The Problem with Socialism

[Wry Catcher]

The controlling forces in human society are physical or material. Human relations are dominated by two factors: biological relationships and economic conditions. Combined, these influences shape existence, which determines consciousness.

The 20th century produced an unprecedented set of conditions in American society, primarily through the Great European Civil War 1914-1945. Those conditions began a period of significant decline beginning with the oil shocks of the 1970s. In simple terms, the days of America's unprecedented hegemony began drawing to a rapid close.

The social problems produced by the deflation of the great World War bubble, which saw a USA, whose GDP was half of the planetary total in 1945, have not been successfully handled, largely because the American federal government presides over a nation whose states are too heterogeneous, economically and culturally, to enable sustained, coordinated national policy.

Our internal differences and contradictions are reaching a crisis point. We can survive as a confederacy, but to act as a major player on the international scene requires an internal coherence which is simply beyond us. Our success rate declines and the cost of our efforts increases steadily. America's days as a super power are rapidly drawing to a close.

I find this post ^^^ to be nothing more than gobbledygook [language that is meaningless or is made unintelligible by excessive use of abstruse technical terms; nonsense].

 

[Centinel]

"When you think of it, it doesn't take a lot of brains to be a socialist. All it requires is the desire to have something that doesn't belong to you and the absence of character to justify the use of force to get it on your behalf." -- Lawrence W. Reed, FEE President.

Socialism == taking other people's shit.

Taking other people's shit is wrong, or so I taught my children.

 

[Centinel]

And any conservative who believes that ‘socialism’ poses some sort of a ‘threat’ exhibits only his stupidity and ignorance of ‘socialism.’

How would socialism be implemented? More specifically, how would socialism affect people's property rights?

 

[Wry Catcher]

"When you think of it, it doesn't take a lot of brains to be a socialist. All it requires is the desire to have something that doesn't belong to you and the absence of character to justify the use of force to get it on your behalf." -- Lawrence W. Reed, FEE President.

Socialism == taking other people's shit.

Taking other people's shit is wrong, or so I taught my children.

• Q. What does ti take to be a socialist
• A. Christian Ethics

• Force is power, banks, insurance companies, cartels and wall street have both;
• Brokers take the assets of others to their benefit; vis a vis fiduciaries
• Theft is wrong, taxes paid to Caesar are not.

 

[regent]

There are a number of types of socialism, so does America practice all the types or only a few or only one type? Can anyone name the type or types of socialism America practices?

 

[MikeK]

And any conservative who believes that ‘socialism’ poses some sort of a ‘threat’ exhibits only his stupidity and ignorance of ‘socialism.’

How would socialism be implemented? More specifically, how would socialism affect people's property rights?

Specifically what rights are you concerned about?

 

[MikeK]

"When you think of it, it doesn't take a lot of brains to be a socialist. All it requires is the desire to have something that doesn't belong to you and the absence of character to justify the use of force to get it on your behalf." -- Lawrence W. Reed, FEE President.

Socialism == taking other people's shit.

Taking other people's shit is wrong, or so I taught my children.

The Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), which your Mr. Reed has invented and holds title to, is a little-known right-wing "think tank" the purpose of which is to disseminate propaganda (aka "education") which is useful to the objectives of an emerging corporatocracy.

I am a socialist, which simply means I subscribe to the same intentions which motivated FDR, which is to engage in efforts useful to fostering and maintaining a healthy American Middle Class. If it takes the redistribution of a segment of the Nation's wealth resources which have been criminally or improperly acquired and hoarded to achieve that purpose, do you consider that wrong?

Briefly stated in anticipation of the standard right-wing arguments, would you consider it unfair or improper to relieve a thief or a schemer of his wrongfully acquired riches and distributing it among those he stole it from or cheated?

 

[Markle]

The problem is never in history has it ever worked and for some reason idiots keep trying it

Quite true.

Every new effort is touted as going to succeed because no one has ever done it the way WE are going to put forth Socialism!

 

[Markle]

This book should be required reading in the p-schools, but we all know it won't.

From the author of 'The Real Lincoln'...one of the greatest history books ever written. It should also be required reading for all Americans, but we all know it won't.

Remember when "socialism" was a dirty word? Now students at America's elite universities are parroting socialist talking points and "sure-thing" Hillary Clinton is struggling to win the Democratic nomination against a 74-year-old avowed socialist who promises to make the nation more like Europe. What's happened? Do Americans need a reminder about the dangers of socialist ideology and practices?

Thomas DiLorenzo, economics professor and senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, deconstructs the retrograde ideology that has suddenly become disturbingly hip in The Problem with Socialism.

Make sure you read the other important work, The Problem with Capitalism.

