Why Socialism Always Results in Tyranny

[Tantal]

This isn't my writing, but it is absolutely correct.

By Adrian Krieg
WAKE-UP CALL AMERICA - 1998


The Controlling Elite Love Socialism for the People-Control Properties of the System, But for the Average Citizen the Results Have Always Been Disastrous.

In the 20th century there have been numerous political systems, but in the latter half of the century there were only two survivors, Socialism and Capitalism. So we have at this time in the Western world, which for all practical purposes controls the world, two opposing political systems. (I have already previously stated that there is no basic difference between socialists and communists. There are, however, some very important factors relating to socialism of which you should be aware. Socialism will not work in a free market economy and, as a consequence it invariably deteriorates into a totalitarian state. Anyone wishing to argue that point is asked to point to one single instance where this was not the result).

It therefore behooves us to remember who the worst despotic governments of this century were: Nazis in Germany, Fascists in Italy, Communists in the USSR, [Romania, East Germany, Bulgaria, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Cuba, North Korea, Cambodia, Vietnam, etc.] and China - each and every one of them a paragon of socialist endeavor. Their leaders; Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin [Ceausescu, Tito, Pol Pot, etc.] and Mao Tse Tung. The outstanding legacy of these individuals is that they each tried to out-do the others in the total number of their own citizens which they murdered. It is a fact that each of these men killed more of their own civilian citizens than they lost in military conflict.

The reason for this is inherent to socialism. It promises things that it cannot possibly deliver. When socialist politicians in power come to the realization that it is impossible to deliver on their promises and political unrest develops, they have two options if they plan to stay in power. First, they must locate a scapegoat on whom they can blame their inability to deliver. Any Jew can tell you who that was for the Germans and the Russians. The second is to develop, and rapidly so, a state security apparatus to keep them in office - the SS, the KGB, [Securitate, Stasi] etc.

The basic tenants of socialism are:
1. Seduce the populace into accepting the government as the arbitrator of all problems; government from cradle-to-grave
2. Begin delivering on those services to make the citizens dependent
3. Take away the citizens' guns
4. Increase taxes on all services while destroying any free market alternative services
5. Blame the chosen scapegoat for the inability to meet demand for services
6. Have the centralized national police force round up any dissidents


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Socialism cannot work because the cost of services must be collected in the form of taxes, and this is not a sustainable possibility. The reason is that since government pays for all services, neither the producer nor the consumer cares about the cost, and hence there is an uncontrolled spiral of inflation (today's medical costs are a case in point and healthcare is not yet totally socialized). Furthermore, the government has no funds or assets. It only has the funds it confiscated from its citizens. The total inefficiency of a centralized bureaucracy does not help either.
Once citizens are weaned on this cradle-to-grave concept and are no longer self-reliant, they become wards of the state and will not accept any reduction of services. The government subsequently has no option but to reduce services, and as popular resistance develops State repression begins. This is the socialist cycle. It has been found to occur in every socialist state in existence to date.

The current most outrageous examples of this are North Korea and Cuba. These two societies share much in common - both are socialist, both are totalitarian, both have more political prisoners then any nation close to their size, both have non-working universal health care, in both the citizens suffer malnutrition, and both have food and fuel rationing. Their leaders and party members, in the meantime, eat caviar and drink champagne.

Socialism can never work in any environment. It violates human nature and logic.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The capitalist economic system differs greatly from its socialist adversary in numerous ways. While the socialist system is a top down centralized arrangement, the capitalist system, which can only exist in a free market economy that recognizes the right of private property, is totally controlled by the market itself. Interestingly, personal freedom, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness can also only thrive in free market economies. Capitalism is a sort of volatile and confusing situation where the capital markets dictate demand, price, and methods of distribution. The reason that the left is so very successful in criticizing capitalism is because it is not regulated and therefore difficult to explain. The reason capitalism works so well is that demand dictates production as well as price, thus avoiding market inequities and shortages.
Socialism's principal theorem is centralization of markets under government control. This has never worked and there is not one single instance in world history where centralized governmental market manipulation has been successful. This, however, does not deter the Robert Reichs (America's socialist Secretary of Labor who said, "Greedy corporations are screwing their employees, squeezing down wages while increasing profits." This statement, from an economic illiterate who has never in his entire life worked for, or in, a business that made a profit. He appears to me to be a little man with a Napoleon complex, who, while having no clue about anything to do with economics, presents himself as a great expert. Corporate downsizing, mergers, and staff reductions has a great deal to do with international trade policies, NAFTA, EC, WTO, etc. and very little to do with greed.) of this world, who continuously make every effort to centralize economic as well as social and political power for themselves and their Satori masters (the ruling elite).

George Washington said it best: "Government, like fire, is a good servant, but a fearful master." All capitalist functions are directed at free market concepts. A free market is one that serves society with little government interference. This concept is unpopular with the Satori because in order to attain more and more power they require centralization of all economic, social, and political functions. Because of their poor performance in the political frame they have altered their modus operandi and are now implementing their schemes through judicial activism. These judicial incursions, which by the way, in the United States are in violation of constitutional law, have been sold to the public based on the false misnomer that greedy capitalists don't care about the people, their welfare, safety, or health, but that politicians do.

This, without doubt, is a ludicrous statement. The capitalist must perform to market standards. Competition will put him out of business if he provides an inferior product or service. He is furthermore constrained by his customers, stockholders, board of directors, lending institutions, as well as numerous laws, and, if all else fails, product liability statutes. In addition there is a veritable alphabet soup of governmental agencies which oversee his product, conduct with employees, public safety, product safety, environmental compliance, and financial performance.

In fact capitalists are over-regulated, which causes a considerable burden to be put on the public in the form of increased prices. A noteworthy fact is: the most egregious acts against the consumer, the environment, and the public in general, have all been made by socialist states.

[pauli007001]

I can simplyfy it into a mathematical equation,even though maths was my worst subject in school!!!!!
Socialism always results in tyranny because;SOCIALISM=TYRANNY!!!!!
Hows about that one Elbert Einstein!!!!!!!The Theory os socialist tyranny,waaayy beats down your theory of relativity!!!!!!!!!!

[Midas]

One thing immediately strikes me as being omitted from the list of the basic tenants of socialism is that the education system generally tries to remove competitiveness amongst children in the hope that they'll turn out to be meek, mild and accepting of the status quo and not be individualists who might challenge the system.

[Tantal]

One thing immediately strikes me as being omitted from the list of the basic tenants of socialism is that the education system generally tries to remove competitiveness amongst children in the hope that they'll turn out to be meek, mild and accepting of the status quo and not be individualists who might challenge the system.

That too. Some think that the "you're ALL winners" philosophy is good for childrens' emotional well-being; however, it's at the expense of performance.

[Opinionated]

Mmmm - the thing that strikes me is that there has never been a socialist state!

It therefore behooves us to remember who the worst despotic governments of this century were: Nazis in Germany, Fascists in Italy, Communists in the USSR, [Romania, East Germany, Bulgaria, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Cuba, North Korea, Cambodia, Vietnam, etc.] and China - each and every one of them a paragon of socialist endeavor

Anyone else see the glaring inaccuracies in this quote? Naziism - NOT Socialist, Fascism - NOT Socialist, U.S.S.R and China - State Capitalism masquerading as Communism! The main tennant of socialism is equality, and as the aim is to prevent the exploitation of one by another, then by it's very nature true socialism would be diametrically opposed to tyrrany! In fact every socialist I know is as bigger critic of the listed despotic dictatorships as anyone, hence the amount of left-wing volunteers to the international brigades during the Spanish Civil War!
The list in the article of the main "tenants" of socialism in fact have nothing to do with socialism so much as the capitolist interpretation of a theoretical system. The aim of socialism (as I understand it) would be the creation of a classless, moneyless society with production according to need not profit, through democratic processes. Of course this is a simplified definition and there is a strong argument (or two) to say that it is flawed!
You have to stop worrying about a bogeyman that doesn't even exist! Why would you want to preserve a status quo that benefits such a small minority and exploits the rest? Unless you were one of the minority of course!

