patrick.net

Kevin,
I am guilty of using "socialist" as a catch-all phrase for things like how our Gov can take money by threat of law from one citizen and hand it (or the goods/services it puchaces) to another person (citizen or not) and the Gov arbitrarily decides if this person is deemed worthy of getting the wealth that has been taken from the citizen (WEALTH in this case is just a word that includes money, goods, and services). What would be the better title to give such a government action vs socialism? Serious question, not an arguement on my part.

If the people handing over the money were able to set guidleines, for example the taking of a drug test to make sure welfare was not funding drug dealers, that would be an improvement.

Bap33 says

Kevin,

I am guilty of using “socialist” as a catch-all phrase for things like how our Gov can take money by treat of law from one citizen and hand it (or the goods/services it puchaces) to another person (citizen or not) and the Gov arbitrarily decides if this person is deemed worthy of getting the wealth that has been taken from the citizen (WEALTH in this case is just a word that includes money, goods, and services).

Dick Cheney? Blackwater ring any bells? Or perhaps you mean only things like sending food & medicine to Haiti? Yes you need a better definition than "taking citizen money and spending it somewhere I don't like."

I changed "treat" to "threat" .. sorry for that.

no, I do not need any better definition, I just need to know what to call it when Gov does it, if not socialism, then I would just like to know the correct term is.

Since you asked, I never said the Gov had permission to send tax money to any other nation .. ever. The Red Cross would get more money if American people paid less taxes and were given breaks to give to such causes, and The Red Cross would do pleanty to help -- without any politico bullpoop. (and liberal politicos HATE not controlling and getting the credit for handouts). America spends billions on helping stupid people stay alive, so they (the stupid people) don't feel the need throw off the crappy Gov that is holding them down. Haiti showed the world what happens when only bad people have the power and the weapons --- jungle rule.

Bap33 says

Kevin,
I am guilty of using “socialist” as a catch-all phrase for things like how our Gov can take money by threat of law from one citizen and hand it (or the goods/services it puchaces) to another person (citizen or not) and the Gov arbitrarily decides if this person is deemed worthy of ge

The normal term that is used for such a system is "society".

People form societies in order to mutually benefit one another. Some people contribute more than others, and that's OK as long as the society is more beneficial than the lack of society would be.

What you seem willfully ignorant of is that these systems that you rail against were the choice of the people. The people want medicare. The people want social security. Sad as it is, the people also want ridiculous levels of military spending. There aren't any superhuman government goons stealing money from hard working people and using it for themselves.

Individual programs and systems have names. Some of these names are "taxation", "law enforcement", and, yes "socialism".

But you label everything that is done by the government on behalf of the people as "socialism", which is false. You have misused the term so much that it is meaningless. You could substitute any other word and it would be equally meaningless.

Socialism is a system wherein the means of production are owned by the government. It is nothing more and nothing less. Medicare is a socialist insurance program, one that most people support. The post office is a socialist enterprise, one created by our very constitution.

Taxes are not socialism. Government regulation is not socialism.

ok, thanks

kEViN, says: "Generally speaking 'socialistic governments' JUST TAKE industries they want to own, why would they want to pay for them".

Right, the government would just steal the industries ( the means of production) they wanted. Is that socialism, tyranny, or both?

Tyranny is oppressive power exerted by government, abuse of authority, takes power or exerts control without constitutional authority.

I know, I know...your're going to defend the government regardless of what it does, lib's always do. Theft, torture, murder - anything goes as long as its the government doing it, right?

The liberal motto: "IN GOVERNMENT WE TRUST". Lib's say: Forget personal responsibility, the public is too dumb or incapable to taking care of itrself, ONLY GOVERNMENT IS CAPABLE OF TAKING CARE OF YOU. Give us more and more of your money because you don't know how to spend it...WE know how to spend it better than you. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need, put your trust in governmnet, comrade.

Abe ... your post sums it up very well. Liberals love big government. Why that is I have never been able to understand. I have spoken in the past with numerous people that lived under the old Iron Curtain, including quite a few that lived under the good old USSR. Every single one of them have said (paraphrasing) "... what is wrong with America? They are creating the very thing here that we left behind." What people like Kevin can't understand is that government control expands incrementally and that government never gives up power they have obtained, unless by force. Perhaps this election will shake enough of these pseudo socialists in both parties to wake up. We can only hope.

