Why The Left Loves Socialism

[danielpalos]

Thinking of the greatest inventions in the last 120 years, only nuclear power stands out as something only a government would do.

The airplane, the car, the integrated circuit/solid state electronics, the rocket, smartphone, microwave oven, digital camera, and many others were all private enterprises. It isn't even close when comparing private inventions economic impact with govt.

Just an most excellent form of liberal socialist planning, and merely and simply using capitalism, for all of its worth:

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries:

wtf are you talking about? the airplane was not an example of liberal socialist planning, neither was any of the things I mentioned. my god you are strupid

It Only seems that way to you, because you have lousy reading comprehension.

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries:

Just liberal socialism, at its capital finest.

 

[danielpalos]

Hey I got a really crazy idea - why don't we stop the silly socialism-capitalism pigeonholing and evaluate each program or enterprise on actual MERIT.

If it is a capitalist model and it works and makes sense I'm for it, same for socialist programs, same for any given mix of two.

Well, I've tried to maintain the integrity of this thread by repeating that it's not an argument of what IS or ISN'T Socialism, or the merits of Socialism vs. Capitalism. The problem is, Socialists tend to get very defensive and want to attack Capitalism at every opportunity and visa versa. So these threads tend to devolve quickly into the same old arguments.

THIS thread was intended to discuss WHY some people embrace Socialism. That is, Socialism with a capital "S" and not the more generic context, which seems to often get lost in the minutia.

socialism can help us establish a Commune of Heaven on Earth.

 

[danielpalos]

Hey I got a really crazy idea - why don't we stop the silly socialism-capitalism pigeonholing and evaluate each program or enterprise on actual MERIT.

If it is a capitalist model and it works and makes sense I'm for it, same for socialist programs, same for any given mix of two.

Well, I've tried to maintain the integrity of this thread by repeating that it's not an argument of what IS or ISN'T Socialism, or the merits of Socialism vs. Capitalism. The problem is, Socialists tend to get very defensive and want to attack Capitalism at every opportunity and visa versa. So these threads tend to devolve quickly into the same old arguments.

THIS thread was intended to discuss WHY some people embrace Socialism. That is, Socialism with a capital "S" and not the more generic context, which seems to often get lost in the minutia.

All western governments do is take money from one group of people and give it to another. In true socialism there is no such thing as everyone works for the government.

true democracy does that; everyone is part of the government.

 

[danielpalos]

Hey I got a really crazy idea - why don't we stop the silly socialism-capitalism pigeonholing and evaluate each program or enterprise on actual MERIT.

If it is a capitalist model and it works and makes sense I'm for it, same for socialist programs, same for any given mix of two.

Socialism since WWII is simply well regulated capitalism with a good safety net. Cold War dinosaurs/dupes in the USA continue to confuse it with communism ferchissake...

no, only the national socialist right wing does that. they like to be confused about the issues if they cannot confuse the issues with their arguments.

 

[NCC1701]

Thinking of the greatest inventions in the last 120 years, only nuclear power stands out as something only a government would do.

The airplane, the car, the integrated circuit/solid state electronics, the rocket, smartphone, microwave oven, digital camera, and many others were all private enterprises. It isn't even close when comparing private inventions economic impact with govt.

Just an most excellent form of liberal socialist planning, and merely and simply using capitalism, for all of its worth:

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries:

wtf are you talking about? the airplane was not an example of liberal socialist planning, neither was any of the things I mentioned. my god you are strupid

It Only seems that way to you, because you have lousy reading comprehension.

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries:

Just liberal socialism, at its capital finest.

I am sorry, but you are a fucking idiot. I tried to be civil but man you are just too damned stupid to play nice with.

Intellectual property rights have nothing to do with liberalism or socialism, in fact private property rights are a hallmark of capitalism and freedom.

 

[Boss]

No. Government is not socialism.

He knows... He admitted it earlier in a round about way but since I pointed out the logical fallacy of his argument he has decided to gaslight because that's all he can do. Best just to ignore his trollery.

Appeals to ignorance is not, pointing out a logical fallacy to my arguments.

Government is socialism. Why do you believe it is not?

