Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Marxism
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 526 (552544)
03-29-2010 7:53 PM


The following was posted on the 2nd Amendment thread. I am starting a new thread so the previous won't run rampant with off topic conversation
Faith writes:
quote:
I don't believe in government welfare but I do believe in what the Bible teaches about earning money if you can to help others who can't. It should all be voluntary.
Theo responds:
Yeah that works well. How much of the money the Wall Street execs stole do you think they are giving back? SO you don't believe in Social Security, Medicare medicaid, VA medical, heck the whole VA must be Marxist in your eyes. No unemployment benefits, no food stamps. You know the poor are poor because they are lazy. Are schools a form of welfare in your eyes?
Faith writes:
quote:
It should all be voluntary. I'm sure if conservatives followed that teaching we would never have had a movement for the government to steal their hard earned money from them against their will.
Theo responds:
Who is the government stealing from? You mean taxes?
I have to stop the wingnuttery in this post is just plain overwhelming.
Enjoy

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Theodoric, posted 03-29-2010 8:11 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 3 by Faith, posted 03-29-2010 8:13 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 526 (552548)
03-29-2010 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Theodoric
03-29-2010 8:11 PM


Re: Thank you Hyro
I appreciate the set up and would like to apologize for misdirecting your topic.
It's all good, we all get off topic once in awhile.

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Theodoric, posted 03-29-2010 8:11 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 526 (552566)
03-29-2010 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Theodoric
03-29-2010 9:17 PM


Re: David Horowitz? are you serious?
David Horowitz is a notorious liar
David Horowitz is an interesting fellow. He was a Marxist in his younger life and then did a complete 180 and is now a neo-conservative.

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Theodoric, posted 03-29-2010 9:17 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Theodoric, posted 03-29-2010 10:02 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 17 by Faith, posted 03-29-2010 11:02 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 526 (552568)
03-29-2010 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Theodoric
03-29-2010 8:55 PM


Being specific
So no medicare, Social security or unemployment benefits? Do you equate them with Marxism.
If I understand her correctly, her objections are directed towards taxes (unapportioned taxes, maybe?) that she views as frivolous. The problem is that she is not qualifying which taxes she has a problem with. Without specifics, it sounds as if all taxes are bad.
Faith, you're going to have to be more specific otherwise it leaves you open to speculation.

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Theodoric, posted 03-29-2010 8:55 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 526 (552614)
03-30-2010 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by slevesque
03-29-2010 10:56 PM


Marxism is about empathy???
I'm one of the very few conservative christian who actually sees socialism and Marxism as almost biblical. Especially when looking at how the first church acted:
Acts 2:44-45
''44All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.''
Except one comes out of charity and the other is mandatory. There is a distinct difference between charitable donations directly going to the poor versus having no say in where the money goes and it goes towards something that doesn't feed the poor.
Capitalism works because it feeds off the greed of people, but to a certain extent a form of Marxism is more biblical, because it feeds off the empathy of people.
That is a complete fabrication of how things work. Capitalism is consistent with human nature and the concept of reciprocity. You have something I want (your product), and I have something you want (my money). It is an exchange system and nothing more.
Marxism is not about the "empathy of people." A more accurate description is that it is about the collective of people, operating as a cohesive unit where terms of private property and class statuses don't exist. Of course, it doesn't take long to see the cracks. Its bloody self-destruction is told and retold countless times, making it one of the biggest abject failures in history.
Marxism doesn't work because it is inconsistent with human nature, much less a workable economic system.

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by slevesque, posted 03-29-2010 10:56 PM slevesque has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by dronestar, posted 03-30-2010 9:14 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 72 by Faith, posted 03-30-2010 6:28 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 94 by RAZD, posted 03-30-2010 7:53 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 41 of 526 (552633)
03-30-2010 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by slevesque
03-30-2010 2:11 AM