Like what? That you are expected to get off your ass and make your own way? Your problem isn't the achievers' problem. We like capitalism.

If you don't know the problems of capitalism, then you don't know capitalism.

Stereotypical comment from a loser.

 

[Jack4jill]

This book should be required reading in the p-schools, but we all know it won't.

From the author of 'The Real Lincoln'...one of the greatest history books ever written. It should also be required reading for all Americans, but we all know it won't.

Remember when "socialism" was a dirty word? Now students at America's elite universities are parroting socialist talking points and "sure-thing" Hillary Clinton is struggling to win the Democratic nomination against a 74-year-old avowed socialist who promises to make the nation more like Europe. What's happened? Do Americans need a reminder about the dangers of socialist ideology and practices?

Thomas DiLorenzo, economics professor and senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, deconstructs the retrograde ideology that has suddenly become disturbingly hip in The Problem with Socialism.

Make sure you read the other important work, The Problem with Capitalism.

Like what? That you are expected to get off your ass and make your own way? Your problem isn't the achievers' problem. We like capitalism.

If you don't know the problems of capitalism, then you don't know capitalism.

Stereotypical comment from a loser.

Yet another one, with no understanding of capitalism, a game I win at because I do know it, good and bad.

 

[Markle]

And any conservative who believes that ‘socialism’ poses some sort of a ‘threat’ exhibits only his stupidity and ignorance of ‘socialism.’

How would socialism be implemented? More specifically, how would socialism affect people's property rights?

Specifically what rights are you concerned about?

It is called LIBERTY.

 

[Jack4jill]

And any conservative who believes that ‘socialism’ poses some sort of a ‘threat’ exhibits only his stupidity and ignorance of ‘socialism.’

How would socialism be implemented? More specifically, how would socialism affect people's property rights?

Specifically what rights are you concerned about?

It is called LIBERTY.

Capitalism is an economic system. Liberalism is a political system. Get educated.

 

[Markle]

Well, I've lived in a total government controlled social society till I was 17. It's called Indian reservation, it is, Was and always will be a total shit hole because of socialism.

It was a total shithole because capitalists stole their land, genocided them into concentration camps, and refused to allow them their own traditinal ways of earning a living. Intentionally, for their own capitalist vision of "progress". These people were in the way and needed to be subjugated.

If you knew anything about Indians, you would know we don't think of it is "our" land. Lol

Yeah, it got took didn't it. Your "Indian", how ya like John Trudell's work, writing, lectures, books? Most folks should know how corrupt it is on reservations, but to put that on socialism is just silly. The govt plan was to make those folks dependent. It was intentional. Not some socialist revolution.

Reservations have been under the total control of the federal government therefore the social society produced = utter failure.

Reservations have been under the total control of the government of a capitalist society that deemed them disposable in the rabid search for linear profit margin growth to infinity. I don't believe you're "Indian". I do believe we all have a pretty fair shot at becoming the new"Indian" if we fail to challenge the same beast that slaghtered them. Good day to you sir.

Indian reservations were held under total government control, aka, socialism. How has that worked?

 

[Jack4jill]

It was a total shithole because capitalists stole their land, genocided them into concentration camps, and refused to allow them their own traditinal ways of earning a living. Intentionally, for their own capitalist vision of "progress". These people were in the way and needed to be subjugated.

If you knew anything about Indians, you would know we don't think of it is "our" land. Lol

Yeah, it got took didn't it. Your "Indian", how ya like John Trudell's work, writing, lectures, books? Most folks should know how corrupt it is on reservations, but to put that on socialism is just silly. The govt plan was to make those folks dependent. It was intentional. Not some socialist revolution.

Reservations have been under the total control of the federal government therefore the social society produced = utter failure.

Reservations have been under the total control of the government of a capitalist society that deemed them disposable in the rabid search for linear profit margin growth to infinity. I don't believe you're "Indian". I do believe we all have a pretty fair shot at becoming the new"Indian" if we fail to challenge the same beast that slaghtered them. Good day to you sir.

Indian reservations were held under total government control, aka, socialism. How has that worked?

They were? That will be news to the Native Americans.

 

[FA_Q2]

The problem is never in history has it ever worked and for some reason idiots keep trying it

What would you consider Europe?

Going down the shitter...have you been paying attention to Greece, Spain, etc? Socialism starts out great...then the inevitable happens...they run out of other people's money. Same song, same verse every time

Irrelevant.

The trope that socialism does not work is incorrect. There are socialist nations that can and do exist - some of them doing decently well. None of them approach the success that the US has achieved but blankly stating that socialism always fails is not going to move the conversation forward or - the real problem - show why free markets are so much better. It only severs to entrench people in their belief of socialism.

