hes a socialist democrat. you know, like how Rand is a libertarian republican. regardless, socialism isnt a bad word. and we've had socialist policies in this country for decades. there is absolutely no chance of USA become a "socialist" nation... but there is a chance of some of the 1% losing their stranglehold on power and wealth.
No, socialism is a bad word. In fact, the basis of socialism (collectivism) is contrary at its core to the ideals of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which are based on individualism and the protection of individual rights.
No, socialism is a bad word. In fact, the basis of socialism (collectivism) is contrary at its core to the ideals of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which are based on individualism and the protection of individual rights.
Perhaps you should reread the Constitution. Below is the opening paragraph. It reads the opposite of individualism.
Quote:
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 for the United States of America.
Although the Bill of Rights amendments do spell out individual rights. It does not address any differences between individualism and socialism. It is not so much about what people are allowed to do as it pertains to liberty but rather puts limits on what the government is allowed to do.
Socialism is a natural human characteristic. Without it we would still be hunting and gathering. There would be no evolution or higher knowledge because everyone would be totally preoccupied with their own needs instead to working together for the greater good.
You don’t know anything about those freaks, do you?
So "Why don't you go and stand in that field over there - which we own by the way, whilst we decide your future"
That’s what I’m saying. Until the foreign ownership of this country is removed, it is impossible to vote in anyone who has your interests and only your interests at heart.
Hence the 'You cannot be serious' reference.
Don't you mean ownership of the legislature. After all, they do the bidding of their paymasters - wherever they're from.
Perhaps you should reread the Constitution. Below is the opening paragraph. It reads the opposite of individualism.
Although the Bill of Rights amendments do spell out individual rights. It does not address any differences between individualism and socialism. It is not so much about what people are allowed to do as it pertains to liberty but rather puts limits on what the government is allowed to do.
Socialism is a natural human characteristic. Without it we would still be hunting and gathering. There would be no evolution or higher knowledge because everyone would be totally preoccupied with their own needs instead to working together for the greater good.
People often confuse socialism with communism.
Regarding Bernie Sanders' strain of "democratic socialism": www.BernieIsWrong.com
The dictionary definition of "socialism" is: a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
And: (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.
There's really no confusion there... by any definition, that's contrary to the founding concepts behind property rights and in direct conflict with the protection of the individual over the mob... er, "society". Keep in mind, society has no rights, there are only individual rights which are to be protected by government as they are spelled out in our Bill of Rights. The rest of the Constitution goes over the nuts and bolts of what are the limited functions of the Federal government...functions which have long since been unconstitutionally exceeded.
No, he wrote it, in a letter to the Governor of Pennsylvania, on 11 November, 1755 (Votes and Proceedings of the House of Representatives, 1755-1756 (Philadelphia, 1756), pp. 19-21.). It just doesn't mean what you want it to mean.
Thanks for the citation. What is your interpretation of the quote's meaning
Firstly, I would suggest that anyone interested in the quote should read the letter, since the context makes the meaning clear and illustrates the dangers of pulling sentences out of context.
However, to summarize, the letter was written by Franklin acting for the Pennsylvania Assembly, and the subject was their objection to the Governor's repeated veto of the Assembly's attempt to levy taxes, in support of defense of the frontier land borders, on the estates owned by the Penn family. The Penn family, supported by the Governor, wished to be exempted from that tax burden and to have that exemption formally recognized in return for some voluntary, short-term payments to fund military action (the referenced purchase of a little temporary safety). He was, essentially, pointing out the folly of giving up the secure protection afforded by the Assembly-funded military in exchange for short-term advantage and tax avoidance.
The irony, of course, in terms of the misuse of this quotation, is that Franklin was not railing against government intrusion, but actually writing as an agent of the government arguing for the need for broad taxation to fund government-sponsored defense of the colony. Not precisely the opposite of the meaning that is often (as in thread) ascribed to it, but amusingly close.
The dictionary definition of "socialism" is: a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
And: (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.
A large part of Mises’ argument was a discussion on the nature of socialism; specifically, that it is fractured into a hundred little subgroups that could each claim, upon any criticism, that you did not truly understand socialism and that your criticisms were unfounded or misplaced altogether. About what other economic policy do we hear that, I wonder, hmm...
In fact, socialism thrives by avoiding any real definition. Beyond “public ownership of the means of production,” what definition does socialism have? It avoids putting down roots. It does not strike an economic cord of numbers, mathematics, and science. It relies on rhetoric, the inspiring principles of social and economic justice, on the idea of what is “fair” rather than what works. And whenever it is pinned down and shown to not work, the advocates of socialism return to their shallow banner-phrases, their propaganda, and haughtily declare that their detractors have failed to even grasp the idea at the outset, dismissing it altogether.
