Socialism and the purpose of government

[Harpy Eagle]

Why did the referee give farmers 32 billion dollars last year?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Ask Roosevelt. He's the one who created the program.

And it was Trump that threw in an extra 12 billion dollars last year...but we all know that was ok because it was Trump

No, it's not OK. I want the program to end.

Didn't the people you voted for give them the money?

Was anarchy on the ballot?

Under anarchy there is no ballot, an anarchist would reject the very idea of a ballot.

 

[dblack]

The debate over whether we should have more, or less, socialism in US government is largely a debate over the purpose of government. Socialists "believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically". That might sound relatively innocuous. But it's a radical claim, one we should consider seriously before indulging a more socialistic government.

The libertarian roots of the United States contradict this belief. In the US, neither society, nor the economy, is run democratically. Each is run collaboratively, voluntarily, by the individuals who make up society. Government merely serves as a "referee". Socialists want government to be the "coach".

No, we want the government to be a referee to keep corporate America from fucking the working man and trashing our environment.

No one wants govenment run companies. This running in circles screaming " OMG OMG OMG Socialism" is an attempt to rile up the ignorant in the same manner it riled you up.

Who said anything about government run companies? You shadow boxing again?

I'm going by what I've been reading at www.dsausa.org. It's fine if you don't agree with them, but they seem like a more reliable authority on socialism than a random yahoo on a message board.

 

[bripat9643]

I don't have a brand of socialism. Anarchism is not socialist in anyway.

You are not claiming to be an anarchists are you?

Yes I am. I've been saying that for 20 years, at least.

You can say it all you like, but an anarchists would not vote for in an election and would not be loyal to a single party like you are

That's bullshit, of course. I vote as an act of self defense. I want to make sure that some socialist nutbag like Bernie or some Nazi like Hillary gets into office. What do you suggest I do, start shooting?

One thing an anarchist would never do is vote Democrat.

an anarchist would never vote period.

They wouldn't? Says who?

Voting is about giving authority to someone and anarchy is the absence or nonrecognition of authority. How can you claim to be an anarchist but then follow the rules set forth by the authority you do not recognize?

Wrong. Voting is simply an exercise in choosing between one gang of scallywags over another. It confers no authority on anyone. The only thing it implies is that you detest 'A' less than you detest 'B.'

Anarchy is the absence of government, period.

That is like being a virgin and a prostitute at the same time

Horseshit.

 

[bripat9643]

Ask Roosevelt. He's the one who created the program.

And it was Trump that threw in an extra 12 billion dollars last year...but we all know that was ok because it was Trump

No, it's not OK. I want the program to end.

Didn't the people you voted for give them the money?

Was anarchy on the ballot?

Under anarchy there is no ballot, an anarchist would reject the very idea of a ballot.

That's true. Do we live under anarchy? Nope. The ballot is used to impost various atrocities on me. Why shouldn't I do everything I can to prevent that? What you're saying is that if I oppose guns being used to enslave me, that I'm a hypocrite if I use them to prevent being enslaved.

Only a moron swallows that logic.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Government is supposed to invest the people’s money back into the shit that matters, the shit the people agree with investing in...

So, when it comes to the purpose of government, you're onboard with the socialists?

Government is supposed to invest the people’s money back into the shit that matters, the shit the people agree with investing in...

So, when it comes to the purpose of government, you're onboard with the socialists?

Pretty much everyone is on-board with their brand of socialism

Negative
Investing our tax dollars in our food source is like investing in infrastructure...Nobody sane sees it as socialism.

 

[dblack]

Government is supposed to invest the people’s money back into the shit that matters, the shit the people agree with investing in...

So, when it comes to the purpose of government, you're onboard with the socialists?

Government is supposed to invest the people’s money back into the shit that matters, the shit the people agree with investing in...

So, when it comes to the purpose of government, you're onboard with the socialists?

Pretty much everyone is on-board with their brand of socialism

Negative
Investing our tax dollars in our food source is like investing in infrastructure...Nobody sane sees it as socialism.

I don't think government should control our food supply.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Government is supposed to invest the people’s money back into the shit that matters, the shit the people agree with investing in...

So, when it comes to the purpose of government, you're onboard with the socialists?

Government is supposed to invest the people’s money back into the shit that matters, the shit the people agree with investing in...

So, when it comes to the purpose of government, you're onboard with the socialists?

Pretty much everyone is on-board with their brand of socialism

Negative
Investing our tax dollars in our food source is like investing in infrastructure...Nobody sane sees it as socialism.

I don't think government should control our food supply.

“Control”?
Definitely not

 

[bripat9643]

Government is supposed to invest the people’s money back into the shit that matters, the shit the people agree with investing in...

So, when it comes to the purpose of government, you're onboard with the socialists?

Government is supposed to invest the people’s money back into the shit that matters, the shit the people agree with investing in...

So, when it comes to the purpose of government, you're onboard with the socialists?