You are welcome to provide a valid argument. lol.

I refuted your argument with simple logic two pages ago. You now persist in grandstanding and flooding the thread with your trollery as you've demonstrated with six consecutive posts. This is typical of left-wing modern socialism... you can't make your argument so you want to shut down all other conversation.

Now, it occurs to me, the problem here might be that your atrophied and retarded brain is getting hung up on words you don't understand, so you are getting confused. Let's try substituting some words to demonstrate my logical rational point versus your illogical irrational one... Instead of "government" let's use "cereal" and instead of "Socialist" let's use "Corn Flakes"... Now, everyone knows Corn Flakes are a type of cereal. (Like Socialism is a type of government). But it is illogical to claim cereal IS Corn Flakes. Cereal certainly MAY be Corn Flakes, but it MAY be something entirely different.... Fruit Loops... Cocoa Puffs.... Oatmeal!

The concept of "Government" was created a long time ago, in fact, we really don't know when. There are basically four prevailing theories about that, but it was many, many, many years before a couple of fellows by the names of Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx created an idealistic FORM of Government called Socialism. We KNOW when that happened, it was in or around 1848. Now... intellectually honest people will have to ask themselves, in light of your argument, WHY would these men invent something that already existed? In the universe governed by rational logic, this doesn't make sense. And thus, your argument makes no sense.

 

[danielpalos]

Thinking of the greatest inventions in the last 120 years, only nuclear power stands out as something only a government would do.

The airplane, the car, the integrated circuit/solid state electronics, the rocket, smartphone, microwave oven, digital camera, and many others were all private enterprises. It isn't even close when comparing private inventions economic impact with govt.

Just an most excellent form of liberal socialist planning, and merely and simply using capitalism, for all of its worth:

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries:

wtf are you talking about? the airplane was not an example of liberal socialist planning, neither was any of the things I mentioned. my god you are strupid

It Only seems that way to you, because you have lousy reading comprehension.

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries:

Just liberal socialism, at its capital finest.

I am sorry, but you are a fucking idiot. I tried to be civil but man you are just too damned stupid to play nice with.

Intellectual property rights have nothing to do with liberalism or socialism, in fact private property rights are a hallmark of capitalism and freedom.

yet, you claim i am the one who is an, "idiot". Our Founding Fathers wrote our social Contract and provide the rationale for it, like good liberal socialists do:

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries:

 

[danielpalos]

No. Government is not socialism.

He knows... He admitted it earlier in a round about way but since I pointed out the logical fallacy of his argument he has decided to gaslight because that's all he can do. Best just to ignore his trollery.

Appeals to ignorance is not, pointing out a logical fallacy to my arguments.

Government is socialism. Why do you believe it is not?

You are welcome to provide a valid argument. lol.

I refuted your argument with simple logic two pages ago. You now persist in grandstanding and flooding the thread with your trollery as you've demonstrated with six consecutive posts. This is typical of left-wing modern socialism... you can't make your argument so you want to shut down all other conversation.

Now, it occurs to me, the problem here might be that your atrophied and retarded brain is getting hung up on words you don't understand, so you are getting confused. Let's try substituting some words to demonstrate my logical rational point versus your illogical irrational one... Instead of "government" let's use "cereal" and instead of "Socialist" let's use "Corn Flakes"... Now, everyone knows Corn Flakes are a type of cereal. (Like Socialism is a type of government). But it is illogical to claim cereal IS Corn Flakes. Cereal certainly MAY be Corn Flakes, but it MAY be something entirely different.... Fruit Loops... Cocoa Puffs.... Oatmeal!

The concept of "Government" was created a long time ago, in fact, we really don't know when. There are basically four prevailing theories about that, but it was many, many, many years before a couple of fellows by the names of Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx created an idealistic FORM of Government called Socialism. We KNOW when that happened, it was in or around 1848. Now... intellectually honest people will have to ask themselves, in light of your argument, WHY would these men invent something that already existed? In the universe governed by rational logic, this doesn't make sense. And thus, your argument makes no sense.

Only in your right wing fantasy. It doesn't matter when government was created. Government must be a form of socialism to the extent this is necessary:

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 Two

that IS social-ism.