Ray, you and Abe are committing the fallacy -- ie. intellectual dishonesty -- of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

There is a continuum of policy between 18th century laissez faire and the totalitarian cult of personality of the DPRK.

EVERY "progressive" and "liberal" policy initiative fixated in law came about due to responses to real-world failures in free market capitalism.

You can't find the libertarian non-socialist utopia existing on this globe. And in the past it never existed either. America in its glory days, and England in its industrial revolution was built on the backs of repressed labor, and progressivism and socialism was the response.

New Zealand, Canada, Norway, Germany and many other countries offer middle-way examples of superior systems producing superior social outcomes to the Austrian bullshit you and Dishonest Abe post here 24/7.

Now, if Americans reject the Democrats this election and complete the job in 2012, I sincerely hope you guys get what you wish. I'll be several time zones away with the popcorn, watching the economy collapse into something that makes Hooverism look like the feel-good 90s.

IF it were possible to put a negative amount of time into considering what you are saying ( regarding their false dilemma), Ray and Abe would do it.

I just think they, and the entire republican side, are entirely knowingly full of shit.

In this environment, the biggest bullshitters win I guess.

A good example of this is the Dem's health care reform bill. It's very similar to Chafee's 1993 proposed plan:

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Graphics/2010/022310-Bill-comparison.aspx

Some of the co-sponsors of the 1993 proposed legislation:

Sen Bennett, Robert F. [UT]
Sen Bond, Christopher S. [MO]
Sen Dole, Robert J. [KS]
Sen Grassley, Chuck [IA]
Sen Hatch, Orrin G. [UT]
Sen Hatfield, Mark O. [OR]
Sen Simpson, Alan K. [WY]
Sen Stevens, Ted [AK]

Real bunch of Marxists there.

Troy, Marcus & kEViN: blah - blah - blah - blah - blah. Mindless support of the government no matter what. I USED TO BE A dumbo-crat, until I came to my senses. I matured, began to read a lot, educated myself, and then totally rejected liberalism.

See, there's hope for you too (notice that word HOPE, hahaha).

Honest Abe says

Mindless support of the government no matter what.

actually I am a left-libertarian. Which basically means I go with what empirically works best.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/14/world-happiest-countries-lifestyle-realestate-gallup-table.html

Democrats don't appeal to me much at all, I think they've fucked things up pretty badly since 1950 or so.

Problem is the present Republicans are an order of magnitude worse. The latent theocratic and plutocratic urges are going to be the destruction of this nation (at least as a place I want to live and raise a family). We already got a heavy dose of this poison, 2001-2006. That the American people want more of this is not going to end well for them.

Oh well. It was a good run.

I think a better name for you would have been:

NAPALMINTHEMORNING

or perhaps

MADMAX

marcus says

I think a better name for you would have been:
NAPALMINTHEMORNING
or perhaps
MADMAX

No shit. ;)

APOCALYPSEFUCK says

Total triumph of FREEDOM is at hand.

I am down with your vision, I even bring my own outfit to the party:

Stop! You're making me hot!

Government is best that governs the least. No one says NO government and NO taxes is the answer. LIMITED, CONSTITUTIONAL government is the answer.

Limited, constitutional government cures personal, fiscal, monetary and moral irresponsibility. Things manipulative, needy, jealous, greedy, busy-body, control freaks can't stand and will never accept.

Limited, constitutional government is a concept that's too hard for weaked minded, easily controlled individuals to comprehend. Those people need an authority figure, a surrogate mommy, to tell them what to do, hence the term "Nanny State".

Why do conservatives have such enormous parental issues?

I hear they are always bringing up Mommy. Was it the bed wetting? Was it because so many nursed until they were 5 years old? I'm just asking questions here.

Why are they unable to admit any of their flaws or mistakes, and always deflect and evade when cornered? It's like riding Cerberus, as soon as you have one head pinned another one rares back and you only have 2 hands after all.

elliemae says

Stop! You’re making me hot!

Remember your Civil Defense training in a real emergency:

Vincente, no intelligent response - again (8:49 pm). Are you a politician? Take whatever a politician says, turn it around 180 degrees, and you'll be closer to the truth. The same for your 8:49 pm comment.

