Jump to content

SocialismÆs Trojan Horse


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

The American Thinker

quote:

December 8th, 2005

It seems not a month goes by when we are not treated to some dire environmental prediction. Only last week we were told that Europe is on the verge of being plunged into an ice-age of sorts. And this as a result of global warming of all things. Allegedly involving disruptions in the flow of the warmth-exuding Gulf Stream, the mechanism behind this impending calamity is admittedly not easy to grasp. Howard Dean conceded as much himself, but he then quickly added that he had spoken to Al Gore who had explained the whole thing to him with eye-opening clarity. Yet a few days later Mr. Dean was still unable to coherently explain the theory on national television. Confused but undeterred, Mr. Dean told us that we should all go and ÔÇÿlisten to Al. He knows so much about all this, itÔÇÖs just amazing.ÔÇÖ

We will have to take his word for it. After all, Al Gore should know since he has been in the business of expounding on catastrophic environmental scenarios for many years. Needless to say, he is the perfect epitome of the environmentalist zeal which has been inundating us with doomsday forecasts since the 1960s. None has come to pass yet, and it does not look one will take place any time soon. In this connection, one cannot but bemoan the fate of countless trees felled for all the books and articles inscribed with those missives of doom. Yet in spite of their zero prediction value, the influx of such theories shows no signs of abatement.

Fortunately, the outlook has improved (for trees) with the advent of the internet, which Mr. Gore has once claimed to have invented. The e-book would appear to be an especially responsible means of ecological panic-mongering, since it is paperless and can be disposed of in an environmentally friendly manner. A click of a mouse deletes it painlessly from your hard drive ÔÇô no recycling required. This technique should make us not only responsible stewards of our planetÔÇÖs resources but also of our personal time.

Incidentally, those allegedly shrinking natural resources are not only as plentiful as ever, but we have more of them as we have become more adept at discovering new deposits. This should come as a relief to those who have been listening for decades to warnings and rants about how we are consuming our planet into depletion. Today that critical point is apparently no closer than it was when the depletion mania began. We would do well to remember how the environmentally-conscious were giving us only a decade (two at the most) to mend our profligate ways. We never really did, and yet we are still here. Our environment is cleaner than at any time since the start of the Industrial Revolution and we have access to more raw materials and natural resources than ever before. All this thanks to one of the greatest wonders that has ever appeared on the face of our planet ÔÇô free-market capitalism.

One can only wish that the green lobby could be laughed off, but unfortunately it canÔÇÖt. Despite all of its unfulfilled prophecies and the apparent wackiness, it has become a powerful force on the western political scene. Laughter can be therapeutic, but it does not change things in the political arena, at least not in this instance. Not yet. What we need more than anything is to understand the true nature of the environmental campaign so that we can properly grasp its insidious nature and inherent dangers. Let us begin, then, with some basic observations.

*****

A strong centralised state which controls societyÔÇÖs means of production is ÔÇô as Marx emphatically taught ÔÇô the central feature of socialism. Tellingly, this is also the state of affairs toward which environmentalism inexorably inclines, and which it has been remarkably successful in effecting.

Environmentalism derives its impetus from an ominous insinuation:

Modern civilisation is headed for extinction as a result of self-inflicted environmental damage. The chief perpetrator is none other than the business establishment which in its relentless drive for profit devours natural resources while giving off poisonous derivatives of production.

The only effective way to safeguard our survival, then, is to bring wayward business under control by regulating its operation in order to minimise its destructive impact.

This kind of oversight, environmentalists argue, can only be carried out by a government with the power to implement the radical measures called for by the gravity of the impending crisis. One of them is production targets for various business sectors to ensure that the levels of pollution do not exceed acceptable standards. Another is to compel businesses to conduct their commerce in environmentally ÔÇÿfriendlyÔÇÖ ways.

Since businesses normally resist these kinds of measures ÔÇô as they make their operation more costly and difficult ÔÇô government must have at its disposal extensive monitoring capabilities to ensure compliance. But most importantly, it must have the power to persecute and punish those who refuse to submit.

All environmental efforts thus lead ÔÇô in one way or another ÔÇô to a government that has more and more control over the private sector until it inevitably becomes its supreme arbiter. By incessantly expanding its powers at businessÔÇÖs expense, environmentalism is furtively realising the essence of socialism ÔÇô a strong state which oversees and controls societyÔÇÖs means of production.