[Tantal]

Mmmm - the thing that strikes me is that there has never been a socialist state!

Anyone else see the glaring inaccuracies in this quote? Naziism - NOT Socialist, Fascism - NOT Socialist, U.S.S.R and China - State Capitalism masquerading as Communism! The main tennant of socialism is equality, and as the aim is to prevent the exploitation of one by another, then by it's very nature true socialism would be diametrically opposed to tyrrany! In fact every socialist I know is as bigger critic of the listed despotic dictatorships as anyone, hence the amount of left-wing volunteers to the international brigades during the Spanish Civil War!
The list in the article of the main "tenants" of socialism in fact have nothing to do with socialism so much as the capitolist interpretation of a theoretical system. The aim of socialism (as I understand it) would be the creation of a classless, moneyless society with production according to need not profit, through democratic processes. Of course this is a simplified definition and there is a strong argument (or two) to say that it is flawed!
You have to stop worrying about a bogeyman that doesn't even exist! Why would you want to preserve a status quo that benefits such a small minority and exploits the rest? Unless you were one of the minority of course!

The problem with socialism is that it fails to account for human nature. There are always people who will want more.....and will be willing to work harder to get it. Then there's the lazy and incompetent. These people will always EXPECT certain things ragardless of whether they've actually performed any labor to acquire them. The current sense of ENTITLEMENT to health care, education, housing, food, and transportation by some is the only evidence needed to prove my point. Communism will only work if EVERY SINGLE PERSON buys into the system. This means that a physician would have to be willing to educate himself, then work for the exact same wage as a burger-flipper at McDonalds. Engineers would be forced by government decree to accept the same wages as a simple assembly-line worker. What happens in these cases is that there is no incentive to excell, except for "love of the collective", which nobody has. Everyone will eventually try to game the system so that they can get the most benefit for the least amount of labor. The most cunning of these will try to go into "politics" because, as we have always seen, politicians and government officials in these oppressive hellholes always enjoy a higher standard of living than the serfs.

The more I read the posts of socialists, the more I believe that socialism is a mental illness. Every time socialism fails, and it always does, socialists are there yelling "YOU DIDN'T DO IT RIGHT!". They have so much invested, both intellectually and emotionally, in their belief in socialism that they can't possibly comprehend that it didn't work. The assumption is then made that it was simply due to the incompetence of the leadership and that it should be attempted again.

Have you ever been fishing? If 50 fishermen have tried fishing the same spot, using every type of technique and bait available, but have never caught a fish, eventually the assumption has to be made that there are no fish there. In that case, you "cut bait" and move on to another fishing hole. But not socialists. They'll sit in the same spot, rocking back-and-forth like children at a madrassah chanting "there ARE fish here, there ARE fish here, there ARE fish here."

Face it, socialism has either failed or is failing everwhere it's been tried. This is why you've never heard of people being shot at the Berlin Wall trying to get IN to East Germany. This is why Floridians don't brave shark-infested waters and high seas on makeshift rafts trying to get IN to Cuba. The Japanese are not smuggling themselves IN to communist China in cargo containers. In the U.S., you are free to leave anytime you want. It's the CAPITALISM and the OPPORTUNITY that keep people here and causes others around the world to risk their lives for a piece of it. Although I'm not a big fan of Tony Blair, he once made a fairly profound statement regarding the U.S. The statement was that "you can generally judge a country by how many people want to get IN and how many people want to get OUT". Even our malcontent socialists that are clamoring that the "government isn't doing enough" for them stay here. Then there are those in countries where the government is supposed to be doing EVERYTHING for them who are trying to get out and get a taste of the social and economic liberty available to Americans. I wonder why that is???

[Midas]

Very well said Tantal!

The major comment I would have to make about capitalism in the US in particular is that the general perception of it these days is of corporate greed and duplicity at the expense of virtually everyone else. I know that's a sweeping generalisation but it's been reinforced by a combination of the excessive disparity in earnings between those 'at the top of the tree' and the average American and the way that corporate America has a significant influence in US policy, both at home and abroad, in such a way that it'll benefit itself to the exclusion of others.

I'm a firm believer in the capitalist system, although it's far from being fault-free, and I'll freely admit that my own earnings are very considerably above the average, however there's much to be said for introducing a great deal more social responsibility into the corporate world, which can surely be done without upsetting any of the main aims and objectives of a capitalist society. After all, the better a company looks after its employees and the more honest it is in its dealings with its customers, the better chance it has of staying competitive and successful in the long term.

[DougieG]

The problem with the article that you posted, Tantal, is that the key assumption - that Socialism and Communism are the same - is fundamentally wrong. It is an assumption unique to America. When you look at the welfare state in Britain, there is no massive disaster, whatever the Daily Mail may say. There is no huge level of inflation. There is nothing of what the writer described.

Let's have a lesson on the political spectrum. I will start on the left wing, with that at the top, and then move on to the right.

LEFT
Anarchism (debatable)
Communism
Socialism
Liberalism
Capitalism
Conservatism (arguably the same as Capitalism)
Fascism
RIGHT

However, many political scientists dispute this. There is a very strong argument for displaying the spectrum on a 2D grid, like so:


This is the method that I personally advocate, and most socialists are actually more in the area of Gandhi than of Stalin. As a left-winger (though I do agree a great deal with right wing economics) I took the test at The Political Compass and came out a bit to the left of Gandhi. Indeed, most Socialists are inherently against authoritarian dictatorship as their belief in the equal value of humanity prevails.

I think that in America, much as the word 'Liberal' is throughly misused, so is 'Socialist'. I fully agree with you, Tantal, that the regimes of any of those countries that you listed were pretty terrible, but as Opinionated pointed out, they didn't come close to true Socialism. Rather, Russia and China were (are) capitalist systems controlled by the Government to such an extent that they ceased to function.

Me, I am a full believer in meritocracy and the right of people to work hard and earn more. But with private schools and priveleged family units, the playing field will never be levelled and thus you have to introduce Socialism to protect those who were never given a chance by the Capitalist state.

The more I read the posts of socialists, the more I believe that socialism is a mental illness. Every time socialism fails, and it always does, socialists are there yelling "YOU DIDN'T DO IT RIGHT!". They have so much invested, both intellectually and emotionally, in their belief in socialism that they can't possibly comprehend that it didn't work. The assumption is then made that it was simply due to the incompetence of the leadership and that it should be attempted again.

Quite an assertion. I would like to propose that right-wing conservatism is rooted in selfish, backward looking and narrow-minded thinking that coul never have been concocted by someone with a trace of humanity.

Have you ever been fishing? If 50 fishermen have tried fishing the same spot, using every type of technique and bait available, but have never caught a fish, eventually the assumption has to be made that there are no fish there. In that case, you "cut bait" and move on to another fishing hole. But not socialists. They'll sit in the same spot, rocking back-and-forth like children at a madrassah chanting "there ARE fish here, there ARE fish here, there ARE fish here."