Dear Abe,

Unlike certain other posters, I don't see my life purpose as a ....

MISSION to terminate Sarah Connor.

I had a fun 3-day Halloween weekend and was chilling out, and made some posts that amused me and perhaps other. Alcohol may have been a factor. Apologies if this interrupted your 608th reposting of "those darn Libtards make me ANGRY".

Honest Abe says

Government is best that governs the least. No one says NO government and NO taxes is the answer.

You do realize that those two statements are contradictory, right?

If the government that governs least is best, then the best government is no government.

...which is clearly false.

But I think that's not what you're saying, and you really believe the second statement. Great.

Why is it that you can't seem to even acknowledge that the majority of the country, the majority of the world, and pretty much all sane people DO NOT WANT the government to control everything?

Seriously, stop it. Constantly claiming that anyone who ever supports a progressive policy measure is just a supporter of facism isn't helpful. You're just being loud and annoying.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again:

The examples held up of horrible, oppressive governments didn't happen gradually, didn't "slip into" anything. They came about from fast, often violent overthrowing of what already existed.

There is a profound difference between Norway and the former Soviet Union. If you can't see that, then you're an idiot.

It's painfully clear that Honest Abe's worldview is predicated on there being a black/white dichotomy between economic freedom and totalitarian communism.

It's my general impression, as Upton Sinclair observed in 1951, "The American People will take Socialism, but they won't take the label." The "Inner Party" of the conservative movement requires fooling the rubes about socialism. That's what Beck's recent attacks on Teddy Roosevelt and the early 20th century Progressive Movement are about.

Never mind that Norway is, for its size, the wealthiest and happiest country in the world, and has a cradle-to-grave socialism established in the postwar era. Socialism is anathema, the forbidden fruit, move along.

It's getting to the point that in its opposition to teh socialism the right is eating its own. Romney's health care plan mandates was very similar to the 1993 Chafee plan, but since the conservative Senate Dems like Baucus ripped off their playbook with the mandate approach, mandates are the second coming of Lenin and/or Pol Pot.

It makes no sense. I think the bullshit coming from them is entirely intentional. They just lie as needed; they lied about the original Bush tax cuts, they lied about needing to take out Saddam, they lied about social security, they lie about the founding fathers (even so far as to make Jefferson a non-person), they lie about the efficacy of eg. abstinence education, they lie about global warming, they lie about "intelligent design". It's hard to identify a conservative position that isn't formed from outright lies. They know they've got the 40% fundie contingent as their base, they just need to scare up 1/6th of the remaining 60% of the population to get that magic 50% that puts them into power.

Sad, but what can you do, being a nation of morons and all.

ahhh ... Grasshopper .... you miss point ... the best government is SELF government ....

For FREEDOM to work we must first have citizens with proper personal conduct, who accept responsibility for their actions and choices in life. Without a moral code that citizens use to self-gorvern, no form of FREEDOM under government "works".

It all begins at the individual and then to the family and then to the clan and then the village and then the county and then the state and then the nation and then the world. Trying to have a national entity have an effect on the home or individual is not a good idea.

Somebody give Kevin and Troy a hug.

Bap33,

One could think of minimum wage as the default "union" for those who have nothing.

PS: I'm impressed by several things you have said on this thread. Good for you. And I am not being sarcastic, I really mean it.

Honest Abe says

Limited, constitutional government cures personal, fiscal, monetary and moral irresponsibility.

and the clap

Troy says

they lie about global warming

I didn't know the scientists at the East Anglia Climate Research Unit were republicans - I thought they were British?

You don't know much of anything, actually.

Troy says

You don’t know much of anything, actually.

Nice response ... now go get your big boy pants on and say something meaningful.

An update on what's happening in Socialist Europe. Everywhere you look, they're running out of money and the EU is in danger of splitting apart. Thatcher had it right: "The problem with Socialism is that you always run out of other people's money."

http://gonzalolira.blogspot.com/2010/11/tidal-forces-ripping-europe-apart.html?source=patrick.net

RayAmerica says

An update on what’s happening in Socialist Europe. Everywhere you look, they’re running out of money and the EU is in danger of splitting apart

Suck on it, Ray.