Long term it's never worked. dumbass

Again, you call me a dumass yet you also cal Europe a socialistic set of nations.

Psst - they have been around a LONG time.

 

[Markle]

And any conservative who believes that ‘socialism’ poses some sort of a ‘threat’ exhibits only his stupidity and ignorance of ‘socialism.’

How would socialism be implemented? More specifically, how would socialism affect people's property rights?

Specifically what rights are you concerned about?

It is called LIBERTY.

Capitalism is an economic system. Liberalism is a political system. Get educated.

Your childish answer to my answer to your question, LIBERTY was correct.

I'd suggest taking a course or two on our Constitution unless you intend to remain ignorant of the subject. Hillsdale College offers one on line, and required of all their students. Oh, it is free.

Economic Liberty and the Constitution: An Introduction
By Paul Larkin, David E. Bernstein, Randy E Barnett and Clark M Neily III

[...]

In the 1776 classic work The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith criticized monopolies and extolled the virtues of free trade and a free-market economy.[37] The Virginia Declaration of Rights, enacted in 1776, the same year that Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations was published, incorporated that principle into Virginian law, stating that “[a]ll men … have certain inherent rights … namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”[38] Founders such as James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, James Wilson, and John Marshall were familiar with Smith’s theories, and they believed that the protection of private property was necessary for economic growth.[39]

It should therefore hardly be surprising that the text of the Constitution itself contains several provisions that safeguard the workings of a free market.

• Congress has the power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce[40] in order to prevent the states from gumming up free trade with protectionist legislation.[41]
• Congress cannot take private property—which, in theory, may be taken only “for public use”[42]—without affording the owner “due process of law” and without paying him “just compensation” for his loss.[43]
• The states cannot coin money, cannot require that debts be paid in any currency other than silver or gold, and cannot impair the obligation of contracts.[44]

In sum, one need not agree with historian Charles Beard that the principal reason why the Framers adopted the Constitution was to safeguard property rights against the government[45] to conclude that the Constitution does seek to protect economic liberty in several distinct and important ways.

There also are several provisions of the Constitution that protect the right to acquire and own property, to engage in commerce, and to pursue a livelihood. Start with the ones that expressly refer to those liberties.

• The Contract Clause prohibits a state from nullifying existing contracts.
• The Privileges and Immunities Clause provides that “[c]itizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.”[46] Given the Framers’ belief in the value of economic liberty, they might readily have seen the freedom to pursue any lawful occupation as a “privilege” that the clause protects.
• The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clauses bar the federal and state governments from seizing someone’s assets without following whatever procedures the law requires.[47]
• The Fifth Amendment Takings Clause limits expropriation of property to “public uses” and guarantees “just compensation” for such seizures.
• The Ninth Amendment provides that “[t]he enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people,”[48] and several scholars have relied on that text to defend a right to economic freedom.[49]

[...]

Read more:
Economic Liberty and the Constitution: An Introduction

 

[Jack4jill]

And any conservative who believes that ‘socialism’ poses some sort of a ‘threat’ exhibits only his stupidity and ignorance of ‘socialism.’

How would socialism be implemented? More specifically, how would socialism affect people's property rights?

Specifically what rights are you concerned about?

It is called LIBERTY.

Capitalism is an economic system. Liberalism is a political system. Get educated.

Your childish answer to my answer to your question, LIBERTY was correct.

I'd suggest taking a course or two on our Constitution unless you intend to remain ignorant of the subject. Hillsdale College offers one on line, and required of all their students. Oh, it is free.

Economic Liberty and the Constitution: An Introduction
By Paul Larkin, David E. Bernstein, Randy E Barnett and Clark M Neily III

[...]

In the 1776 classic work The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith criticized monopolies and extolled the virtues of free trade and a free-market economy.[37] The Virginia Declaration of Rights, enacted in 1776, the same year that Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations was published, incorporated that principle into Virginian law, stating that “[a]ll men … have certain inherent rights … namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”[38] Founders such as James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, James Wilson, and John Marshall were familiar with Smith’s theories, and they believed that the protection of private property was necessary for economic growth.[39]

It should therefore hardly be surprising that the text of the Constitution itself contains several provisions that safeguard the workings of a free market.

• Congress has the power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce[40] in order to prevent the states from gumming up free trade with protectionist legislation.[41]
• Congress cannot take private property—which, in theory, may be taken only “for public use”[42]—without affording the owner “due process of law” and without paying him “just compensation” for his loss.[43]
• The states cannot coin money, cannot require that debts be paid in any currency other than silver or gold, and cannot impair the obligation of contracts.[44]

In sum, one need not agree with historian Charles Beard that the principal reason why the Framers adopted the Constitution was to safeguard property rights against the government[45] to conclude that the Constitution does seek to protect economic liberty in several distinct and important ways.