 

[Boss]

Only in your right wing fantasy. It doesn't matter when government was created. Government must be a form of socialism to the extent this is necessary:

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 Two

that IS social-ism.

You are presenting the very valid argument for a Federalist REPUBLICAN form of Government... NOT Socialism. Again, you are operating on a misconception of what Socialism IS. It is easy to draw your conclusions when you ignorantly believe ALL Government IS Socialism... or Social-ism. It's simply not and logic slaps you in your silly ignorant face repeatedly. Apparently, you enjoy that sort of thing.

 

[danielpalos]

Only in your right wing fantasy. It doesn't matter when government was created. Government must be a form of socialism to the extent this is necessary:

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 Two

that IS social-ism.

You are presenting the very valid argument for a Federalist REPUBLICAN form of Government... NOT Socialism. Again, you are operating on a misconception of what Socialism IS. It is easy to draw your conclusions when you ignorantly believe ALL Government IS Socialism... or Social-ism. It's simply not and logic slaps you in your silly ignorant face repeatedly. Apparently, you enjoy that sort of thing.

Just lousy reading comprehension? I read dictionaries to understand encyclopedias. the right wing, gets their complete and entire understanding of this topic, from a dictionary.

this is the Social-ism part; it applies to any government via a social Contract. it is Social-ism.

the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.

 

[NCC1701]

Thinking of the greatest inventions in the last 120 years, only nuclear power stands out as something only a government would do.

The airplane, the car, the integrated circuit/solid state electronics, the rocket, smartphone, microwave oven, digital camera, and many others were all private enterprises. It isn't even close when comparing private inventions economic impact with govt.

Just an most excellent form of liberal socialist planning, and merely and simply using capitalism, for all of its worth:

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries:

wtf are you talking about? the airplane was not an example of liberal socialist planning, neither was any of the things I mentioned. my god you are strupid

It Only seems that way to you, because you have lousy reading comprehension.

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries:

Just liberal socialism, at its capital finest.

I am sorry, but you are a fucking idiot. I tried to be civil but man you are just too damned stupid to play nice with.

Intellectual property rights have nothing to do with liberalism or socialism, in fact private property rights are a hallmark of capitalism and freedom.

yet, you claim i am the one who is an, "idiot". Our Founding Fathers wrote our social Contract and provide the rationale for it, like good liberal socialists do:

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries:

you can call them socialists all you want, but real socialists say inventions are community property. Classical liberals, libertarians like the founding fathers, are for strong property rights.

 

[danielpalos]

Just an most excellent form of liberal socialist planning, and merely and simply using capitalism, for all of its worth:

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries:

wtf are you talking about? the airplane was not an example of liberal socialist planning, neither was any of the things I mentioned. my god you are strupid

It Only seems that way to you, because you have lousy reading comprehension.

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries:

Just liberal socialism, at its capital finest.

I am sorry, but you are a fucking idiot. I tried to be civil but man you are just too damned stupid to play nice with.

Intellectual property rights have nothing to do with liberalism or socialism, in fact private property rights are a hallmark of capitalism and freedom.

yet, you claim i am the one who is an, "idiot". Our Founding Fathers wrote our social Contract and provide the rationale for it, like good liberal socialists do:

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries:

you can call them socialists all you want, but real socialists say inventions are community property. Classical liberals, libertarians like the founding fathers, are for strong property rights.

Yes, liberal socialists try to use capitalism, for all of its worth. unlike national socialists on the fantastical, right wing.

 

[NCC1701]

wtf are you talking about? the airplane was not an example of liberal socialist planning, neither was any of the things I mentioned. my god you are strupid

It Only seems that way to you, because you have lousy reading comprehension.

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries:

Just liberal socialism, at its capital finest.

I am sorry, but you are a fucking idiot. I tried to be civil but man you are just too damned stupid to play nice with.

Intellectual property rights have nothing to do with liberalism or socialism, in fact private property rights are a hallmark of capitalism and freedom.

yet, you claim i am the one who is an, "idiot". Our Founding Fathers wrote our social Contract and provide the rationale for it, like good liberal socialists do:

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries:

you can call them socialists all you want, but real socialists say inventions are community property. Classical liberals, libertarians like the founding fathers, are for strong property rights.