Re: Christian basis for socialism
It shouldn't even be in the discussion if I know the person the money goes to or not. As a christian, I simply give because it is the godly thing to do.
What good is it to give to Peter Popoff or to shady person standing on the street corner claiming the money is going to a charity when really they are nefarious people? Rather than where it is alleged to be going, to the poor, it goes to themselves. It defeats the purpose of giving to the poor and gives to the greedy bastard who, under the pretense of giving to the poor, really just steals your money.
Christians do not know the homeless at the corner of the street, yet willfully give him money, because they are called to be a imitator of christ. Why then, are they reluctant to give to anyone else, anywhere?
An imiatator of Christ wouldn't deliberately be a co-conspirator in someone's misery, I would think. If you give money away, just so you can pat yourself on the back for a job well done, all the while knowing that money will be spent on drugs or alcohol, that would make you complicit. I think a sensible Christian would give wisely to those in actual need, versus feeding the flesh (addiction).
What I'm trying to say is that the christian right in america, of all the cultural/religious groups in the entire US, should be the very first to be ready to give their money to people in need.
They certainly should, but lets be honest. Many of them are nothing more than crooks who found a way to extort gullible people out of their money -- kind people who just want to help others. These people just help themselves. Look at how much gold is in the Vatican or in the pockets of the TBN network. It's disgusting! I say, screw the middle man, because there is an excellent chance the middle man wants to screw you. If you want to feed the homeless, donate your time and money at a homeless shelter. Why would we need a mediator to do that?
Socialism inhibits nothing in all this. Here in quebec, the same motivations drives every person in their work. In fact we have a reputation of being amongst the most imaginative people in the world. People invent, people create, people create goods and services and make profits.
What you've stated about innovation, inventiveness, and people creating goods and services for profit is descriptive of a capitalist system. Socialism, figuring out the failure of a total communist system, took elements capitalism and elements of communism and merged them in an attempt to take the best of both worlds.
I notice you are shifting goals here. You go from defending Marxism as being a "biblical principle" to discussing socialism. What is the topic of this thread?
I once heard a quote from an economics teacher saying ''capitalism works because people are greedy, and communism doesn't work because ... people are greedy''.
Smart professor.
The fact is not what the greed of people does in each system. Greed, in any economic system, will produce bad results. The question is to ask which system encourages a greedy behavior.
This is a fact: The wealthiest nation on earth, the United States, which is the poster child for a capitalist system is the most giving nation on the planet by private donation. That is a fact, not hearsay. More to the point, the parts of the nation that are the most "blue" states (Democrats who prefer the redistribution of wealth) are the most ungenerous. The #1 most giving state is also one of the most poor. Mississippi. The least generous? My state, New Hampshire. In fact 7 blue states in a row account for the least amount of donation. -- Source
The two most chariatble people in the world, who happen to both be the richest in the world, is Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. Two men who embody capitalist ideals are the world's most generous. That is completely inconsistent with your comment that capitalism "promotes greed."
There no connection. Greed is greed, seems to me.
I prefer doing the wrong thing by given, then by not giving.
If the government is asking the population to give more money to heal the sick, and the people refuse to do so. THe problem is with the population, not the government.
The problem is with both, seems to me.
I do find it interesting that you are equating Marxism with Socialism. I think that is a startling admission. So now I am curious where you are going with this.

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by slevesque, posted 03-30-2010 2:11 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by slevesque, posted 03-30-2010 2:15 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 526 (552634)
03-30-2010 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by dronestar
03-30-2010 9:14 AM


Re: No real Scottsmen are communists . . .
Name one communist country. Hint: Cuba, Russia, China are not / have never been communist (decisions are not made collectively, and there are certainly upper classes that "have" versus lower classes that "have not").
Precisely my point, Dronester, thank you. A true communist society is a fantasy that is inconsistent with reality.
Their are hundreds (thousands?) of tribes in Africa STILL living in communist societies. Since pre-history. Massively successful.
Are you comparing communal living with the economic/political scope and scale of the USSR or the PRC? You do understand that as populations grow, technologies increase, the market expands, that you have now shifted away from a "tribe" to a nation, right?
To compare one to the other is ridiculous.

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by dronestar, posted 03-30-2010 9:14 AM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by dronestar, posted 03-30-2010 12:06 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 526 (552642)
03-30-2010 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by dronestar
03-30-2010 12:06 PM


