@xris,
xris;174300 wrote:To get a better idea of my view point? that has nothing to do with my location.
My location is clearly visible.
One, I am new to these forums so I did not see your location and I did not say that about you being in Europe to be insulting. Different people have different views of many things including government that is given to them "right along with their mother's milk" and these mindsets continue through life.
In a conversation with a friend who was from New Zealand, he was wondering why Americans are so insistent on their right to keep guns. His point was that New Zealanders did not feel this way and were wlling to have such a right curtailed for safetly and security.
I pointed out to him that his people and ours have a different view of government. Among Americans, at least a certain variety, the government is not a benevolent benefactor looking out for the good of the masses and seeking to help everyone to achieve their highest. For those Americans, like myself, the government is a necessary evil created among men whereby we surrender certain rights--such as self-help justice--to combine efforts to protect the personal property and rights of each individual. This first thing we must be protected from is an overreaching government. I fear my government far more than the neighborhood thug in baggy pants. I fear any human organization that can be swayed by human passions to make pronouncements about what is mine. When a gang robs a man on the street it is a crime and an affront to justice. When a gang of suited IRS agents does the same thing--take my money to give to someone who did not earn it--they are no different and just as unjust. Socialism would permit this action so long as it was the action of either the majority or of positive law. However, many, like myself, follow the concept of natural law and find there are certain actions that even a well-intentioned government cannot be permitted to do.
No government official has the needs of the people first and foremost in his or her mind. Anyone in the government has the retention of power as supreme for that is in their natural self-interest. If removing a wealthy man's personal property to distribute to a large poor constituency will keep them in power then justice be damned. They will of course wrap themselves in the rhetoric of the revolution, but it will still be a theft. My self-interest is to preserve my own property. I trust myself to do this better than the government.
xris;174300 wrote:If we choose by democratic intentions to moderate capitalism and to inform those who wish to use our labour then they need to obey certain obligations, thats not tyranny its democracy.
But such a democracy is a tyranny of the majority. Government was formed to protect the rights and properties of the individual and when it violates that purpose it does what it was never intended to do and never empowered to do (Locke's
2nd Treatise on Government). It gets away with it only because of the coercive force and power of its numbers. This is still theft and a violation of rights (Nozick's
Anarchy, State and Utopia).
xris;174300 wrote: You would love for it to be imposed by some autocratic regime without representation but it ain't and thats your problem. You cant understand why those who love freedom and would die for its cause would choose to have a social accountability above all else.
Autocratic regimes do not have to be unrepresentative. Our Congress and current administration over the last few months is just such an example. I agree with those who have declared Obama's the Imperial Administration. Yes, many who love freedoom and would die for it would also choose such social engineering, but it is always because such engineering is in their personal interest. All humans will gladly take from another to help him or her self. This is human nature grown large. That is why we need controls over governments, even popular ones and why most people wanting it does not make it right.
xris;174300 wrote:the right to exploit, is not a right, its either controlled or it is not.
Could you please explain what you mean by exploitation. By this word do you mean when an employer agrees to pay 'x' amount to a worker and then, as promised, pays 'x'? Do you mean when a capitalist receives a profit as a return on the funds that rather than consuming he invested to build the factory that employs the worker? Does exploited mean a company that signs a contract with Joe Insurance-Consumer to cover x,y, and z ailments for a set premium and then only covers x, y and z as agreed and refuses to cover ailment a, b or c?
As for the original OP, the reason we see socialism portrayed as bad is because that is the conotation the word inspires in the average American. Other countries may get the warm fuzzies, but the word gives me the heeby-jeebies. This is not a left-over from the cold war but a firm grasp of history and context. The warp and woof of Socialism is exploitation.
...etc, etc, etc. Why so much hate for Socialism? Well, it is a simple case of misuse, misuse and misuse. The great political philosopher of our times Glenn Beck as proposed that Socialism is fundamentaly evil. Let us explore this statement. 
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace