Socialism (Moved from Grapes of Wrath)

Its you that has been judgemental about my personal views.When did i say men should be leashed like dogs,poetic nonsense.
Anarchy is by the general accepted view, tribal and cares little for those who cant survive.Its jungle politics and an extension of capitalism without government intervention to its excesses.
I recognise what humanity is capable of ,history is littered with examples thats why advocate a social conscience approach.

So you want to abolish fires? How are you going to do that?

So you wish to rid humanity of greed? How will you do that?

So you want to abolish fires? How are you going to do that?

So you wish to rid humanity of greed? How will you do that?

I have been judgmental about your personal views as moral views, even to the most devout relativist, cannot pass by without judgment.

And your vision of free society is one that is dog-eat-dog and in desperate need of someone with your moral insight to keep the dogs in line.
[/color]



---------- Post added at 04:28 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:01 AM ----------

[/color]You give the US economy as an example of socialism and it does not represent capitalism at all.Well what can i say? So you can point to examples of true socialism and condemn its value but not this wonderful Utopian capitalist wonderland because no examples exist.It reminds me so much of that fictional land of never never.
You sound like a politician prone to making unsubstantiated claims about another's politics without questioning the details.Poetic analogies for effect and your admirers applause.

I have been judgmental about your personal views as moral views, even to the most devout relativist, cannot pass by without judgment.

And your vision of free society is one that is dog-eat-dog and in desperate need of someone with your moral insight to keep the dogs in line.

And i think this needs explaining..

I cant rid the world of murder, lust or any other base instinct but i can by example and hoped for regulation stop its excesses.

How many times have you referred to the free system I espouse a "dog-eat-dog" society. You are apparently firmly convinced that people will have no social conscious if it were not mandated to them by the state.

Certain men will have moral values but those who dont usually are the most determined and society needs them to be controlled.

So individual freedom is bad, because it allows people to act immoral, ah. I think I get you now. You are advocating fascism.

You should be happy, such outdated notions as freedom and are on their way out these days.
Freedom pfff...
A few right-wing extremists such as the founding fathers maybe cling to that old crap, but it's in the way of our authoritarian utopia.
The same with the Magna Carta, burn it.
Please place your jewelery on the table before entering the gas chamber. Sieg Heil!

---------- Post added at 10:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:15 PM ----------

You will be happy to hear that the UK, the nation that re-invented democracy for the modern world, has today officially abandoned freedom.

Michael Savage Banned From Entering UK: Country Publishes List Of People Not Allowed

I disagree completely. They are just the most likely to abuse the system.

Your solution to these people (and the amazing thing is that you tacitly acknowledge this fact) is to give them more power to abuse the system.

Those with moral values will abuse the system:perplexed:i would by laws allow them more freedom to abuse the system:perplexed:i am at a loss to understand your comments.I think you and your comrade had better sit down quietly and contemplate your views.

Those few who aren't inherently compelled to behave in socially acceptable behavior (read: without moral values) are the most likely to abuse the system.

You, on one hand, acknowledge how greedy people use the government to line their own pockets and how government tends to cater to those people, yet on the other hand, you offer us bigger more powerful government.

These two positions do not mesh. Either government services the powerful and wealthy and is detrimental the powerless and therefore should be limited, or government helps the weak at the expense of the rich and powerful and should be strengthened. Those are the two logically possible positions. I hold the former.

You hold the position that government services the powerful and wealthy and is detrimental to the powerless and therefore should be strengthened.

Those few who aren't inherently compelled to behave in socially acceptable behavior (read: without moral values) are the most likely to abuse the system.

You, on one hand, acknowledge how greedy people use the government to line their own pockets and how government tends to cater to those people, yet on the other hand, you offer us bigger more powerful government.

These two positions do not mesh. Either government services the powerful and wealthy and is detrimental the powerless and therefore should be limited, or government helps the weak at the expense of the rich and powerful and should be strengthened. Those are the two logically possible positions. I hold the former.

You hold the position that government services the powerful and wealthy and is detrimental to the powerless and therefore should be strengthened.

This makes me fear for humanity. If someone can keep denying these simple facts, there seems to be no explaining the dangers of fascism to the general public.

That and the news that England now doesn't allow people into the country because they don't like what they are saying just frightens me.

Dont be so silly have you seen how difficult it is for even tourists to enter the US.

Your dispersing the debate because your loosing the argument.

So individual freedom is bad, because it allows people to act immoral, ah. I think I get you now. You are advocating fascism.

Sory but you sad those with morals are more likely to abuse the system.I did not offer bigger or more powerful governments,why do you keep making these claims about my opinion?Why should a government be seen as helping one section of the community over another?I ask for exploitation of labour and governments to be eliminated, is that how you see it?helping the poor against the rich ,how strange a concept.

You have repeatedly said that a society should be judged by how it treats its worst off. That implies social welfare to support the poor at the expense of the better off. My apologies if I have misinterpreted you.

You have also repeatedly called for greater regulation and greater government intervention into economic affairs. That implies a larger and more powerful government. My apologies again if I have misinterpreted you.

My argument has always been that government only creates asymmetrical rules that go to help those who are willing to exist parasitically. The government cannot help the poor at the expense of the rich, quite the opposite, it serves mainly to create and maintain stratification where entrepreneurship is stifled and the lower classes are perpetually dependent on the higher classes. My apologies if I have not been clear.

Are you comparing unnecessary (and stupid imo) security hassle with not allowing someone into the country for political reasons?


Then respond:

I have no desire or reason to be side tracked by a silly decision made by my government.

Huh? How do you want to end fire?

You don't get it do you? capitalism is the fire, its not the trees.Its the principles, not human nature,its not governments, its the principles of a capitalist society that i cant abide.

You assume i agree with those consequences because i have these views, i don't.