In short, a careful look at the policies and measures advocated by environmental activists cannot but lead us to the conclusion that the movement is being used as a cover for advancing a leftist agenda.

The movementÔÇÖs true nature can be seen not only from its effects, but also from its appeal to credentialed leftists.

The case of Mikhail Gorbachev is a case in point. The last president of the Soviet Union, he is now one of the worldÔÇÖs most prominent enviromental activists. A strange role, indeed, for a man who once led a nation with such an abysmal record. During its existence the Soviet Union wrought monumental ecological damage including the greatest man-made environmental calamity ever ÔÇô the explosion of a nuclear reactor at Chernobyl ÔÇô which happened on Mr. GorbachevÔÇÖs watch.

The way he handled this crisis tells as much about his real attitude to the environment as about anything else. His first reaction was not to launch a clean-up operation, but to conceal the fact. Initially he and his politburo comrades denied that anything happened at all. Then, when radioactive clouds reached countries hundreds of kilometres away, he claimed that it was only a ÔÇÿminorÔÇÖ accident. It was only under the pressure of growing evidence that Gorbachev finally admitted the truth. While mounting the cover-up, the time and energy that could have been used to contend with the unfolding ecological disaster were irretrievably lost. But that was not all, for Gorbachev also decided to sacrifice the lives of thousands whom he refused to evacuate or even notify of the danger. Scores died and countless others suffered from diseases caused by exposure to radiation. Many could have been saved had Gorbachev and his comrades done the decent thing. Chernobyl is a striking demonstration of communistsÔÇÖ characteristic disdain for both human life and the environment.

Today the man who presided over this tragedy is President of Green Cross International and one of the leading campaigners on the environmental circuit. What an irony that he is worshiped by those who regularly use violence against businesses whose ecological impact is marginal at best. There are no such bad feelings for Gorbachev, who should really be their enemy number one for the eco crimes he committed in the Soviet Union. Yet they honour him as their hero. How are we to explain this?

GorbachevÔÇÖs statements make it clear that even after the Soviet collapse he remained a committed communist. Since he could no longer credibly operate under the banner of Marxism-Leninism, he had to look elsewhere for his ideological home. This he found in the enviromental movement whose leaders were only too eager to embrace someone whose fundamental views they share. The fact that Gorbachev is responsible for more ecological devastation than any other individual in history has been cheerfully dismissed by the same people who blacklist others for infractions negligible in comparison. We should not be surprised, given that the movement is ÔÇô in its heart ÔÇô far more intent on implementing a leftist agenda than on protecting nature. The transformation of Mikhail Gorbachev from a staunch Marxist-Leninist to a prominent environmentalist is a revealing illustration of this.

GorbachevÔÇÖs conversion from red to green is not an isolated instance. Many other former communists have also expressed their enthusiasm for the environmental cause. This should make us immediately suspicious. It is hard to accept that those who not so long ago made up brutal regimes are suddenly so concerned with the fate of trees and butterflies. Can anyone really believe that Gorbachev ÔÇô a man who did not hesitate to sacrifice the lives of thousands of his people ÔÇô truly cares about some obscure marshland birds on whose behalf he now makes speeches?

The real reason for this transmutation is the discovery by former communists that the environmental movement can be easily used as a vehicle for their continued efforts. In this they are being aided by their green comrades from the West with whom they are now jointly implementing a socialist agenda right under the eyes of the largely unsuspecting populations.

In a very real sense, environmentalism is a Trojan horse. Hauled into western democracies as the guardian angel of their survival, it has been used to chart a course that would have had little chance of being accepted without its camouflage. Capitalism-averse forces in their green disguise have been thus able to shape societies by trumping up the threat of ecological annihilation which was never real in the first place.

They have already made considerable progress by boosting up states that control increasingly larger portions of the means of production. Countries like Germany and France show us just how effective their efforts have been. Marx himself would not have been displeased. Even though the ideology bearing his name has been discredited, its basic principles are nevertheless being furtively realised.

Socialist elements which were always a formidable presence in 20th century democracies did not abandon their cause with the worldwide downfall of communist regimes. They have merely changed their mode of operation. Today they pursue their objectives surreptitiously under the guise of good causes, having duped well-meaning people with their cover-up programme. The devious manner of their functioning is one of the reasons why they have been able to achieve such impressive gains.