What does it mean for the public to own the means of production, exactly? Socialists have no definite answer to this question. Mises devotes dozens of pages to exploring all the possible meanings of that statement and explaining why the “public ownership of the means of production” is an absurd principle. But there’s the rub–how easy it is to escape argument when your own position is smoke and mirrors!
But if you believe that socialism is the public ownership of the means of production, then you need to know that they all understood socialism very, very well. And furthermore, they understood that their own criticisms would be discarded by socialists that would do exactly what mstone just did–claim that none of them really understood.
I weep for socialists, who cannot see the forest for the trees.
Regarding Bernie Sanders' strain of "democratic socialism": www.BernieIsWrong.com
I would not vote for him. This will be the worst election in my recollection. There are no acceptable candidates in my opinion, although both Bernie and Hillary have a better chance of winning their party's nomination than either Ben or Donald. In the end the nominations never go to anyone who has not held public office before and neither of them have.
Says a lot that an admitted felon (and therefore ineligible to become president) has a chance of winning the presidency.
If she's not sent to prison (and she and her husband are very slippery eels), I think it'll end up being Trump and Hillary as choices in the general election. Who would "win" in such a matchup? Well, it all comes down to delegates.
If she's not sent to prison (and she and her husband are slippery eels), I think it'll end up being Trump and Hillary as choices in the general election. Who would "win" in such a matchup? Well, it all comes down to delegates.
Doubt Trump could get the nomination. He may have a lot of popular support from angry white males, but when it comes down to the delegates, I'm pretty certain they realize they would never win a general election with such a bombastic egomaniac, which, I for one, am thankful for. Trump would start WW III the first week in office.
Doubt Trump could get the nomination. He may have a lot of popular support from angry white males, but when it comes down to the delegates, I'm pretty certain they realize they would never win a general election with such a bombastic egomaniac, which, I for one, am thankful for. Trump would start WW III the first week in office.
He may be a blusterer, however I seriously doubt his first order of business would be to launch nuclear missiles onto Russia. In fact, I think he might have a better relationship with Putin than Obama, since they're both ego-driven game players. They have something in common. Obama is just a shame.
Mind you, I have big problems with either Clinton or Trump presidencies. Neither are small government, nor are they really interested in constitutional government.
He may be a blusterer, however I seriously doubt his first order of business would be to launch nuclear missiles onto Russia.
World war doesn't start with nuclear missiles, it ends with nuclear missiles.
Trump is totally flip-flopping on his foreign policy. Last year he was critical of Obama on the Ukraine issue, calling on him to 'be a man' and stand up to Putin. Now he says he is supportive of Russia saying he can work out deals with Putin. He also has some strong words regarding China, Mexico and the Middle East. He has said he wants to seize control of all the oil fields in the Middle East and North Africa, which could easily start a theater-level war possibly escalating to a global war very quickly. But it is all just idle speculation because he can't possibly win an election without the votes of latinos, blacks, women and anyone with common sense, even if he is nominated in some freak event.
That may not have much impact on Apple devices. They cannot force hardware manufacturers to implement a backdoor or to put a disclosed private key on a device: that would be a serious limitation of free-trade and would be challenged internationally before the WTO. Sharing the encrypted information would be a non-issue for Apple, the gov't has to seize the iPhone which includes the private key to decrypt that information. And they can already do that with a court order, no special law is necessary... So that law may be as effective as a vaporware against Apple devices.
World war doesn't start with nuclear missiles, it ends with nuclear missiles.
Trump is totally flip-flopping on his foreign policy. Last year he was critical of Obama on the Ukraine issue, calling on him to 'be a man' and stand up to Putin. Now he says he is supportive of Russia saying he can work out deals with Putin. He also has some strong words regarding China, Mexico and the Middle East. He has said he wants to seize control of all the oil fields in the Middle East and North Africa, which could easily start a theater-level war possibly escalating to a global war very quickly. But it is all just idle speculation because he can't possibly win an election without the votes of latinos, blacks, women and anyone with common sense, even if he is nominated in some freak event.
Please note that I'm not endorsing Hillary or Trump.
Please note that I'm not endorsing Hillary or Trump.
Honestly, I think Jeb has the best chance to win. Even moderate Democrats probably trust Jeb more than Hillary. I know I do. Plus he would bring in the Latino vote.
I want privacy but i also want criminals, terrorists, kidnappers, etc. caught. It is impossible to fight for the rights of good people while also protecting them from the bad ones.
You can't have it both ways. You either choose either one, or you choose an optimal combination of both (with corresponding glitches).