Re: No true Scotsman are communists . . .
You SPECIFICALLY asserted above that communism's self-destruction is told COUNTLESS times. One of the BIGGEST failures. When I asked for just one example, just ONE, you pull the ol' No true Scotsman falacy
That's because no attempt at creating the communist society has ever worked. But lets not play dumb, Dronester, and pretend that no one has tried to implement it, even if it is was and continues to be a lesson in futility. Are you really going to deny that East Germany or the USSR didn't attempt to implement communism, referred to it as communism, and failed under the banner of communism?
I think this translates to: "I was/am talking out of my arse". (Hyro, I really need to limit my time debating with you. I could be doing something much more rewarding like checking the tension on my clothes-pin springs)
Why don't you just debate the points instead of acting infantile?
No, I am not comparing communal living wiith the scale of NON-COMMUNIST countries like USSR or PRC. USSR and PRC are NOT communist countries
Oh, then do tell, what are (were) they?
This must be your version: If communism proves to be a disaster, those who implemented it must have been doing something wrong, in which case, it couldn't possibly be attributed to communism as an ideal. Hint: Many have tried to implement the marxist ideals and ALL have failed. The reason they failed is because it couldn't possibly work, and lo and behold, has proven that it can't work over and over again.
SPECIFICALLY, I contested AND SHOWED examples that your SPECIFIC assertion "Marxism is inconsistent with human nature" is very, very wrong.
By pointing to African tribes? First of all, what is your measure of "success" and secondly, could such a success be attributed on a massive scale with millions of people? If so, why has it not been accomplished?
I realize that the failure of communism is a very sensitive subject for communist and communist sympathizers, but honestly you don't need to be upset with the messenger. If the recipient of the message can't look at history and come to such an inescapable conclusion, that's no deficiency on the part of the messegner.

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by dronestar, posted 03-30-2010 12:06 PM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Straggler, posted 03-30-2010 12:55 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 48 by onifre, posted 03-30-2010 1:02 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 50 by dronestar, posted 03-30-2010 1:25 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 526 (552656)
03-30-2010 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Straggler
03-30-2010 12:55 PM


Re: Power to the Population.....
I would suggest that history shows us that would-be authoritarian dictatorships either play the tribal nationalist card or the "power to the people" card to dupe the populace into letting them take control. The end results bear little sembleance to Marxism as I understand it to be conceptually.
Where you and I may differ is that dictatorships are the inevitable result. One could not argue that idealistically Marxism is inglorious, just completely unrealistic because it would require total agreement of the proletariats.
"A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people."
Now the question as to whether a large (i.e. nation sized) population could implement a genuinely Marxist system is I think an interesting one.
I think what is interesting is that if it is so marvelous, why no one can seem to pull it off. The obvious reason is that it is not rooted in reality. To me it is no different than the concept of utopia. The utopian dream inevitably dissolved in to a dystopian nightmare where the latter national condition is worse than the former.
As for the human nature argument - People do operate under the influence of greed.
I agree. The question is what greed actually is, because I doubt there is a consensus. Greed in one instance could mean self-preservation. Like it is with all animals, self-preservation is one of the strongest instincts in nature. Greed could also mean an unhealthy obsession with the excess of wealth in such a way that it deprives others. No economic system creates greed, regardless.
But they equally operate under the influence of a strong community spirit where there exists a community that one genuinely associates oneself with. People regularly give up their time and money to help others. Just saying people are greedy ignores the other half of the equation. It is how effectively you can harness and organise that community spirit without it seeming to the individual that their resources are being taken from them to be redistributed to a faceless machine with no obvious benefit to anyone that can be identified as one of their own community. And I suspect that this probelm increases as the size of the population of the community increases.
I absolutely could not agree more. You have succinctly summarized the condition of the problem. Regardless of how well intended it may be, the application of such a system is not realistic.
What is realistic is that each person works towards self-interest. All animals, even herding animals, do this. At the same time that same instinct tells them that reciprocity is more advantageous to their survival. Altruism is then born. It wasn't forced, it wasn't demanded, it is given of one's own volition.
No system has more thouroughly extricated people from the mire of poverty than a simplistic form of capitalism. Communism is a ruinous and oppressive form of government that invariably leads to corruption, to rampant poverty (the redistribution of poverty, NOT wealth), and self-imploding system.

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Straggler, posted 03-30-2010 12:55 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by dronestar, posted 03-30-2010 1:51 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 58 by Straggler, posted 03-30-2010 3:34 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 526 (552658)
03-30-2010 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by onifre
03-30-2010 1:02 PM


Re: No true Scotsman are communists . . .
This depends on who's definition of communism you go with... one is the original form of communism created by Marx and Engel, the other is a re-written version (still with the same name) but completely different so it can't mean the same thing.
The versions of communism that haven't worked are not true Marxism/Communism. Now, will Marx's real version of communism work? Who knows. It has never been tried, and the only example one can point to are tribes. Maybe unions (at least in principle).
Well, let's look at it objectively. Marx and Engels essentially believed that the problem primarily is with "class struggle." This already is leading to self-refutation, but I am curious to see if anyone will pick up on it.
The pertinent questions are, if it is so theoretically advantageous, and you say no one has actually tried it, why have they not tried it? And if it could work, how would it work? Is it compatible with reality?