Partly true, actually. Especially the Communists. However, Capitalism is clearly failing us too. Look at the collapsing economy as we speak. And the bailout packages are only putting us into greater and greater debt for the future generations, just pushing the problem forward. Throw the einvironment into the mix, which the Capitalist deregulated economy has been destroying, and we see an unsustainable system that will not be able to continue in its current form past 2100. Capitalism has worked so far, pushing us further onwards in terms of new technologies and scientific discovery, but there will come a time when we have used up all the resources, making this debate a rather moot point.

[Tantal]

I've taken that test before. I'm a hard-right, hard-libertarian. I think that government should have minimal intrusion into people's lives and minimal intrusion into their wallets. Secondly, I'm very strongly in favor of States' Rights. The more localized the government, the easier it is for the voters to control. We, the voters, are supposed to be the government's master, not the other way around. There was a time when elections for Governor, State Representative, State Senator, County Commissioner, Mayor, or School Board were very important elections. Now, since the Federal government has centralized and consolidated power in Washington, most attention is on Federal, rather than State or local, elections.

I still haven't given up hope on forming my own political party....the Leave Me the Hell Alone Party. That's all I want, really, is to just be left alone by the government.

[Marxist Nutter]

Sorry but I find this a dull and rather boring question (as a political scientist by trade). It pretty much answers itself, and is usually posed in a way which is logically flawed. This question is always posed by people who have already included authoritarianism in their definition of socialism. Thus he question is perhaps more honestly posed as 'why does authoritarianism always lead to tyranny?' which aint so different from 'why does tyranny always lead to tyranny?'

Just a bit silly really but you guys go ahead an have fun debating it anyway!! :p


I think if you really wanted to pose the question in a more precise and interesting way I think there are many ways to do it. Here's one example.

How are practices of oppression played out differently under socialism/capitalism?

[Spartacus]

On Socialism and Totalitarianism. ( and the " Free World " )

What the framers/sculptors ( and critics for that matter ) of a system say it is is always worthy of a deeper inspection , imo. Why just take someones ( group ) word for it ?

As we can see and as has already been pointed out in this thread , the author of the original article at the beginning of this thread, in his quest to unite Socialism to Totalitarian regimes ( an obvious agenda ) saw fit not to make any distinction between Socialism and Fascism.

Mussolini himself didn't like the term Fascism to describe the system of government/dictatorship he presided over and much prefered that system to be known as Corporatism ( he considered his system to be the perfect partnership between the interests of the State and the interest of Big Business ( the corporate world ) . There is much evidence ( from Nazi Germany ) to support this idea and should give people cause for concern as we see the massive influence/support the corporate world is enjoying at present.

The above views are hardly in unison with the vast majority of socialist thinkers and supporters. A point the author of the piece seems willing to ignore. I wonder why ?

Taking the article as a whole , but without wishing to go off track too much , it offers us a chance to see how Socialists and Socialism are portrayed in the west generally. the message being Socialism = Tyranny.

So how do the elites of capitalism keep their population in check ?

Well , in a totalitarian system dessenters are smashed , murdered , imprisoned etc etc , in short they don't have the right to organize an opposition , protest , lobby and so on , their actions are so restricted , through the fear of violence , that they are battered into submission.

The elite prevail through violent suppression and a contempt for rights.

Here in the " free world " we have the right to organize , oppose , protest , lobby etc and ,imo , it is the very fact that we have these facilities in place that our elites MUST have more control over our thoughts/opinions /beliefs so as to manipulate " free choice " systems towards their own interest..

In short , and from an elitist perspective , if you can control peoples actions ( totalitarianism ), what they think is largely irrelevant ( they have no means to do anything anyway )

If you can't control their actions ( the " free world " )then it is all the more important to control , as much as if humanly possible , what they think!!

The initial article is a classic example of the latter , imo.

Does it work ?

Well when you hear people saying they think socialists have a " mental illness " then there is some evidence to support the view that all is working just fine.

Should it ever fail , make no mistake , our leaders of the free west will not hesitate to employ totalitarian measures. While they have us fooled there is less need for such draconian measures to maintain their privileges.

Welcome to conditioning.

[Tantal]

Ah, yes, Spartacus. Only a mind as keen as yours can see through the "conditioning".

[Spartacus]

Ah, yes, Spartacus. Only a mind as keen as yours can see through the "conditioning".

Not really Tantal , many people don't succumb to the western elite manipulations of what is to be believed , there are quite a few in this forum alone.

But I suppose ad hominem responses are easier than the response to the questions the post raised

[Tantal]

Not really Tantal , many people don't succumb to the western elite manipulations of what is to be believed , there are quite a few in this forum alone.

Yeah, why do that when you can succumb to Marx and Lenin?

[Spartacus]

Yeah, why do that when you can succumb to Marx and Lenin?

Why do you persist in distractions Tantal instead of addressing the issues the post raised ?

Is it not a logical conclusion that free people will need more thought manipulation by elites who rule them compared to elites who can stifle dissent through violence and restrictions on actions ?

Yes or no ?

[Tantal]

Is it not a logical conclusion that free people will need more thought manipulation by elites who rule them compared to elites who can stifle dissent through violence and restrictions on actions ?

Yes or no ?

Sure, but both ideologies try to use thought manipulation. The most common starting-point is language. "positive discrimination" (actually, "racism", but it's OK because it's to favor minorities), "gay" (used to mean "happy" and "carefree", but now used to describe homosexuals), "economic justice" ( sounds good, but in reality means rewarding the lazy for a lack of productivity).

One could easily make the argument that anyone that they disagree with is a victim of "thought manipulation". It's the easy way of dismissing another's beliefs as invalid. Such as "Poor Tantal, he can't help it. His thoughts have been manipulated by his parents, a dead hippie, and a 2000 year-old text", but it's really not that simple.

All of us are shaped by our environments and experiences, that doesn't necessarily mean that we've been "manipulated".

[MarkMuses]

Socialism inexorably ends up telling people what to do when it should be about providing social support where people get trapped in life.

[Spartacus]

Sure, but both ideologies try to use thought manipulation.

Yes they do , I am not arguing about that.

My point is that in a totalitarian system , were violence stifles dissent , the effectiveness of the party propaganda isn't as big an issue because if it fails the troops will sort out the protesters and dissidents at the drop of a hat and as regularly as is needed .

Here in our free societies in the west , where totalitarian tactics of violence are only used when the popular consensus seriously challenges that elite , there is far more importance that the party line propaganda should be believed .

The manufacture of consent keeps the elites of the " free societies " from having to resort to totalitarian violence at every junction

All of us are shaped by our environments and experiences, that doesn't necessarily mean that we've been "manipulated".

I agree and that's why I agree that true objectivity is a myth.

I would ask you , how much does elite rule shape those environments and experiences that are so much a part of who we become ?

I say it has a profound effect

[Spartacus]

Socialism inexorably ends up telling people what to do when it should be about providing social support where people get trapped in life.

Why just Socialism ?

Capitalism has had to absorb socialist principles to even make any attempt at addressing the problems you are refering to.

[MarkMuses]

Why just Socialism ?

Capitalism has had to absorb socialist principles to even make any attempt at addressing the problems you are refering to.

I accept not just Socialism. Not sure I agree about your comparison to capitalism. For instance charities perform part of the function. Not advocating that as such just pointing out that Socialism is not automatically the only answer.

[Spartacus]

I accept not just Socialism.