Honestly, I think Jeb has the best chance to win. Even moderate Democrats probably trust Jeb more than Hillary. I know I do. Plus he would bring in the Latino vote.
Jeb has performed very poorly in the debates, plus he's even recently dropped hints that he might prefer to be doing other "cool things" with his life instead. I think there is a strong possibility he'll drop out in a couple of months unless he does something that drastically changes his trajectory.
Comments
No, socialism is a bad word. In fact, the basis of socialism (collectivism) is contrary at its core to the ideals of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which are based on individualism and the protection of individual rights.
No, socialism is a bad word. In fact, the basis of socialism (collectivism) is contrary at its core to the ideals of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which are based on individualism and the protection of individual rights.
Perhaps you should reread the Constitution. Below is the opening paragraph. It reads the opposite of individualism.
Although the Bill of Rights amendments do spell out individual rights. It does not address any differences between individualism and socialism. It is not so much about what people are allowed to do as it pertains to liberty but rather puts limits on what the government is allowed to do.
Socialism is a natural human characteristic. Without it we would still be hunting and gathering. There would be no evolution or higher knowledge because everyone would be totally preoccupied with their own needs instead to working together for the greater good.
People often confuse socialism with communism.
Hence the 'You cannot be serious' reference.
Don't you mean ownership of the legislature. After all, they do the bidding of their paymasters - wherever they're from.
Oh, I was unaware that was the reference. If you’d said Leslie Nielsen, however...
Well, the SCOTUS is a non-representative entity, as well. They don’t work for the Constitution or the people of the United States either.
Perhaps you should reread the Constitution. Below is the opening paragraph. It reads the opposite of individualism.
Although the Bill of Rights amendments do spell out individual rights. It does not address any differences between individualism and socialism. It is not so much about what people are allowed to do as it pertains to liberty but rather puts limits on what the government is allowed to do.
Socialism is a natural human characteristic. Without it we would still be hunting and gathering. There would be no evolution or higher knowledge because everyone would be totally preoccupied with their own needs instead to working together for the greater good.
People often confuse socialism with communism.
Regarding Bernie Sanders' strain of "democratic socialism": www.BernieIsWrong.com
The dictionary definition of "socialism" is: a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
And: (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.
There's really no confusion there... by any definition, that's contrary to the founding concepts behind property rights and in direct conflict with the protection of the individual over the mob... er, "society". Keep in mind, society has no rights, there are only individual rights which are to be protected by government as they are spelled out in our Bill of Rights. The rest of the Constitution goes over the nuts and bolts of what are the limited functions of the Federal government...functions which have long since been unconstitutionally exceeded.
No, he wrote it, in a letter to the Governor of Pennsylvania, on 11 November, 1755 (Votes and Proceedings of the House of Representatives, 1755-1756 (Philadelphia, 1756), pp. 19-21.). It just doesn't mean what you want it to mean.
Thanks for the citation. What is your interpretation of the quote's meaning
Firstly, I would suggest that anyone interested in the quote should read the letter, since the context makes the meaning clear and illustrates the dangers of pulling sentences out of context.
However, to summarize, the letter was written by Franklin acting for the Pennsylvania Assembly, and the subject was their objection to the Governor's repeated veto of the Assembly's attempt to levy taxes, in support of defense of the frontier land borders, on the estates owned by the Penn family. The Penn family, supported by the Governor, wished to be exempted from that tax burden and to have that exemption formally recognized in return for some voluntary, short-term payments to fund military action (the referenced purchase of a little temporary safety). He was, essentially, pointing out the folly of giving up the secure protection afforded by the Assembly-funded military in exchange for short-term advantage and tax avoidance.
The irony, of course, in terms of the misuse of this quotation, is that Franklin was not railing against government intrusion, but actually writing as an agent of the government arguing for the need for broad taxation to fund government-sponsored defense of the colony. Not precisely the opposite of the meaning that is often (as in thread) ascribed to it, but amusingly close.
The dictionary definition of "socialism" is: a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
And: (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.
A large part of Mises’ argument was a discussion on the nature of socialism; specifically, that it is fractured into a hundred little subgroups that could each claim, upon any criticism, that you did not truly understand socialism and that your criticisms were unfounded or misplaced altogether. About what other economic policy do we hear that, I wonder, hmm...
In fact, socialism thrives by avoiding any real definition. Beyond “public ownership of the means of production,” what definition does socialism have? It avoids putting down roots. It does not strike an economic cord of numbers, mathematics, and science. It relies on rhetoric, the inspiring principles of social and economic justice, on the idea of what is “fair” rather than what works. And whenever it is pinned down and shown to not work, the advocates of socialism return to their shallow banner-phrases, their propaganda, and haughtily declare that their detractors have failed to even grasp the idea at the outset, dismissing it altogether.