There is constant evidence that the nature and goals of socialists have not changed. The only thing different now is their colour.

Vasko Kohlmayer defected from Communist Czechoslovakia at the age of 19. He lives in London and works in the publishing industry. He can be contacted at [email protected].


Yeah, the global warming goofballs don't have an agenda? Yeah, right, sure thing....

They are where the socialists have run to, and that is where the danger lies.

Environmentalist extremists are the new socialist undercover agents, and are doing ALL they can to scare us into instituting their socialist central controls in order to "save" ourselves.

Sorry, I ain't playing.

Socialism is a FAILED system, and if put into effect will destroy the United States and all that we have accomplished.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 65
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

Socialism is a FAILED system, and if put into effect will destroy the United States and all that we have accomplished.

The sad thing is that it's being done in a piece by piece fashion and the majority of the population isn't even aware of it. In other words, it's sneakily creeping up slowly on everyone. What are the symptoms some of you might ask? The banning of personal behavior. Guns, smoking, food etc... It all boils down to one thing, not the control of big business but the individual himself/herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Europe is dead, it just hasn't realized it yet.

Your socialist light is going to destroy you, you just haven't figured that out yet, and will still be screaming it works, it works, as your economies and countries go down in flames....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever 'expensive array of goods' they manage to put out is irrelevant considering the abysmally high unemployment rates and per capita spending on social welfare.

Let's see how well these countries would do if they had to maintain the military that protects them.

I'd rather confront a burglar with my shotgun instead of wine and cheese anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Actually, the only army that wanders through the world unilaterally attacking countries is yours. The only reason your bases are tolerated here is for the local business it presupposes. Britain & France have enough nukes, and just Switzerland to name a country can align in one day the same amount of fully equipped soldiers (350'000 troops, including weapons, ammo, fuels, vehicles & planes) the US would need two months to...


You DO NOT know our recruitment rate, so your "We can field more soldiers" arguement is null and void

Our base's are tolerated because they provide PROTECTION to those countrys that the base's are in. Those countrys are our allies and thus, we protect them

France has nukes? May the lord help us...

As for Britain, there 'ok' at least there not as cowardly at france is. The thing is Nomad, we have YET to attack countrys 'unilateraly'

You seem to have completely mistaken every reason we go into the different countrys

WW2 - Germany, our allies requested help after we had gotten attacked. So we sent in aid

WW2 - Japan, even before the war. Admiral Yamamoto had already known that attacking the US was a big mistake, and that proved correct when he said "We have awoken a sleeping giant and filled him a great resolve"

To some degree, that points to what happened now

The TERRORISTS attack the Trade Towers. KILLED 3000 INNOCENT people, and then the Taliban take's credit for those attacks

You EXPECT US to just sit on our rusty dustys and IGNORE them?

Thats apperently what you think we SHOULD have done. Sorry bucko, but the US isn't going to sit around and let itself be attacked, unlike SPAIN and FRANCE, who pulled there troops out and still suffered bombings; you DO NOT negotiate with terrorists, if you do you just give them MORE power and MORE money. But thats something that france and spain didn't care to understand, I partly blaim itally for this war still going, seeing how they paid a ransom. If anything, we should point our missiles at Itally now for making such a STUPID mistake. Thanks to them the Terrorists got even MORE money to help kill Iraqi's and our troops.

We came into Afganistan, and wiped out the Taliban in a matter of months. Granted, Osama might still be alive, but we haven't heard a thing from him in over a year now so I am under my belief that he is dead.

Saying that we attack countrys without provocation is a bull faced Lie, Nomad

Like I explained for WW2 and this war where in. The skirmish's over in Mogodishu (which intelligence had just found out DOES have tie's to Taliban, although at the time we didn't know that) occured after the ruling warlords got tired of us HELPING the people, and thus started attacking our convoys. The president then didn't appriciate being attacked just because we where providing aid and support to those people, so we retaliated, but lost mainly due to the politicans not keeping there nose's out of the military bussiness

As stated by a marine. "If the politicans had just kept to themselves and let the military do it's thing, the battles in Mogodishu would've ended in a matter of days"

The same thing applys to THIS war. Right now our soldiers can't fight to there fullest because of the damn politicans who think they know MORE than our fighting troops, the fact is, they know NOTHING. Unless you've actually been on the battle field and seen what war is like, there's NO WAY you could possibly understand what our soldiers are going through; if you keep on bashing our soldiers it just proves even MORE that you don't understand them

quote:

I whish long life and full success to the USA.