Thx for the clarification MM , would you say that Capitalism ( without its socialist imported principles ) has shown any real concern/activity for the less fortunates in life ?

Not sure I agree about your comparison to capitalism. For instance charities perform part of the function. Not advocating that as such just pointing out that Socialism is not automatically the only answer.

Well before socialists fought for universal healthcare , pensions , abolishment of child labour and the workhouse , the safety nets provided by a welfare system and so on there had always been charity.............. alms from the church ( collected from the poor themselves in most cases ) , benevolent societies , etc but as history bears witness to , they could never have truly addressed the magnitude of the social problems within society

[MarkMuses]

Thx for the clarification MM , would you say that Capitalism ( without its socialist imported principles ) has shown any real concern/activity for the less fortunates in life ?

No 'concern' because capitalism is really only a mechanism. On 'activity' I guess one might say it offers self-betterment but only to those fit to take advantage of it. Capitalism on it's own is no panacea for sure.

But I guess returning to the primary topic of Socialism as tyranny it seems to me there must be some very basic false assumptions in Socialist thinking. The aim sounds laudable but the thinking isn't right somehow. I think the obsession with equality should be an obsession with fairness instead. Subtle but important I'd say.

[Marxist Nutter]

No 'concern' because capitalism is really only a mechanism.
.

Do you really believe believe capitalism is a normativley neutral 'mechanism'????????? That sort of thinking (ideology) is one way capitalism masks over its exploitative practices.

[MarkMuses]

Do you really believe believe capitalism is a normativley neutral 'mechanism'????????? That sort of thinking (ideology) is one way capitalism masks over its exploitative practices.

I think that takes us into free market capitalism which can be brutal as opposed to regulated capitalism. But you know this is going off-topic. Capitalism is a regular aunt sally and done to death. I think Socialism needs to go under the microscope and that's what this thread is supposed to be about isn't it? So what might you say is wrong with Socialism? I've offered my thoughts there earlier.

[Marxist Nutter]

I think that takes us into free market capitalism which can be brutal as opposed to regulated capitalism. But you know this is going off-topic. Capitalism is a regular aunt sally and done to death. I think Socialism needs to go under the microscope and that's what this thread is supposed to be about isn't it? So what might you say is wrong with Socialism? I've offered my thoughts there earlier.

What's wrong with socialism? This is quite an easy one from my view. The problem is it is Utopian. I do not think utopias are possible. Also the dream of utopia allows for horrendous things to be done to bring it about (ends justify means etc).

The left should, in my view, always remain open to an unpredictable future and uncertain present and not try to interpret it as a step toward a determined Utopian future.

[MarkMuses]

I would agree with that. The 'ends justify means' in particular.

[Expounder]

Sure, but both ideologies try to use thought manipulation. The most common starting-point is language. "positive discrimination" (actually, "racism", but it's OK because it's to favor minorities), "gay" (used to mean "happy" and "carefree", but now used to describe homosexuals), "economic justice" ( sounds good, but in reality means rewarding the lazy for a lack of productivity).

One could easily make the argument that anyone that they disagree with is a victim of "thought manipulation". It's the easy way of dismissing another's beliefs as invalid. Such as "Poor Tantal, he can't help it. His thoughts have been manipulated by his parents, a dead hippie, and a 2000 year-old text", but it's really not that simple.

All of us are shaped by our environments and experiences, that doesn't necessarily mean that we've been "manipulated".

You are manipulated and you fail to see the contadictions of your arguments.

As an example,the problem of the American right is that ever since the MacCarthy era and the reds under the beds syndrome. Any government which uses state intervention to remedy a problem created by greed and excesses caused by laissez-faire capitalism to solve an economic problem you lable Socialist or Communist.

By that same token the Bush Cheney Administration must be Socialist as they have introduced the largest state intervention since Roosevelt. They are your Neo Con buddies. Would you label them Socialists, [as they are using a Socialist measure to extricate America from a collapsed economy brought about by their policies] as you label many other countries including Britain of being Socialist or Communist?

The point I'm making is that Socialist measures do have a place in balancing the economies of the world as they can be used as a counter to chaos brought about by capitalist greed, and create a more balanced world economy. You blindly follow the laissez-faire method which creates extremes of poverty and wealth and will destroy the planet in the race to use up natural recources and turn the planet into one gigantic dustbin.

[Albion 69]

you fail to see the contadictions of your arguments.

You blindly follow the laissez-faire method which creates extremes of poverty and wealth and will destroy the planet in the race to use up natural recources and turn the planet into one gigantic dustbin.

Neither can you Exp

You blindly supported New Labour who follow very similar policies (Gap between rich and poor grown under your lot) . The same party that stood shoulder to shoulder with the Republicans , Nu Labour the party that dare not mention the 'S' word .... socialism such a dirty word.
Yet you paint them as the bad guys ? Hypocritical in my book , if you had left the Party your points would carry some weight , but you can't have it both ways.

[Tantal]

By that same token the Bush Cheney Administration must be Socialist as they have introduced the largest state intervention since Roosevelt.

No, they are not socialists. They are elitist capitalists that expect the taxpayers to bear the burden for their financial gambling losses. There are politicians on both side of the aisle that opposed these bailouts, but for different reasons. I am one who is opposed to them. I think that now we've opened Pandora's Box and that every failing company (now the auto industry is in line, probably to be followed by the airlines) and even states (California) are in line for a Federal "bailout". You'll notice that the automakers aren't even talking about new business plans, they're just saying "give us the money." California's not talking about cutting services, they're just expecting the taxpayers in other states to fund their socialist largesse. Personally, I'd like to see some of these companies go tits-up and for their crooked leadership to spend a significant amount of time in the Gray Bar Motel, if not strung-up and shot outright.

[pauli007001]

Hey i told you before!!!!!!
SOCIALISM=TYRANNY!!!!!
When you find socialism there is tyranny!!!
Where you find tyranny there is socialism!!!!!
Amen Amen Amen!!!!!!!

[Expounder]

Albion 69;52978]Neither can you Exp

You blindly supported New Labour who follow very similar policies (Gap between rich and poor grown under your lot) . The same party that stood shoulder to shoulder with the Republicans , Nu Labour the party that dare not mention the 'S' word .... socialism such a dirty word.

A party is always bigger than it's leader,if every one who is in the Labour party or who supported the L.P. had resigned or left because of Blair/Browns toadying up to Bush and their pursuit of new found capialism it would be now demasculated and only a rump from it which would probably never recovered handing power to the Tories for decades which would have no doubt suited them prefectly.

As you are probably aware I am not a swing voter like a few others who debate on the forum and saw a reason for defending Labour per se though at times some policies stuck in my gullet. I saw destroying the Parliamentry Labour Party by out right condemnation was not the answer and would only serve to play totally into Tory hands.

Yet you paint them as the bad guys ? Hypocritical in my book , if you had left the Party your points would carry some weight , but you can't have it both ways.

It quite fair for you to make this point,and this can be leveled at every MP and member who remained, but it is only because those of the left remained, and remained with a purpose, and carried the standard that there is now hope that policies will change and that the current turn to the left can mean a new era for Labour.

Nobody forsaw what sort of event would occur to make this happen, I remind you again "it's events dear boy it's events" It could have been through being in the wilderness for ten years, if it had, the soul of the party would have still remained intact. In fact it's recovery has been aided by an event which has been brought about by the collapse of the capitalist system, a system which you support. It was worth the wait.

The collapse of the free market through the outrageous greed of corporate capitalism has actually proved the argument for more Socialist measures. Brown is being carried on a wave of public disenchantment of a system which has destroyed world economies.