I dedicate this article to Giggles:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26829.htm

Hold your nose and read it. Don't report back until you have. You'll be tested. I'd prefer if you would give a summary.

Bap33 says

For FREEDOM to work we must first have citizens with proper personal conduct, who accept responsibility for their actions and choices in life. Without a moral code that citizens use to self-gorvern, no form of FREEDOM under government “works”.

It all begins at the individual and then to the family and then to the clan and then the village and then the county and then the state and then the nation and then the world. Trying to have a national entity have an effect on the home or individual is not a good idea.

I don't even know what all of this means. None of us live in a vaccuum.

First off, what exactly do you even mean by "FREEDOM" in that statement?

(and I fully expect Giggles or Abe to come in at this point and say "FREEDOM means FREEDOM, you fool". ...So please just don't.)

I think it reads pretty easy to understand. And for me, that is pretty rare!! lol

For our republic to work, each person needs to make choices that are best for the health, safety, soul of all citizens (of which #1 is you) - but that choice needs to be made without force from a government. Free of force, a moral body of citizens should operate correctly as a republic. I guess in this case I see freedom as "no gov forces" dicatating choice. (?)

Bap33 says

For our republic to work, each person needs to make choices that are best for the health, safety, soul of all citizens

Sure, I'll go with that, but again, defining "best for ... all citizens" is where it starts to get tricky, especially when you put the caveat "(of which #1 is you)" because sometimies whats best for the larger number means individual sacrifices. The reason I don't know what it means when you say something like that is that I think its too broad and has internal inconsistencies.

To the rest if it, again I'll say that we don't live in a vacuum.

Here's another article for Abe & giggles:

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_origin_of_americas_intellectual_vacuum_20101115/

Bap33 says

I guess in this case I see freedom as “no gov forces” dicatating choice.

And yet this freedom has not existed without economic domination of hereditary wealth over the poor.

In the conservative utopia of no government. the only recourse the oppressed poor have is to leave, to a country taking them as immigrants (eg the US ~1650 through ~1900, or internally migrate to an open frontier (1820 - 1920), or if that's not available to establish new powers of government where one's economic rights -- justice, education, health care, social insurance -- are not privileges secured by wealth but rights rather by fair and impartial government responsive via democratic processes to the people it serves (the Populist & Progressive movements of the late 19th century and early 20th century, which eventually morphed into social programs we have today).

Where is the government "dictating choice" today, anyway? Every choice it does dictate -- wear your seatbelt (or helmet on a motorcycle), don't drive too fast on the highway, pay into social retirement and disability insurance and old-age health care (OASDI / Medicare) and soon the requirement to obtain health insurance on the private market comes with much greater social payoffs than the cost it incurs on individual liberty.

The Baltic States of Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and Germany are the most highly socialized and most successful nations on this planet. This very success illustrates all this BS about economic freedom and American exceptionalism is just worn-out nostalgia for the olden days which weren't really that great for most Americans anyway.

The libertarian utopia is just a race to the bottom. It is a pipe dream foisted on stupid people who don't have any grasp on history or economics by rich people who do.

As Liberals continue in their quest to build a Social Welfare state here in America, Europe continues to collapse under a sea of red ink ....

http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/Euro+under+siege+Portugal+hits+panic+button/3831814/story.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/nov/15/greek-deficit-bigger-than-thought

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704584504575616033310586068.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsThird

The truth.

It does make one wonder, what the hell is going on ? Troy has explained it pretty well, but I still find it so hard to comprehend. At the rate things are going, the typical middle class person isn't going to want to put their hand on their heart and say the pledge of allegiance any more.

The truth.

http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/2010/09/west-wing-video-jimmy-smits-defines-liberal/

Margaret Thatcher on Socialism:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okHGCz6xxiw

The problem with socialism is that it’s mostly socialism for the very rich.
Why do we keep taxing the common people to bail out failed bankers?
Why do the very rich pay only 15% income tax on the interest and dividends they skim off the work of others, while the actual workers pay 28% on honest labor?

Because there is a two party system here in the USA: Rich vs. Poor

YES, socialist programs need reforming however to go away from caring for the mentally ill, elderly, deaf, dumb and bling would be un-godly.