What does it mean for the public to own the means of production, exactly? Socialists have no definite answer to this question. Mises devotes dozens of pages to exploring all the possible meanings of that statement and explaining why the “public ownership of the means of production” is an absurd principle. But there’s the rub–how easy it is to escape argument when your own position is smoke and mirrors!
But if you believe that socialism is the public ownership of the means of production, then you need to know that they all understood socialism very, very well. And furthermore, they understood that their own criticisms would be discarded by socialists that would do exactly what mstone just did–claim that none of them really understood.
I weep for socialists, who cannot see the forest for the trees.
Regarding Bernie Sanders' strain of "democratic socialism": www.BernieIsWrong.com
I would not vote for him. This will be the worst election in my recollection. There are no acceptable candidates in my opinion, although both Bernie and Hillary have a better chance of winning their party's nomination than either Ben or Donald. In the end the nominations never go to anyone who has not held public office before and neither of them have.
Says a lot that an admitted felon (and therefore ineligible to become president) has a chance of winning the presidency.
Says a lot that an admitted felon (and therefore ineligible to become president) has a chance of winning the presidency.
If she's not sent to prison (and she and her husband are very slippery eels), I think it'll end up being Trump and Hillary as choices in the general election. Who would "win" in such a matchup? Well, it all comes down to delegates.
If she's not sent to prison (and she and her husband are slippery eels), I think it'll end up being Trump and Hillary as choices in the general election. Who would "win" in such a matchup? Well, it all comes down to delegates.
Doubt Trump could get the nomination. He may have a lot of popular support from angry white males, but when it comes down to the delegates, I'm pretty certain they realize they would never win a general election with such a bombastic egomaniac, which, I for one, am thankful for. Trump would start WW III the first week in office.
This is just parroted over and over without anything whatsoever to back it up. I don’t get it.
Doubt Trump could get the nomination. He may have a lot of popular support from angry white males, but when it comes down to the delegates, I'm pretty certain they realize they would never win a general election with such a bombastic egomaniac, which, I for one, am thankful for. Trump would start WW III the first week in office.
He may be a blusterer, however I seriously doubt his first order of business would be to launch nuclear missiles onto Russia. In fact, I think he might have a better relationship with Putin than Obama, since they're both ego-driven game players. They have something in common. Obama is just a shame.
Mind you, I have big problems with either Clinton or Trump presidencies. Neither are small government, nor are they really interested in constitutional government.
He may be a blusterer, however I seriously doubt his first order of business would be to launch nuclear missiles onto Russia.
World war doesn't start with nuclear missiles, it ends with nuclear missiles.
Trump is totally flip-flopping on his foreign policy. Last year he was critical of Obama on the Ukraine issue, calling on him to 'be a man' and stand up to Putin. Now he says he is supportive of Russia saying he can work out deals with Putin. He also has some strong words regarding China, Mexico and the Middle East. He has said he wants to seize control of all the oil fields in the Middle East and North Africa, which could easily start a theater-level war possibly escalating to a global war very quickly. But it is all just idle speculation because he can't possibly win an election without the votes of latinos, blacks, women and anyone with common sense, even if he is nominated in some freak event.
World war doesn't start with nuclear missiles, it ends with nuclear missiles.
Trump is totally flip-flopping on his foreign policy. Last year he was critical of Obama on the Ukraine issue, calling on him to 'be a man' and stand up to Putin. Now he says he is supportive of Russia saying he can work out deals with Putin. He also has some strong words regarding China, Mexico and the Middle East. He has said he wants to seize control of all the oil fields in the Middle East and North Africa, which could easily start a theater-level war possibly escalating to a global war very quickly. But it is all just idle speculation because he can't possibly win an election without the votes of latinos, blacks, women and anyone with common sense, even if he is nominated in some freak event.
Please note that I'm not endorsing Hillary or Trump.
Please note that I'm not endorsing Hillary or Trump.
Honestly, I think Jeb has the best chance to win. Even moderate Democrats probably trust Jeb more than Hillary. I know I do. Plus he would bring in the Latino vote.
I want privacy but i also want criminals, terrorists, kidnappers, etc. caught. It is impossible to fight for the rights of good people while also protecting them from the bad ones.
You can't have it both ways. You either choose either one, or you choose an optimal combination of both (with corresponding glitches).
Jeb has performed very poorly in the debates, plus he's even recently dropped hints that he might prefer to be doing other "cool things" with his life instead. I think there is a strong possibility he'll drop out in a couple of months unless he does something that drastically changes his trajectory.
We all lose if they are our choices.