The left in the Labour party can now fight it's corner against the right and in the end has vindicated the decision to remain and and wait for the opportunity to fight back which is now possibe despite Blair and Brown much to the Tories dismay

[Expounder]

I've taken that test before. I'm a hard-right, hard-Washington, most attention is on Federal, rather than State or local, elections.

I still haven't given up hope on forming my own political party....the Leave Me the Hell Alone Party. That's all I want, really, is to just be left alone by the government.

Until you are laying on your back through no fault of your own and in need of help. You are very confident now that you will never be in this position but so were many other hard working people who thought like you. Your answer is to leave them in the gutter victims of corporate capitalism.

[Tantal]

Until you are laying on your back through no fault of your own and in need of help. You are very confident now that you will never be in this position but so were many other hard working people who thought like you. Your answer is to leave them in the gutter victims of corporate capitalism.

You start from the premise that they are ENTITLED to employment, which they are not. If they are ENTITLED to a job, then that means that someone has the RESPONSIBILITY to provide them with employment, which, they do not. If their skills and labor are no longer needed at their company, then they should move to another company or start their own business. In Texas, we have more than our fair share of illegal immigrants operating fairly lucrative lawn care businesses. If a guy can show up from Mexico flat broke and make a living here, so can any other American. If I were to lose my job, I'm sure I could find another. It may not be the job I want at the pay that I have now, but it beats sitting at home on my ass having the taxpayers put food on my family's table. I guess I've just got too much pride to go on the dole, so I expect others to feel the same way; however, I've learned that some people have no shame whatsoever and are perfectly willing to live their lives at someone else's expense.

[DougieG]

You start from the premise that they are ENTITLED to employment, which they are not. If they are ENTITLED to a job, then that means that someone has the RESPONSIBILITY to provide them with employment, which, they do not. If their skills and labor are no longer needed at their company, then they should move to another company or start their own business. In Texas, we have more than our fair share of illegal immigrants operating fairly lucrative lawn care businesses. If a guy can show up from Mexico flat broke and make a living here, so can any other American. If I were to lose my job, I'm sure I could find another. It may not be the job I want at the pay that I have now, but it beats sitting at home on my ass having the taxpayers put food on my family's table. I guess I've just got too much pride to go on the dole, so I expect others to feel the same way; however, I've learned that some people have no shame whatsoever and are perfectly willing to live their lives at someone else's expense.

I'm inclined to agree with you after a given period of time. I think that benefits should be dependant on proof that the recipient is looking for work, and trying to succeed at interviews. I don't think you're so cold-hearted as to truly think that a man who loses his job deserves to have him and his family literally starve to death because there is not another job going. Yes, people should work where able to, but remember, if everyone started their own business there wouldn't be enough custom to go around, and so they would all just fail...

[Tantal]

I don't think you're so cold-hearted as to truly think that a man who loses his job deserves to have him and his family literally starve to death because there is not another job going.

This is why it's important to SAVE money. I get tired of hearing people whine about losing their job and being unable to afford their bills, yet they're living in a huge house, driving nice cars, watching 60" plasma TVs, talking on their iPhone, and taking nice vacations. You don't purchase these things without having a little cash stored up for lean times. Unfortunately, that's just the culture we live in now. It's all consumer-based and financed through credit. Now, our collective house-of-cards is falling in on us. I'm not sweating it though. I've been preparing for this for years in one way or another. For instance, I could live for at least a year simply from the sale of my firearm collection if it came down to that. (Firearms are an excellent investment, BTW). Further, I expect things to get much worse before they get better, including a period of hyperinflation, so I'm stocking up on other essentials. Within the next 6 months I should have a year's-worth of food stored. Those who are failing to prepare for the worst will be, as we say in Texas, "up Shit Creek."

[pauli007001]

You start from the premise that they are ENTITLED to employment, which they are not. If they are ENTITLED to a job, then that means that someone has the RESPONSIBILITY to provide them with employment, which, they do not. If their skills and labor are no longer needed at their company, then they should move to another company or start their own business. In Texas, we have more than our fair share of illegal immigrants operating fairly lucrative lawn care businesses. If a guy can show up from Mexico flat broke and make a living here, so can any other American. If I were to lose my job, I'm sure I could find another. It may not be the job I want at the pay that I have now, but it beats sitting at home on my ass having the taxpayers put food on my family's table. I guess I've just got too much pride to go on the dole, so I expect others to feel the same way; however, I've learned that some people have no shame whatsoever and are perfectly willing to live their lives at someone else's expense.

Indeed now Tantal you are speaking my language!!!!!!

[pauli007001]

This is why it's important to SAVE money. I get tired of hearing people whine about losing their job and being unable to afford their bills, yet they're living in a huge house, driving nice cars, watching 60" plasma TVs, talking on their iPhone, and taking nice vacations. You don't purchase these things without having a little cash stored up for lean times. Unfortunately, that's just the culture we live in now. It's all consumer-based and financed through credit. Now, our collective house-of-cards is falling in on us. I'm not sweating it though. I've been preparing for this for years in one way or another. For instance, I could live for at least a year simply from the sale of my firearm collection if it came down to that. (Firearms are an excellent investment, BTW). Further, I expect things to get much worse before they get better, including a period of hyperinflation, so I'm stocking up on other essentials. Within the next 6 months I should have a year's-worth of food stored. Those who are failing to prepare for the worst will be, as we say in Texas, "up Shit Creek."

It is important to save but do not in these financil circumstances,and with a tax and spend trend on its way trust a bank!!!Buy a Safe or find a few good hidey holes in your home.I keep a good amount of cash at home,it is in a sum easy to carry but enough to keep me ahead of the game for a few years,Preperation and planning are always key,as is freedom,and responsibility,personaly i would work at MC Ds or at labour ready before i went on welfare,even in Englandwhere being a dole dosser is considered to be the height of Coolness,i never once signed on for the dole,too ashamed to,as was my mother who worked 5 jobs to keep a roof over our heads,often cleaning the homes of the wealthy!!!!

[Tantal]

I never once signed on for the dole,too ashamed to,as was my mother who worked 5 jobs to keep a roof over our heads,often cleaning the homes of the wealthy!!!!

I have nothing but the utmost respect for people like you and your mother. That's the problem with Western societies today. We've gone SOFT. Take people like my grandfather, for example. He would have rather been shot than to suffer the indignity of having the taxpayers put food on his table. He was a strong influence in my early life, so I guess I got some of my fiscal values from him. He only had a 9th grade education because he had to start working to support himself and his mother when his dad took off. Although lacking in formal education, he died a millionaire due to hard work and tenacity. Now, he'd be considered the "evil rich" that the lefties are always droning on about who needed to pay "his fair share".

[Marxist Nutter]

Hey i told you before!!!!!!
SOCIALISM=TYRANNY!!!!!
When you find socialism there is tyranny!!!
Where you find tyranny there is socialism!!!!!
Amen Amen Amen!!!!!!!

Sometimes I wonder why I even bother to post?

Sorry but I find this a dull and rather boring question (as a political scientist by trade). It pretty much answers itself, and is usually posed in a way which is logically flawed. This question is always posed by people who have already included authoritarianism in their definition of socialism. Thus he question is perhaps more honestly posed as 'why does authoritarianism always lead to tyranny?' which aint so different from 'why does tyranny always lead to tyranny?'

Just a bit silly really but you guys go ahead an have fun debating it anyway!!

Logic not the strong point of many on this thread!