Pretty much everyone is on-board with their brand of socialism

Negative
Investing our tax dollars in our food source is like investing in infrastructure...Nobody sane sees it as socialism.

Paying farmers not to grow food is not an "investment." It's pork.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

And it was Trump that threw in an extra 12 billion dollars last year...but we all know that was ok because it was Trump

No, it's not OK. I want the program to end.

Didn't the people you voted for give them the money?

Was anarchy on the ballot?

Under anarchy there is no ballot, an anarchist would reject the very idea of a ballot.

That's true. Do we live under anarchy? Nope. The ballot is used to impost various atrocities on me. Why shouldn't I do everything I can to prevent that? What you're saying is that if I oppose guns being used to enslave me, that I'm a hypocrite if I use them to prevent being enslaved.

Only a moron swallows that logic.

I am sorry that you do not know what an anarchist is, I tried to explain it to you but you seem just too stupid to grasp it. Anarchist reject authority, they do not embrace it. Seems you are nothing but a Trump sheep trying to hide the fact

 

[bripat9643]

No, it's not OK. I want the program to end.

Didn't the people you voted for give them the money?

Was anarchy on the ballot?

Under anarchy there is no ballot, an anarchist would reject the very idea of a ballot.

That's true. Do we live under anarchy? Nope. The ballot is used to impost various atrocities on me. Why shouldn't I do everything I can to prevent that? What you're saying is that if I oppose guns being used to enslave me, that I'm a hypocrite if I use them to prevent being enslaved.

Only a moron swallows that logic.

I am sorry that you do not know what an anarchist is, I tried to explain it to you but you seem just too stupid to grasp it. Anarchist reject authority, they do not embrace it. Seems you are nothing but a Trump sheep trying to hide the fact

You're the one who doesn't know what anarchism is. There is no rule that says they are required to stand dumb and mute while the state pummels them into slavery. That's a theory propagated by bootlickers, not by people who understand anarchism.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You're the one who doesn't know what anarchism is. There is no rule that says they are required to stand dumb and mute while the state pummels them into slavery. That's a theory propagated by bootlickers, not by people who understand anarchism.

Anarchy is the rejection of authority. You cannot reject that which you participate in.

But you are correct, they are not required to stand dumb and mute while the state pummels them into slavery. A true anarchist would fight back against the state, not help to perpetuate it.

An anarchist that bows to authority is an oxymoron.

 

[JoeB131]

The debate over whether we should have more, or less, socialism in US government is largely a debate over the purpose of government. Socialists "believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically". That might sound relatively innocuous. But it's a radical claim, one we should consider seriously before indulging a more socialistic government.

The libertarian roots of the United States contradict this belief. In the US, neither society, nor the economy, is run democratically. Each is run collaboratively, voluntarily, by the individuals who make up society. Government merely serves as a "referee". Socialists want government to be the "coach".

Again, the roots of this country was the government being in favor of the rich instead of working folks. Slavery was at the root of this country,and you can't have slavery without a state presense. Otherwise, the slaves just walk off the job after they get beaten.

It's when government started sticking up for workers and consumers that the One Percenters suddenly had a problem with it, and started whispering in your ear about how they were eroding your freedoms.

 

[dblack]

The debate over whether we should have more, or less, socialism in US government is largely a debate over the purpose of government. Socialists "believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically". That might sound relatively innocuous. But it's a radical claim, one we should consider seriously before indulging a more socialistic government.

The libertarian roots of the United States contradict this belief. In the US, neither society, nor the economy, is run democratically. Each is run collaboratively, voluntarily, by the individuals who make up society. Government merely serves as a "referee". Socialists want government to be the "coach".

Again, the roots of this country was the government being in favor of the rich instead of working folks. Slavery was at the root of this country,and you can't have slavery without a state presense. Otherwise, the slaves just walk off the job after they get beaten.

It's when government started sticking up for workers and consumers that the One Percenters suddenly had a problem with it, and started whispering in your ear about how they were eroding your freedoms.

So, what do you think the purpose of government is? Do you agree with the socialists - that everything should be "run democratically"?

 

[Pilot1]

Government is a necessary evil. It's purpose is to grow itself, and grow its power. That's what it always comes down to.

 

[dblack]

Government is a necessary evil. It's purpose is to grow itself, and grow its power. That's what it always comes down to.

That's the cynic's view, and I get where you're coming from. But what is the justification for it? What makes it a "necessary" evil? What should society empower government to do? Should "both society and the economy be run democratically"?

 

[Pilot1]

Government is a necessary evil. It's purpose is to grow itself, and grow its power. That's what it always comes down to.

That's the cynic's view, and I get where you're coming from. But what is the justification for it? What makes it a "necessary" evil? What should society empower government to do? Should "both society and the economy be run democratically"?

I worked in government early in my career, but left for the private sector after five years because I didn't want to become political and was being pressured to do so. Only to find out that Corporate America was also political, and you didn't even have parties to know who was on what side.