There also are several provisions of the Constitution that protect the right to acquire and own property, to engage in commerce, and to pursue a livelihood. Start with the ones that expressly refer to those liberties.

• The Contract Clause prohibits a state from nullifying existing contracts.
• The Privileges and Immunities Clause provides that “[c]itizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.”[46] Given the Framers’ belief in the value of economic liberty, they might readily have seen the freedom to pursue any lawful occupation as a “privilege” that the clause protects.
• The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clauses bar the federal and state governments from seizing someone’s assets without following whatever procedures the law requires.[47]
• The Fifth Amendment Takings Clause limits expropriation of property to “public uses” and guarantees “just compensation” for such seizures.
• The Ninth Amendment provides that “[t]he enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people,”[48] and several scholars have relied on that text to defend a right to economic freedom.[49]

[...]

Read more:
Economic Liberty and the Constitution: An Introduction

Your rights, including liberty, don't come from capitalism you dumbfuck.

 

[Markle]

If you knew anything about Indians, you would know we don't think of it is "our" land. Lol

Yeah, it got took didn't it. Your "Indian", how ya like John Trudell's work, writing, lectures, books? Most folks should know how corrupt it is on reservations, but to put that on socialism is just silly. The govt plan was to make those folks dependent. It was intentional. Not some socialist revolution.

Reservations have been under the total control of the federal government therefore the social society produced = utter failure.

Reservations have been under the total control of the government of a capitalist society that deemed them disposable in the rabid search for linear profit margin growth to infinity. I don't believe you're "Indian". I do believe we all have a pretty fair shot at becoming the new"Indian" if we fail to challenge the same beast that slaghtered them. Good day to you sir.

Indian reservations were held under total government control, aka, socialism. How has that worked?

They were? That will be news to the Native Americans.

You're getting very boring. Why do you go out of your way to appear foolish? Is it intentional (ie you're being facetious) or is it the real you?

Here, I'll help!

5 Ways The Government Keeps Native Americans In Poverty
Guest commentary curated by Forbes Opinion.
Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.

By Shawn Regan

Imagine if the government were responsible for looking after your best interests. All of your assets must be managed by bureaucrats on your behalf. A special bureau is even set up to oversee your affairs. Every important decision you make requires approval, and every approval comes with a mountain of regulations.

How well would this work? Just ask Native Americans.

The federal government is responsible for managing Indian affairs for the benefit of all Indians. But by all accounts the government has failed to live up to this responsibility. As a result, Native American reservations are among the poorest communities in the United States. Here’s how the government keeps Native Americans in poverty.

Indian lands are owned and managed by the federal government.

[...]

5 Ways The Government Keeps Native Americans In Poverty

 

[Jack4jill]

Yeah, it got took didn't it. Your "Indian", how ya like John Trudell's work, writing, lectures, books? Most folks should know how corrupt it is on reservations, but to put that on socialism is just silly. The govt plan was to make those folks dependent. It was intentional. Not some socialist revolution.

Reservations have been under the total control of the federal government therefore the social society produced = utter failure.

Reservations have been under the total control of the government of a capitalist society that deemed them disposable in the rabid search for linear profit margin growth to infinity. I don't believe you're "Indian". I do believe we all have a pretty fair shot at becoming the new"Indian" if we fail to challenge the same beast that slaghtered them. Good day to you sir.

Indian reservations were held under total government control, aka, socialism. How has that worked?

They were? That will be news to the Native Americans.

You're getting very boring. Why do you go out of your way to appear foolish? Is it intentional (ie you're being facetious) or is it the real you?

Here, I'll help!

5 Ways The Government Keeps Native Americans In Poverty
Guest commentary curated by Forbes Opinion.
Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.

By Shawn Regan

Imagine if the government were responsible for looking after your best interests. All of your assets must be managed by bureaucrats on your behalf. A special bureau is even set up to oversee your affairs. Every important decision you make requires approval, and every approval comes with a mountain of regulations.

How well would this work? Just ask Native Americans.

The federal government is responsible for managing Indian affairs for the benefit of all Indians. But by all accounts the government has failed to live up to this responsibility. As a result, Native American reservations are among the poorest communities in the United States. Here’s how the government keeps Native Americans in poverty.

Indian lands are owned and managed by the federal government.

[...]

5 Ways The Government Keeps Native Americans In Poverty

List these five Socialist things?

If you can that is.

 

[Jack4jill]

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution..."

Oh, the dreaded socialism of We, Common, Tranquility. and WELFARE! For the love of God, who were these takers and loser?