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by onifre, posted 03-30-2010 1:02 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by onifre, posted 03-30-2010 6:26 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 526 (552659)
03-30-2010 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by dronestar
03-30-2010 1:51 PM


Re: Power to the Population.....
Ahh, yeah. Pity about those tribal societies in Africa. They have been imploding for over 30,000 years.
Extrapolate a small tribe to the size and population of the United States. Do you have any sense of realism?

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by dronestar, posted 03-30-2010 1:51 PM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by dronestar, posted 03-30-2010 2:52 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 526 (552667)
03-30-2010 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by slevesque
03-30-2010 2:15 PM


Re: Christian basis for socialism
I think this is caused by the christian mentality/background of america, much more then the economic system.
You are right to a very large extent. Although I would not attribute it solely to a "Christian mentality," there is a definite correlation between sociology and giving. The other huge factor is the economic ability to give that the US has. The US, because of its strong capitalist market, has the capital in which to be generous in the first place. That cannot be over-stated or brushed aside as inconsequential.
To further drive home the point, I offer economist Adam Smith's model over economist Karl Marx's model, in the same way I would hold Milton Friedman's over Paul Krug's.
" The idea of a Marxist society is very alluring. In today's world of freedom and fairness, the notion of everyone being completely equal, even if this means taking from the rich and giving to the poor, seems just; however, the defect in Marxism is obvious. It is dependent on a type of human nature that is hard to come by. For Marxism to work, very little greed and jealosy can exist and people must have a general feeling of charity and a willingness to work their hardest for the good of everyone. These are obviously not common traits. Marxism could also work if those who have the greatest abilities and those who work the hardest are satisfied with rewards equivalent to those with lesser abilities and those who don't work hard at all. This is also very unlikely. Marxism undoubtedly leads to free riding and slacking.
On the other hand, capitalism utilizes the willpower of individuals, especially entrepreneurs, to foment economic activity. Capitalism is based on the assumption that individuals operate based on self interest; however, by doing so they not only help themselves, but also propel others towards economic success. As Adam Smith put it, "by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for society that it was no part of his intention. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it."

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by slevesque, posted 03-30-2010 2:15 PM slevesque has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Theodoric, posted 03-30-2010 3:51 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 526 (552693)
03-30-2010 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Straggler
03-30-2010 3:34 PM