[Expounder]

I'm inclined to agree with you after a given period of time. I think that benefits should be dependant on proof that the recipient is looking for work, and trying to succeed at interviews. I don't think you're so cold-hearted as to truly think that a man who loses his job deserves to have him and his family literally starve to death because there is not another job going. Yes, people should work where able to, but remember, if everyone started their own business there wouldn't be enough custom to go around, and so they would all just fail...

Dougie, I don't think that Tantal is in favour of granting assistance to any one who becomes a victim of unemployment because of the system, he just places them all into the catagory lazy scroungers.

Just for the record, I am just as opposed as he is to scroungers who play the system I have met many of them and they make my blood boil. Many are moonlighting and using the benifits system as a basic guaranteed income. These must be targeted and exposed insuring also that genuine claimants are not harrassed or put under any pressure.

Some make a career out benifits by producing large families and find they are able to survive on the combination of benifits which included child benifits the council tax paid by the government and rent assistance when they are clearly able to work.

There are many and varied fiddles that take place and this is not a recent phenomenon unemployed were encouraged during the Thatcher years to go on the higher paid sick benifit to keep the unemployed figures down. The Tories played their part during her reign in creating benifit fraud.

The government is doing all it can to resolve this almost taboo subject which has been brought about by the inaction of succesive governments.

All that said to assure you I'm no pushover, back to Tantel, and his attitude toward his fellow human beings. You queried if he's that cold hearted enough to see people who have been thrown out of work and are unable to find work [and are not business minded] starve to death, quite frankly I think he is. He has the tone of schadenfreude about him devoid of empathy for any one but himself as far as I'm concerned he's a lost cause I'm glad not all Americans are like him.

[Tantal]

All that said to assure you I'm no pushover, back to Tantel, and his attitude toward his fellow human beings. You queried if he's that cold hearted enough to see people who have been thrown out of work and are unable to find work [and are not business minded] starve to death, quite frankly I think he is. He has the tone of schadenfreude about him devoid of empathy for any one but himself as far as I'm concerned he's a lost cause I'm glad not all Americans are like him.

As stated previously, I can recall a time when all I owned was an old Ford truck and everything else I owned, a small bed, a small TV, a chest of drawers, and some clothes, would fit into the truck. I was, literally, penniless! I changed oil in people's cars, installed new tires, and performed private security at a retail store and at a housing project (quite dangerous work), for barely above minimum wage. Once married, my wife was put on bedrest due to complications with her pregnancy. She was unable to work or go to school. So, I did what any man with a set of nuts hanging betwen his legs should do. I worked. I worked long and hard, hardly ever seeing my wife, because my first responsibility as a man is to see to it that my wife has food and shelter. Now, due to my labors and more sacrifices than I care to count, I'm in pretty good shape. All it takes is a good work ethic and a little discipline. I don't think it's unreasonable to hold others to the same standard that I have held myself.

[Spartacus]

Just for the record, I am just as opposed as he is to scroungers who play the system I have met many of them and they make my blood boil. Many are moonlighting and using the benifits system as a basic guaranteed income. These must be targeted and exposed insuring also that genuine claimants are not harrassed or put under any pressure.

Seeing as welfare is always criticized by the detractors of Socialism , I just thought it worth mentioning that the advocates of welfare systems ( the left in the main ) knew all about the dangers of parasites abusing the system. It is well documented from the classic socialist thinkers right through to the present.

The fact that we have a welfare system within a capitalist system is the problem , imo.

And it is interesting to note that for the most part , the vast majority in truth , we are encouraged to think that the " scroungers/parasites " are only at the working/underclass end of the spectrum.

We see working class moonlighting on the TV ads for benefit fraudsters and so on , but ask yourself a question.

In a system where forgeting all but self is the norm , why condemn them ?

If a business man avoids huge tax bills by some skillful use of the truth he is considered " shrewd " and is respected by his peers.

What's the difference ?

When was the last time anybody here saw an TV ad showing a corporate executive meeting his accountant and diddling the tax system out of thousands of pounds worth of revenue ?

See the way I see it is if a working class person shafts the system then we are encouraged to abhor it and condemn it but when the rich shaft the system they are being " shrewd "

Hows that for a rigged game ?

[Expounder]

Seeing as welfare is always criticized by the detractors of Socialism , I just thought it worth mentioning that the advocates of welfare systems ( the left in the main ) knew all about the dangers of parasites abusing the system. It is well documented from the classic socialist thinkers right through to the present.

The fact that we have a welfare system within a capitalist system is the problem , imo.

And it is interesting to note that for the most part , the vast majority in truth , we are encouraged to think that the " scroungers/parasites " are only at the working/underclass end of the spectrum.

We see working class moonlighting on the TV ads for benefit fraudsters and so on , but ask yourself a question.

In a system where forgeting all but self is the norm , why condemn them ?

If a business man avoids huge tax bills by some skillful use of the truth he is considered " shrewd " and is respected by his peers.

What's the difference ?

When was the last time anybody here saw an TV ad showing a corporate executive meeting his accountant and diddling the tax system out of thousands of pounds worth of revenue ?

See the way I see it is if a working class person shafts the system then we are encouraged to abhor it and condemn it but when the rich shaft the system they are being " shrewd "

Hows that for a rigged game ?

I don't want to pour cold water on what you say, Spatacus, and believe me I do know where you are comming from and wish you luck in your endevours but having spent more than half my life chasing the classic Socialist dream you won't be suprised to hear that I became disillusioned and stoney broke trying to feed my family

I took part part in most of the demonstations during 50s abd 60s and been arrested more than once for my stance. All of my spare time was devoted to to this end, ordinary work became a distraction.

Having said that I think you are wrong to encourage working class people to demean their themselves by commiting petty fraud and who are held up an example of lumpen prolateriat by the right. Deliberate fraud for whatever reason means working class pride and self esteem goes out of the window and debases the individuals standing amoung their
peers, and contrary to what you may think the majority of the working class do not go along with your argument. The fact that the corporate rich have their noses in the trough is not an excuse.

I'm one of the the old school Socialists who cannot relate to the modern theorists although because of my past I do sympathise with them having been there, but it's like looking into a mirror of the past seeing myself,in a space occupied by debating theorists totally enthusiastic but completely isolated from the real world. Thats fine but theories don't win practical arguments. By all means discuss the theory of Socialism but it's idealistic principles can't aways be injected piecemeal into the the the real world.

Benifits are for people who what ever reason cannot work or cannot find work and to help those in financial dificulties not to score questionable points against society by commiting petty fraud.

Iv'e said my piece, and I won't follow this up with a debate which would be a waste of both our time, but I had to get this off my chest

[Expounder]

As stated previously, I can recall a time when all I owned was an old Ford truck and everything else I owned, a small bed, a small TV, a chest of drawers, and some clothes, would fit into the truck. I was, literally, penniless! I changed oil in people's cars, installed new tires, and performed private security at a retail store and at a housing project (quite dangerous work), for barely above minimum wage. Once married, my wife was put on bedrest due to complications with her pregnancy. She was unable to work or go to school. So, I did what any man with a set of nuts hanging betwen his legs should do. I worked. I worked long and hard, hardly ever seeing my wife, because my first responsibility as a man is to see to it that my wife has food and shelter. Now, due to my labors and more sacrifices than I care to count, I'm in pretty good shape. All it takes is a good work ethic and a little discipline. I don't think it's unreasonable to hold others to the same standard that I have held myself.

Tantal, I admire and commend your tenacity and work ethic I have no problem whatever with that.

