Socialism (Moved from Grapes of Wrath)

Your logic eludes me,how do you think your fellow citizens would feel about your so called restrictions of freedom.Do you think the fireman should attend your house if it was on fire? Do you think the soldier should go home when your country is attacked?Do you think the policeman should stop the motorist who just smashed into your car?

You appear to toss out terms such as "burdensome," "cruel" and "unjust" pretty loosely. Any limiting of your personal freedoms is burdensome and usually also unjust or cruel? You should be thankful you don't live in a place, such as the North-Korea like world you purport to look forward to, where rights are actually trampled upon in ways that are truly burdensome, cruel and unjust. Sorry chum but you sound more than a bit whiney.

So one can only be an oppressed minority if one belongs to a racial, ethnic, religious, political, etc. group that's a minority? No no. The fact is that in a democracy where majority rules there can be oppression of a minority (e.g. people who believe in the literal meaning of the second amendment) which has nothing to do with group or identity politics, which, by the way, is a sham that does nothing but divide us irrationally and keeps racism alive. Anyway, the most oppressed minority might be a minority of one. Let's say I start writing pamphlets glorifying Hitler, telling everyone they're gay, and declaring my desire to boink their children. Yep, I might have my freedom of speech taken from me. Am I not an oppressed minority? Am I not being treated differently under the law because I am not numerically enough to oppose such actions at the polls?

Any person or persons which are treated by a different law than others or which are being denied rights along with everyone else, but which rights only they apparently value, and which is having this imposed upon them by a democratic majority, is an oppressed minority.

Yeah that's my point. the state should only protect individual freedom. And of course one persons individual freedom can take prevalence over another persons. For example another persons freedom to stab me.
I do not want the state to do anything else, such as limiting individual freedom for other reasons.
For example income redistribution. Sadly that is how government gets more power.

---------- Post added 07-30-2009 at 11:52 PM ----------



The government taking my income by force to distribute it in order to gain power is a burdensome intrusion on my freedom - oppression. It is rather minor oppression compared to living in North Korea, does that mean I can not envision better way?

I am thankful to live in a nation where my freedoms are only somewhat restricted by the government. But I only want the government to restrict my freedom to protect another persons freedom. We are further towards a Soviet empire than we are towards my right-wing ideal I consider realistically possible, not to mention my utopia.

I sometimes think that liberals consider the right to receive highest, for example medical care, while conservatives consider the right to be left alone higher, for example the state not taking your money.

Why you so obsessed with this idea of taxation.Do you not want a fire service? a police force?garbage collectors? and all the other necessities of life.If you where to pay all those people who are essential for a society a living wage, you need to gather taxes,where does their money come from?

So because we need teachers and a military we also need massive income redistribution?
Half of the US budget is entitlements, I bet in slightly more socialist Europe it's even more.
Seriously, are you really saying because I only want the government to do what's necessary I want no fire fighters?
That's like you not allowing your kids to have two pounds of chocolate every day and they respond: "So you don't want us have food and starve?"
There is something inbetween, xris.
Are you seriously bringing that argument, or were you a little tired when writing that?

So who in your opinion is being paid by the government who should not be?

Your argument is not if your taxed but what they do with the money.

I say again why should the government pay a teacher more than say a garbage man? is there a scale of necessity in your views?

MTFB, don't worry about trying to force someone else into inconsistency. You provide that in abundance all on your own. You complain about petty restrictions as burdensome to you, cruel to you and unjust to you but then support "someone (someone else obviously) needing to move because of 'electoral migration.'" I'm not sure how delusional someone would have to be not to see the inconsistency in that. To release you of your petty burdens someone else will "need" to move? That's not a novel idea. Our history books are full of examples of people "needing" to move, to electorally migrate, at the instance of others who thought that idea was just dandy. You want names?

First off, I am totally opposed to forcing anyone to move.

I have consistently argued against the democratic imposition of violent restrictions placed upon all individuals living within a geographic region (this is how the democratic state works).

You and xris have consistently supported the democratic imposition of violent restrictions placed upon all individuals living within a geographic area (I can link your numerous supportive comment about democracy).

Tell me who can legitimately and consistently claim to be against people choosing between oppression or moving because of electoral migration. There is no situation where that scenario could play out with my support, there are multiple situations where it could play out with your support.

In fact, I have not yet seen a legitimate argument for limiting the oppression of democratic rule from either of you.

We have supported the violent restrictions of democracy..when? so why should we want people to move?and why with our support?
When did you prove that democracy is oppresive?did i concede it was?
Such emotive language has me wondering if you have been paying attention.:perplexed:

MFTP, just what litany of "violent restrictions" have you endured? Are you routinely pummeled in the streets? Do the authorities raid your house at night, throw you into shackles and drag you off into the dark? Why this persistent attachment to fantasies of violence? Do you require a heaping helping of hyperbole to bolster your moral indignation?