Re: Power to the Population.....
Why in a system that is called communism must there be an elite who make all the decisions for the community regardless of the wishes of the community?
The most obvious being that history supports that notion. Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Mussolini, Il-Jong, etc, etc, etc, etc.
Secondly, that is what it is defined by:
quote:
1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
2. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
3. The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat.
Third, and most important, it could be no other way. All form of government need specific individuals to organize it. That obviously does not mean that a Direct Democracy would exist where everyone has an equal say and an equal status for the sole fact that some people have to be in charge. Anything less would be anarchy.
Where does this fantasy that all the proletariat's simultaneously agree on all counts, without the least bit of organization, and every one skips off in to the sunset come from?
Whether this is true or false it is indisputably in the interests of those who currently hold the majority of the wealth and power in the world (or indeed any given nation) to foster that belief.
In reverse the Communist Manifesto is a book of indoctrination. The best way to avoid it is to not take cues from anyone. Simply look at the sordid history and make your own conclusions.
quote:
Greed could also mean an unhealthy obsession with the excess of wealth in such a way that it deprives others.
Which is arguably (some might say blatantly factually) what we have now.
I don't see penalizing successful people and redistributing poverty as a sign of "fairness." Like anything else in the economy, everything has a drawback, including greed. Companies like Enron and individuals like Bernie Madoff have committed actual crimes out of their greed. They are now defunct, out of the market, imprisioned, and all due to their greed. So let it be. Their greed was their downfall.
The indoctrination I believe that is being perpetrated on the opposite end of the spectrum is that communism or marxism doesn't promote greed. Greed is a human condition, not an economic principle. You will find greed on any corner of the globe, regardless of what economic policy that particular country ascribes to.
Indeed. But altruism to who? Those with whom we have a shared social connection. Those who could be us but for different circumstance. I think the question is how far that social connection can be realistically establshed in a large population.
What society departs from this, that you would make it exceptional in the case of capitalism? Why is self-interest, which benefits everyone in the long run, so bad a thing? The only reason we have anything at all is from people pursuing their self-interests. The inventor invents for two reasons: He invents because he benefits monetarily and society benefits, which means he doubly invests (because a healthy society, an orderly society, an economically viable society, a free society, promotes self-interest).
I think, like Phil Donahue in the clip I provided, a lot of people are taking a lot of things for granted and don't even realize it. That the dissenters on this thread even have the internet in which to bitch is all thanks to capitalism.
Capitalism does breed innovation and wealth. But it doesn't do this without cost. That cost should not be ignored. This was part of Marx's thesis as I understand it.
Everything has a cost. Honestly, please show me where in nature that survival of the fittest doesn't apply and then tell me why it wouldn't apply to any economic policy. The problem I see with communism and its multiple derivatives is that there is this incredible sense of self-entitlement -- that the world owes us something.
Let us take the argument about health care. Some argue that because health care is a necessity, it must then be the role of the government to give it. A valid point, except so is sustenance. Does the government pay for your food, even though you absolutely need it to survive? Why then is it not the government's responsibility to feed you?
Communism as it has been practised has been little more than an excuse for dictatorial rule in the false name of the people. Whether or not Marxism could be successfully applied to a large population remains a question that I don't think those with power, wealth and influence will ever let us truly discover. Because it might just work and for them that would be truly catastrophic.
I don't believe that for a second for the mere fact that it would take all nations to be colluding with one another to purposefully oppress "ordinary citizens" so they can hoard power. At any time, any one can influence and persuade others to try a marxist economy.
If then it is not a global conspiracy of the puppet masters, why has it not been tried? The answer is that it has been tried and it failed over and over again. That no one can accomplish simply testifies to the fact that it is an illusion, not that it hasn't been tried.
Animal Farm, anyone?
Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Straggler, posted 03-30-2010 3:34 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Theodoric, posted 03-30-2010 6:14 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 74 by Straggler, posted 03-30-2010 6:43 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 526 (552694)
03-30-2010 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Theodoric
03-30-2010 3:51 PM


Re: Christian basis for socialism
Do you mean nobel laureate Paul Krugman? If it is Krugman you mean, what are your problems with Krugman?
Yes, I meant Krugman.
You might want to read some real world critiques of Friedman and the failings of his "philosophies".
I obviously wouldn't have mentioned Paul in contrast to Milton if I already haven't read some of his critiques.

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Theodoric, posted 03-30-2010 3:51 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Theodoric, posted 03-30-2010 6:17 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 526 (552701)
03-30-2010 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Theodoric
03-30-2010 6:14 PM


Re: Power to the Population.....
Food stamps, school lunch programs, WIC programs.
Theo, I am referring to the masses, not a fraction of people. Could the government, or should the government pay for your food because you need food to survive?
These are clearly a benefit to society.
Does it benefit society or does it benefit the people on food stamps? How does food stamps benefit society?
Also, our food production system is very socialistic. There are price supports for numerous agricultural products. There is no truly free market in food production or food consumption.
Are you saying that the government determines the price of food?
The purpose of the government is not to allow an unfettered free market.
No, Theo, the government does not exist to stop "free markets." The role of the government, which is complex, exists for a few basic reasons. People desire order and people desire to be secure in their liberty. The problem is they need a device in which to achieve these goals collectively. That device is government.
In this country, the role was supposed to be small and specific to protection, infrastructure, and postal routes.
I am not a supporter of communism, but as you have been shown many times, communism has not been tried.
They say that, but history disagrees. Let's say for the sake of the argument it hasn't been tried. Why has it not been tried, if it is theoretically so wonderful?
I find it hilarious that you listed Mussolini.
I misspoke, Mussolini was certainly not a communist. Dictator, yes, communist, no.

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Theodoric, posted 03-30-2010 6:14 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Straggler, posted 03-30-2010 6:54 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 80 by Theodoric, posted 03-30-2010 7:09 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024