What I don't appreciate is you unwillingness to recognise that in bad times people even with your work ethic can also fall foul of the system through no fault of their own. These people are not scroungers. Many may need re-training or assisted for a period while adjusting and seeking futher employment. we are now entering such a period.

People who are job seeking after the trauma of losing their job[some who have worked for years in the same job] should be assisted if required in order to maintain the social fabric of the family and nation.

You will probably quote me an instance where a millionaire or two have risen like a phoenix from the ashes of the to make good, and say anyone can do it, but you know the answer to that, it's impossible, only a lucky few with enough merciless tenacity can manage it treading on a lot of people onthe way.

[Marxist Nutter]

I don't want to pour cold water on what you say, Spatacus, and believe me I do know where you are comming from and wish you luck in your endevours but having spent more than half my life chasing the classic Socialist dream you won't be suprised to hear that I became disillusioned and stoney broke trying to feed my family

I took part part in most of the demonstations during 50s abd 60s and been arrested more than once for my stance. All of my spare time was devoted to to this end, ordinary work became a distraction.

Having said that I think you are wrong to encourage working class people to demean their themselves by commiting petty fraud and who are held up an example of lumpen prolateriat by the right. Deliberate fraud for whatever reason means working class pride and self esteem goes out of the window and debases the individuals standing amoung their
peers, and contrary to what you may think the majority of the working class do not go along with your argument. The fact that the corporate rich have their noses in the trough is not an excuse.

I'm one of the the old school Socialists who cannot relate to the modern theorists although because of my past I do sympathise with them having been there, but it's like looking into a mirror of the past seeing myself,in a space occupied by debating theorists totally enthusiastic but completely isolated from the real world. Thats fine but theories don't win practical arguments. By all means discuss the theory of Socialism but it's idealistic principles can't aways be injected piecemeal into the the the real world.

Benifits are for people who what ever reason cannot work or cannot find work and to help those in financial dificulties not to score questionable points against society by commiting petty fraud.

Iv'e said my piece, and I won't follow this up with a debate which would be a waste of both our time, but I had to get this off my chest

It is a shame you don't want to follow through the issue(s) you raise, Exp. If I interpret what you say correctly, then I think you speaking to an issue that I have been preoccupied with for a few years now (and certainly a more interesting question that the title of this thread).

What is/should be the relationship between (socialist) theory and practice?

This relationship is not simple. Especially for someone like me who is a researcher. A researcher sits on the edge of this opposition. Thus a researcher is most sensitive to this problem as theory and political practice are both elements internal to the process of research. Thus my research is informed by left wing theory and also hopes to make an intervention in the policy process.

Marxist theory has lots of terms such as 'praxis' and 'organic intellectuals', to help us think about the role of theory in political practice however in the world of theory such concepts are faced with the 'post modern' crisis of the academy and thus need to be re-articulated in new ways so that many of the 'old left' would no recognize them. Political practice also has to face a post modern reality of a globalised world with complex ethnic/religious/ geo-political struggles that no longer resembles the 19th Century Europe in which Marx's analysis is firmly rooted.

I intend this short summary of the question and issues of political theory and politcal practice to hopefully draw you and others into a debate about this issue as it is of far greater interest (at least to me) than the topic of this thread.

[pauli007001]

It is a shame you don't want to follow through the issue(s) you raise, Exp. If I interpret what you say correctly, then I think you speaking to an issue that I have been preoccupied with for a few years now (and certainly a more interesting question that the title of this thread).

What is/should be the relationship between (socialist) theory and practice?

This relationship is not simple. Especially for someone like me who is a researcher. A researcher sits on the edge of this opposition. Thus a researcher is most sensitive to this problem as theory and political practice are both elements internal to the process of research. Thus my research is informed by left wing theory and also hopes to make an intervention in the policy process.

Marxist theory has lots of terms such as 'praxis' and 'organic intellectuals', to help us think about the role of theory in political practice however in the world of theory such concepts are faced with the 'post modern' crisis of the academy and thus need to be re-articulated in new ways so that many of the 'old left' would no recognize them. Political practice also has to face a post modern reality of a globalised world with complex ethnic/religious/ geo-political struggles that no longer resembles the 19th Century Europe in which Marx's analysis is firmly rooted.

I intend this short summary of the question and issues of political theory and politcal practice to hopefully draw you and others into a debate about this issue as it is of far greater interest (at least to me) than the topic of this thread.

He dosent want to as a result of his belief that his socialist way is the only way!Other opinions are not acceptable and should be stifled and silenced!!!!!Look at the title of this thread again and see why!!!!!!!!!!!

[Tantal]

You will probably quote me an instance where a millionaire or two have risen like a phoenix from the ashes of the to make good, and say anyone can do it, but you know the answer to that, it's impossible, only a lucky few with enough merciless tenacity can manage it treading on a lot of people onthe way.

The purpose of life is not necessarily to become a millionaire. Even I lack the "merciless tenacity" that my grandfather had. Having grown up in complete poverty, I guess he was determined to never go back there.

Personally, I don't derive my happiness in life from money. I live a modest lifestyle that most would consider boring. Work, family, church, high school football games on Friday nights, and the occassional barbeque with friends are about all we do, but I couldn't be happier. Mrs. Tantal and I have the bluest of blue-collar jobs. I'm a policeman (no rank, JUST a policeman) and Mrs. Tantal is a nurse that delivers babies, so we're not exactly the cultural and financial elite. Besides, I've seen plenty of wealthy people who are miserable because they're dissatisfied with their jobs (even if they pay well), their marriages, and their kids (because they spent so much time chasing money that they didn't slow down long enough to raise them properly).

My point being that happiness can't be bought at ANY price. I'm just opposed to the government confiscating the wealth of one person so that they can give it to someone that has refused to earn their own living. There was a time when we had more cohesive, less polarized societies. During these times, government was not the central point of people's lives and the solution to all problems. Rather, people were more focused on family, friends, and the church who provided the social safety net, rather than the government. As we approach more difficult financial times in the U.S., there may be a time when Mrs. Tantal and I have to take family or friends into our home.......and I'm fine with that. That's just what a good relative, friend, and Christian does. OTOH, if we were to take another family in, I'm sure that they would take on the responsibily of keeping the house clean, doing the laundry, and keeping the grass mowed. That would just be the responsible thing to do. If we were to take in another family and they expected to lay around all day watching TV, enjoying our home, eating our food, but putting forth no effort in the maintenance of the home, then they wouldn't be welcome. Even if they had no money, they would still be expected to contribute.

Jesus said, "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's", meaning that everyone should pay their taxes and not worry about it; however, most of the social work was performed through the church (or, in modern times, charities), as it should be. You'll notice that Jesus did not say "render all you have unto Caesar so that he can support everyone." I'm not opposed to helping people, in fact I rather enjoy it and feel that I have a duty to do it. I am merely opposed to the current system in which we do it, whereby someone can go to some bureaucrat's office, fill out a few forms, and receive money from the taxpayers with no other questions asked.

See, I'm not the cold-hearted ******* you think I am, I'm just opposed to our current welfare "system" as it demands no accountability.

[DougieG]

Personally, I don't derive my happiness in life from money. I live a modest lifestyle that most would consider boring. Work, family, church, high school football games on Friday nights, and the occassional barbeque with friends are about all we do, but I couldn't be happier. Mrs. Tantal and I have the bluest of blue-collar jobs. I'm a policeman (no rank, JUST a policeman) and Mrs. Tantal is a nurse that delivers babies, so we're not exactly the cultural and financial elite. Besides, I've seen plenty of wealthy people who are miserable because they're dissatisfied with their jobs (even if they pay well), their marriages, and their kids (because they spent so much time chasing money that they didn't slow down long enough to raise them properly).