Yes, liberal socialists try to use capitalism, for all of its worth. unlike national socialists on the fantastical, right wing.

the fanatical left wing wants to abolish capitalism

 

[danielpalos]

It Only seems that way to you, because you have lousy reading comprehension.

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries:

Just liberal socialism, at its capital finest.

I am sorry, but you are a fucking idiot. I tried to be civil but man you are just too damned stupid to play nice with.

Intellectual property rights have nothing to do with liberalism or socialism, in fact private property rights are a hallmark of capitalism and freedom.

yet, you claim i am the one who is an, "idiot". Our Founding Fathers wrote our social Contract and provide the rationale for it, like good liberal socialists do:

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries:

you can call them socialists all you want, but real socialists say inventions are community property. Classical liberals, libertarians like the founding fathers, are for strong property rights.

Yes, liberal socialists try to use capitalism, for all of its worth. unlike national socialists on the fantastical, right wing.

the fanatical left wing wants to abolish capitalism

liberal socialists try to use capitalism, for all of its worth.

unlike national socialists on the fantastical, right wing.

 

[NCC1701]

I am sorry, but you are a fucking idiot. I tried to be civil but man you are just too damned stupid to play nice with.

Intellectual property rights have nothing to do with liberalism or socialism, in fact private property rights are a hallmark of capitalism and freedom.

yet, you claim i am the one who is an, "idiot". Our Founding Fathers wrote our social Contract and provide the rationale for it, like good liberal socialists do:

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries:

you can call them socialists all you want, but real socialists say inventions are community property. Classical liberals, libertarians like the founding fathers, are for strong property rights.

Yes, liberal socialists try to use capitalism, for all of its worth. unlike national socialists on the fantastical, right wing.

the fanatical left wing wants to abolish capitalism

liberal socialists try to use capitalism, for all of its worth.

unlike national socialists on the fantastical, right wing.

as if the phrase 'all it's worth' actually means anything, empty platitudes are not profound, you are not just a hand waver, you are really bad at it.

Liberals are not fond of capitalism and economic freedom, period. You are trying to make up some sort of lame bullshit about the virtues of leftists and their 'enlightened' use of capitalism.

 

[danielpalos]

yet, you claim i am the one who is an, "idiot". Our Founding Fathers wrote our social Contract and provide the rationale for it, like good liberal socialists do:

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries:

you can call them socialists all you want, but real socialists say inventions are community property. Classical liberals, libertarians like the founding fathers, are for strong property rights.

Yes, liberal socialists try to use capitalism, for all of its worth. unlike national socialists on the fantastical, right wing.

the fanatical left wing wants to abolish capitalism

liberal socialists try to use capitalism, for all of its worth.

unlike national socialists on the fantastical, right wing.

as if the phrase 'all it's worth' actually means anything, empty platitudes are not profound, you are not just a hand waver, you are really bad at it.

Liberals are not fond of capitalism and economic freedom, period. You are trying to make up some sort of lame bullshit about the virtues of leftists and their 'enlightened' use of capitalism.

Our Founding Fathers, showed us the way. Only the national socialist, right wing, never gets it.

 

[NCC1701]

you can call them socialists all you want, but real socialists say inventions are community property. Classical liberals, libertarians like the founding fathers, are for strong property rights.

Yes, liberal socialists try to use capitalism, for all of its worth. unlike national socialists on the fantastical, right wing.

the fanatical left wing wants to abolish capitalism

liberal socialists try to use capitalism, for all of its worth.

unlike national socialists on the fantastical, right wing.

as if the phrase 'all it's worth' actually means anything, empty platitudes are not profound, you are not just a hand waver, you are really bad at it.

Liberals are not fond of capitalism and economic freedom, period. You are trying to make up some sort of lame bullshit about the virtues of leftists and their 'enlightened' use of capitalism.

