean I never consented to it, so it isn't binding on me.

You were born with it. You have to renounce it and move to an AnCap, even illegals have to pay taxes in the US.

I never heard of a contract that I consented to before I was born.

I can't see any posts from danielpalos, because he is an idiot, so I ignored him. But, this is a funny discussion.

When a child is born with an obligation to work for the benefit of other people, we call that child a slave. The Marxists try to sugar coat it and make it sound like a noble responsibility, but the result is the same.

The proponents of communism and its resulting socialist state (yes, it works just the opposite of the way Marx described it) misuse and bastardize the "social contract" theory. Social contract is simply the agreement of individuals (implicitly) to surrender some of their natural freedoms to a government in exchange for that government's protection of their remaining freedoms. That's it.

The Marxists claim that we have surrendered our all of our rights to property to their State, in exchange for (I presume) protection from economic failure. Assuming (but never conceding) that is true, a serious question remains. In the minds of Marxists (or Socialists) have we surrendered our right to revoke our consent?

The so-called "social contract" is bullshit. It's how statists justify their desire to plunder and enslave you.

Does obeying the Constitution make one a statist? How about stopping at red lights?

Gads, you're a dunce.