My point being that happiness can't be bought at ANY price. I'm just opposed to the government confiscating the wealth of one person so that they can give it to someone that has refused to earn their own living. There was a time when we had more cohesive, less polarized societies. During these times, government was not the central point of people's lives and the solution to all problems. Rather, people were more focused on family, friends, and the church who provided the social safety net, rather than the government. As we approach more difficult financial times in the U.S., there may be a time when Mrs. Tantal and I have to take family or friends into our home.......and I'm fine with that. That's just what a good relative, friend, and Christian does. OTOH, if we were to take another family in, I'm sure that they would take on the responsibily of keeping the house clean, doing the laundry, and keeping the grass mowed. That would just be the responsible thing to do. If we were to take in another family and they expected to lay around all day watching TV, enjoying our home, eating our food, but putting forth no effort in the maintenance of the home, then they wouldn't be welcome. Even if they had no money, they would still be expected to contribute.

Jesus said, "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's", meaning that everyone should pay their taxes and not worry about it; however, most of the social work was performed through the church (or, in modern times, charities), as it should be. You'll notice that Jesus did not say "render all you have unto Caesar so that he can support everyone." I'm not opposed to helping people, in fact I rather enjoy it and feel that I have a duty to do it. I am merely opposed to the current system in which we do it, whereby someone can go to some bureaucrat's office, fill out a few forms, and receive money from the taxpayers with no other questions asked.

If only everyone were happy to go so far to help their friends. But you can't provide your friends with healthcare when they can't afford health insurance. You can't provide their kids with private school education. You can't provide a cohesive foreign policy. That is why government is a necessity.

Thing is, I would fully agree with you if your ideology didn't have such major contradictions. You claim that the only way people get rich is by hard work, but that is wrong. What right do the children of rich people have to their money? What right do they have to the best schools or the best healthcare. They personally haven't done anything to deserve it at all, no more so than your kids anyway, who presumably don't go to private school (if you have any). Thus, if there was a 100% inheritance tax, then yes. People who are rich and powerful have earned their wealth. Otherwise, success often rides off the back of privelidge in schooling rather than any natural ability. That's the way it works in the UK anyway, and from what I gather that is how it happens to an extent in the US, though it is not so extreme. I think that it is a right for every human to have reasonable healthcare, whether rich or poor. I think that society has a responsibility to people who lose their jobs through the capitalist market and are unable to get new ones.

Just a question. You claim that you would take your friends into your home if they lost their jobs and had no money, but your politics are such that under your ideology they would be thrown onto the street to die if you didn't know them. Can you reconcile these contradictions?

[pauli007001]

If only everyone were happy to go so far to help their friends. But you can't provide your friends with healthcare when they can't afford health insurance. You can't provide their kids with private school education. You can't provide a cohesive foreign policy. That is why government is a necessity.

Thing is, I would fully agree with you if your ideology didn't have such major contradictions. You claim that the only way people get rich is by hard work, but that is wrong. What right do the children of rich people have to their money? What right do they have to the best schools or the best healthcare. They personally haven't done anything to deserve it at all, no more so than your kids anyway, who presumably don't go to private school (if you have any). Thus, if there was a 100% inheritance tax, then yes. People who are rich and powerful have earned their wealth. Otherwise, success often rides off the back of privelidge in schooling rather than any natural ability. That's the way it works in the UK anyway, and from what I gather that is how it happens to an extent in the US, though it is not so extreme. I think that it is a right for every human to have reasonable healthcare, whether rich or poor. I think that society has a responsibility to people who lose their jobs through the capitalist market and are unable to get new ones.

Just a question. You claim that you would take your friends into your home if they lost their jobs and had no money, but your politics are such that under your ideology they would be thrown onto the street to die if you didn't know them. Can you reconcile these contradictions?

If i as a parent work my fingers to the bone to provide for my kids future,who has a right to that wealth?My kids or the kids of lazy bums who do not work as hard as i do in such a dangerous job that mid term WILL put me into an early grave(average for a person in my job is around 50 years,which may seem old to you now but when you hit your mid 30s and see years passing faster than weeks did in your teen years perhaps you may change your mind).No i work hard ans save and earn so my kids will have a good inheritance when i die,who do you think my money should be given to?The violent criminals illegal gun fund?Lazy scumbags on welfare?No it is mine and if i die i choose to give it to MINE and not to some greedy lazy skuzz bucket!!!!!

[Tantal]

Just a question. You claim that you would take your friends into your home if they lost their jobs and had no money, but your politics are such that under your ideology they would be thrown onto the street to die if you didn't know them. Can you reconcile these contradictions?

Sure. Charity should be in the heart of every person. If I were unable to care for them, maybe other friends of family members could. That's the way it worked during the Great Depression. Three families might be living in one house. The homeowner fortunate enough to have a job would be the primary breadwinner. The other men would work if they could find it, but then give the homeowner (always a friend or relative) the wages to help offset food costs and rent. The women would cook, clean, and care for children. It was actually a fairly "communal" lifestyle. If the homeowner came home from work to a filthy house, no food on the table, dirty kids, and the lawn hasn't been cut in a week, then finds one of the men he's working so hard to help passed-out drunk on the sofa, then they'd be out of there. It all goes back to ACCOUNTABILITY. The others in the house would be accountable to the homeowner in exchange for his generosity.

Now, we've reached the point that everyone wants something for nothing with no accountability at all, as if the fruits of someone else's labor are somehow their birthright. If you asked a dole-ite what they'd managed to accomplish with their day, at least in the U.S., they'd tell you it was none of your business what they'd done with their day, yet they'd expect the checks to keep coming.

As for inheritance...... What gives you or the government a greater right to the fruits of my labor than my children have? I earned and saved the money, so I can do with it as I please upon my death. My kids (I have 2 BTW) will likely inherit a modest house, a little (very little) cash, and a fairly extensive collection of firearms. That's really all I've got. The whole hatred of the rich really just sounds like sour grapes and envy to me. I'm not rich and never will be, but I don't begrudge people that are their earnings and I certainly don't think that I'm entitled to have the government remove it from them, by force if necessary, and give it to me.

As for government being a necessity, I will agree with you on that point. It is a necessary evil that should be treated as such. Police and Fire services, the military, courts, prisons, the building of bridges and roads, etc. are all government functions that we must have. Health care is a service that should be performed outside of government intervention. Schools are still debatable. My kids go to public schools because I have no choice but to send them there. I can't afford to pay for both public and private school at the same time, and, the way government works, you still have to pay for the public school whether your kids attend or not. If not for the high School Taxes I pay, I could afford to send my kids to private school and would rather do so.

You'll find that there are no contradictions in my philosophies. I am a conservative libertarian (at least that's what we'd call it in the States). I want maximum liberty to do as I please with minimal government intrusion into my life. That includes social liberty and economic liberty. Every time we as societies place another responsibility on government, we surrender more of our liberty. If you allow government to run health care, then government can regulate whether or not you can smoke, what you can eat, or even how often you have to exercise. Government runs schools, then the curriculum is set by politicians. Government runs retirement pensions, then government gets to determine how much space an elderly couple may have in their house or how much they "need" to live on.

Right now I am working and saving every penny I can so that government never gets to make these decisions for me.