Today, it is very difficult to hold government and politicians accountable as they are very insulated. I think government is necessary to do the things the private sector doesn't want to do. It should be kept small, and to a minimum.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Government is supposed to invest the people’s money back into the shit that matters, the shit the people agree with investing in...

So, when it comes to the purpose of government, you're onboard with the socialists?

Government is supposed to invest the people’s money back into the shit that matters, the shit the people agree with investing in...

So, when it comes to the purpose of government, you're onboard with the socialists?

Pretty much everyone is on-board with their brand of socialism

Negative
Investing our tax dollars in our food source is like investing in infrastructure...Nobody sane sees it as socialism.

Paying farmers not to grow food is not an "investment." It's pork.

It actually is an investment...it's complicated though.
America has a "Cheap Food Policy", we want food to be affordable to the general population and not subject to huge swings in the market that might cause unrest within the GP. We need to make sure there is some profit to farming so farmers will keep farming. We need to have a sufficient supply and reserves in case of crop failure. No farmer will keep a reserve of crops stored for world or national emergencies or keep their own land idle so prices stay high enough that all farmers can make a living unless they are paid to do so. That is why we have programs like the CRP (Conservation Reserve Program) which pays farmers to keep 23.4 million acres idle but ready to go into production within 1 to 2 years if a world catastrophe occurs. This governmental involvement doesn't guarantee a profit for all farmers but it does keep a majority of farmers in business during hard times.
The federal government uses food to affect geopolitics so it has to have some safeguards for farmers if it instituted a policy that causes the price to go below production costs.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Government is supposed to invest the people’s money back into the shit that matters, the shit the people agree with investing in...

So, when it comes to the purpose of government, you're onboard with the socialists?

Government is supposed to invest the people’s money back into the shit that matters, the shit the people agree with investing in...

So, when it comes to the purpose of government, you're onboard with the socialists?

Pretty much everyone is on-board with their brand of socialism

Negative
Investing our tax dollars in our food source is like investing in infrastructure...Nobody sane sees it as socialism.

Paying farmers not to grow food is not an "investment." It's pork.

It actually is an investment...it's complicated though.
America has a "Cheap Food Policy", we want food to be affordable to the general population and not subject to huge swings in the market that might cause unrest within the GP. We need to make sure there is some profit to farming so farmers will keep farming. We need to have a sufficient supply and reserves in case of crop failure. No farmer will keep a reserve of crops stored for world or national emergencies or keep their own land idle so prices stay high enough that all farmers can make a living unless they are paid to do so. That is why we have programs like the CRP (Conservation Reserve Program) which pays farmers to keep 23.4 million acres idle but ready to go into production within 1 to 2 years if a world catastrophe occurs. This governmental involvement doesn't guarantee a profit for all farmers but it does keep a majority of farmers in business during hard times.
The federal government uses food to affect geopolitics so it has to have some safeguards for farmers if it instituted a policy that causes the price to go below production costs.

So, what you are saying is that the Fed government exerts control over what is produced by our farmers and ranchers, and that is a good thing?

 

[dblack]

The federal government uses food to affect geopolitics so it has to have some safeguards for farmers if it instituted a policy that causes the price to go below production costs.

So, what you are saying is that the Fed government exerts control over what is produced by our farmers and ranchers, and that is a good thing?

Yes. That's what he's saying. Trumpsters aren't libertarians. They adore authoritarian government.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Government is supposed to invest the people’s money back into the shit that matters, the shit the people agree with investing in...

So, when it comes to the purpose of government, you're onboard with the socialists?

So, when it comes to the purpose of government, you're onboard with the socialists?

Pretty much everyone is on-board with their brand of socialism

Negative
Investing our tax dollars in our food source is like investing in infrastructure...Nobody sane sees it as socialism.

Paying farmers not to grow food is not an "investment." It's pork.

It actually is an investment...it's complicated though.
America has a "Cheap Food Policy", we want food to be affordable to the general population and not subject to huge swings in the market that might cause unrest within the GP. We need to make sure there is some profit to farming so farmers will keep farming. We need to have a sufficient supply and reserves in case of crop failure. No farmer will keep a reserve of crops stored for world or national emergencies or keep their own land idle so prices stay high enough that all farmers can make a living unless they are paid to do so. That is why we have programs like the CRP (Conservation Reserve Program) which pays farmers to keep 23.4 million acres idle but ready to go into production within 1 to 2 years if a world catastrophe occurs. This governmental involvement doesn't guarantee a profit for all farmers but it does keep a majority of farmers in business during hard times.
The federal government uses food to affect geopolitics so it has to have some safeguards for farmers if it instituted a policy that causes the price to go below production costs.

So, what you are saying is that the Fed government exerts control over what is produced by our farmers and ranchers, and that is a good thing?

It's a 'necessary thing'....it's a piece of the puzzle in sustaining a civilized first world society.
If we're going to collect taxes, have a treasury and spend taxpayer dollars what better investment is there?
It's fascinating that you Lefties can't make simple distinctions...you honestly believe that paying Guadalupe to run her baby factory and subsidizing farmers are one and the same.