Here's an excerpt from a piece just written by one of your nation's best contemporary chroniclers, Chris Hedges. It gives food for thought about where America's fetish with free enterprise has taken your land:

The cultural embrace of illusion, and the celebrity culture that has risen up around it, have accompanied the awful hollowing out of the state. We have shifted from a culture of production to a culture of consumption. We have been sold a system of casino capitalism, with its complicated and unregulated deals of turning debt into magical assets, to create fictional wealth for us and vast wealth for our elite. We have internalized the awful ethic of corporatism -- one built around the cult of the self and consumption as an inner compulsion -- to believe that living is about our own advancement and our own happiness at the expense of others. Corporations, behind the smoke screen, have ruthlessly dismantled and destroyed our manufacturing base and impoverished our working class. The free market became our god and government was taken hostage by corporations, the same corporations that entice us daily with illusions though the mass media, the entertainment industry and popular culture.


The more we sever ourselves from a literate, print-based world, a world of complexity and nuance, a world of ideas, for one informed by comforting, reassuring images, fantasies, slogans and a celebration of violence the more we implode. We ask, like the wrestling fans or those who confuse love with pornography, to be fed lies. We demand lies. The skillfully manufactured images and slogans that flood the airwaves and infect our political discourse mask reality. And we do not protest. The lonely Cassandras who speak the truth about our misguided imperial wars, the global economic meltdown and the imminent danger of multiple pollutions that are destroying the eco-system that sustains the human species, are drowned out by arenas full of fans chanting "Slut! Slut! Slut!" or television audiences chanting "Jer-ry! Jer-ry! Jer-ry!" The worse reality becomes, the less a beleaguered population wants to hear about it and the more it distracts itself with squalid pseudo-events of celebrity breakdowns, gossip and trivia.


A culture that cannot distinguish between reality and illusion dies. And we are dying now. We will wake from our state of induced childishness, one where trivia and gossip pass for news and information, one where our goal is not justice by an elusive and unattainable happiness, to confront the stark limitations before us or we will continue our headlong retreat into fantasy.

Thanks, in part, to the libertarian delusions of so many of your countrymen, you've all been had.

Epic silliness indeed. If weed is your passtime and the Good Ol' Boys in Georgia persecute you accordingly I suppose you could always relocate to a more pot-friendly, liberal jurisdiction.

Or you could put down that bong and use that mind of yours to find a much more lucrative position to alleviate your financial distress. It's curious that you want tolerance of your own lifestyle choices and values but are so intolerant of others'. And I was referring to "libertarian delusions" not libertarianism itself.

Would you advice your son to try crack? we all have our degrees of freedom and restrictions thats what a society by general consent will develop.I am against the prohibition of drugs, as i see it does not work.Democracy is not your problem,you would have a problem living anywhere.
Laws are or should be ethical demands we make for each other to abide by.You have the power to object or even change these laws if so wished,in any other system it would be nigh impossible.

It is extremely likely that there will never be a system under which I will avoid conflict. That much is true.

However, it is important to note that a democratic system, all state systems, exist to force dissent to concede by completely undermining their powers of negotiation. I cannot negotiate with anyone over my desire to smoke marijuana, although it is unfathomable that someone could find moral justification for stopping me. I even have to contribute to the costs of restricting my marijuana use.

As much as i support your freedom to smoke the weed, i cant say your objections to democracy are exactly objective.You would have more chance of convincing a liberal government than any right wing junta.

Very true, but "better than awful" isn't a ringing endorsement.

So you think a state full of right wing nutters would be able to coexist with a neighbour who was the opposite of their ideal?

Why should an individual living in a country or state be forced to move because of electoral migration.

What makes a country good is the diversity of views

and the ability to adapt.

If anyone is stupid enough to think their contribution to a country is just about how much tax they pay,then they need to look around them.Is a fire fighters contribution less than a lawyers?

Absolute crap, narrow minded attitudes need to be confronted not accommodated.

Zetetic, are you serious about a multiplicity of governments, each fixed to its own ideals? Where will you be locating your Bosnia and your Kosovo? As you narrow your ideals, jurisdiction by jurisdiction, you'll be giving rise to ethnic cleansing (we don't accept your beliefs here any longer, leave) and the birth of a patchwork of potentially antagonistic political philosophies. Furthermore, once these narrow ideals are enshrined how will there ever be social advancement, enlightenment. Surely the model you espouse would have little tolerance for free speech or dissent.

It sounds to me like a lovely little formula to restore feudalism, Balkans-style.