Our Founding Fathers, showed us the way. Only the national socialist, right wing, never gets it.

that's right dumbfuck, repeat your lies enough times and you'll actually believe them, gotta love the american left and their religion

 

[Boss]

Only in your right wing fantasy. It doesn't matter when government was created. Government must be a form of socialism to the extent this is necessary:

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 Two

that IS social-ism.

You are presenting the very valid argument for a Federalist REPUBLICAN form of Government... NOT Socialism. Again, you are operating on a misconception of what Socialism IS. It is easy to draw your conclusions when you ignorantly believe ALL Government IS Socialism... or Social-ism. It's simply not and logic slaps you in your silly ignorant face repeatedly. Apparently, you enjoy that sort of thing.

Just lousy reading comprehension? I read dictionaries to understand encyclopedias. the right wing, gets their complete and entire understanding of this topic, from a dictionary.

this is the Social-ism part; it applies to any government via a social Contract. it is Social-ism.

I don't care if you're using a dictionary, encyclopedia or whatever resource, you can't make an irrational and illogical argument. You're trying to argue that ALL government is "socialist" because it involves social contract. That's false. It does not become true because you stomp your feet and insist it's true for page after page on a message board.

I'm sorry... we can get you a jello cup if that makes you feel better. You're not going to be allowed to establish your own truth here based on your ignorance.

the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.

This is a quote from John Jay in Federalist 2 and it doesn't make us Socialists. Jay and other framers understood that individual liberty and free market capitalism was ineffective in dealing with certain aspects of a civil society because the incentives were all wrong. This is why I often speak of our Free Market Capitalist System. It's more than simply free market capitalism. A system is a collection of things working together. In our system, there is free market capitalism, free enterprise, private property rights, individual liberty, a constitution (our social contract) which outlines enumerated powers of a federal government and guarantees protection of our inalienable rights endowed by our Creator. Again... this is NOT Socialism.

Now, some people might think, if Marx and Engels had been around a generation or two earlier, perhaps the framers would have adopted a Socialist form of government for the United States. But the fact is, the ideas of socialism were around from the days of antiquity and Plato. Even Thomas Paine advocated public ownership of property. So these ideas were very definitely being tossed around during our founding. They didn't call it "Socialism" at the time, they had other words for it, but the idea was out there. So why didn't our framers adopt it? Why did they fight vociferously for individual liberty and private property ownership? Why did they intentionally establish a small limited Federal government with enumerated powers? Why did they give us a representative republican form of government instead of a social communal democratic government? Why was democracy so feared by the framers that the word isn't even included in the Constitution? It's not just a convenient coincidence.

 

[francoHFW]

Hey I got a really crazy idea - why don't we stop the silly socialism-capitalism pigeonholing and evaluate each program or enterprise on actual MERIT.

If it is a capitalist model and it works and makes sense I'm for it, same for socialist programs, same for any given mix of two.

Socialism since WWII is simply well regulated capitalism with a good safety net. Cold War dinosaurs/dupes in the USA continue to confuse it with communism ferchissake...

no, only the national socialist right wing does that. they like to be confused about the issues if they cannot confuse the issues with their arguments.

Same people...

 

[francoHFW]

Yes, liberal socialists try to use capitalism, for all of its worth. unlike national socialists on the fantastical, right wing.

the fanatical left wing wants to abolish capitalism

liberal socialists try to use capitalism, for all of its worth.

unlike national socialists on the fantastical, right wing.

as if the phrase 'all it's worth' actually means anything, empty platitudes are not profound, you are not just a hand waver, you are really bad at it.

Liberals are not fond of capitalism and economic freedom, period. You are trying to make up some sort of lame bullshit about the virtues of leftists and their 'enlightened' use of capitalism.

Our Founding Fathers, showed us the way. Only the national socialist, right wing, never gets it.

that's right dumbfuck, repeat your lies enough times and you'll actually believe them, gotta love the american left and their religion

All the lies are on the New BS GOP side, dupe. See sig. What happened to lock her up and Clintons the murderers and pedophiles news? Obama the dictator etc etc? What a pile of steaming bs...thanks Faux, Rush, Heritage etc etc etc. The more you listen, the less you know. "God Save the (greedy idiot GOP) Rich!"