Funny.. here you are attacking the US and it's interests... and then you say this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Nomad, you sacrastically say 450million Europeans are blind and lobotomized, how many millions of Russians were blind and lobotomized since the Communist revolution, just to wake up and understand what has happened to them by the end of 20th century. Once they understood that their lives and the lives of their parents and grand parents have been spent in servitude or rather slavery, under the calling "for the good of the people", and they got literally NOTHING for it. Answer me that one.

Then, answer how many Chinese have been lobotomized, and NOW that they are waking up, their government (or rather top people in control, people that in US would be Al Gore, Kerry, Clintons, Kennedys) are so terrified of losing control that they monitor text messages sent from phones, and e-mails (don't you remember the Yahoo bashing thread you posted, claiming how terrible it is that Yahoo complied with SOCIALISTS government laws and handed over the information that allowed them to arrest a man that was claimed to be "criminal against society", ROFL, meaning he was a danger to socialism), not to mention when people realize that that socialism is rooted so deep in their system that there's literally no hope beyond spending their life in servitude to the system "for the good of the people" they commit suicide, hence China has the HIGHEST suicide rate in the world. Explain that Nomad. I thought socialism is good, WHY would they then be so afraid that people might not like it, and revolt against it, going so far as to FORCE people to obey and live under the system, if it was good, wouldn't they willingly do so? Then explain why China has the highest suicide RATE in the world, and people that live there try to escape from reality any way they can, hence the cyber caffees and stories of 20+ hours behind games, and do I even need to mention how seriously they take their games, after all, some are willing to KILL for equipment or items that are in the game, which means the REAL world and their REAL life is not even worth half as much, wonder WHY.

Socialism and liberalism is a cancerous mental disorder that infects people who do not value their own lifes, their labors, their time on Earth, their skills, who do not value themselfs and have a mental disorder (the disease actually has a name, I don't remember what it's medical term is) that has them give away everything even if it means suffering for themselfs. It's fine if they don't want to get treatment for it, and live that life on their own, BUT once they proclaim that ANOTHER person has to live the same way, and NOT value his life, his labors, ect...and be "kind" as to give it away, they HAVE to be put down like rabbid dogs that have attacked your family, because that's what they literally become at that point, and that's what they are literally doing, is attacking you, in hopes of enslaving you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soback: There is little correlation between economic model and suicide rates. Indeed, the United States and Switzerland don't have the lowest suicide rates despite being (correct me if I'm wrong) the most capitalistic countries in the world. And if you argue the fact that, that doesnÔÇÖt take into account culture, Canada and the US have had, in general, similar suicide rates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, Nomad, ALL, EVERY SINGLE ONE of those examples you provided, is US conducting operations against the MOST reprehensible governments on this Earth. LOL, Good examples. What else you got.

Vietnam, fighting against the Soviet political expansion and indoctrination, to stop the spread of socialistic cancer throughout the world.

The rest, are countries from South America. Where people live horrible lives, no justice, no security, nothing but corruption of the highest level.

And Aperson. In US, people usually commit suicide either after they had a lot and lost it all, or realize half their life went by and they threw it away without accomplishing anything. In China (socialism), people commit suicide because they tried, and realize that they CAN NOT accomplish anything because the more they make and the harder they try, the more is taken away from them and the more they are watched over and opressed. Once they realize that they can not change their own country, as any negative thing they say is monitored, then they are labeled an enemy of the people and dissapear, their only choice being emmigrating (not always possible), living a life of slavery (not a choice for a human mind that knows freedom and it's own potential, servitude is a choice for ignorants, hence the saying, ignorance is bliss), that's why some choose to change their country against all ods and end up being tortured and dying in some prison, and some take their own life.

By the way. Russia developed high un-employment rate too, after about 40 years (sounds similar to Europe?), and then once the cancer ate away at the country, it completly collapsed 40 years later. All it took is 4 generations (20 or so years each). Europe right now is on the end of it's second, beggining of third generation. And since you seem to be ignorant of history, and can not compare and paralel what happened in Russia and what is happening in other "young" socialistic countries, it's not surprising that you are cheerfull and resentful of anyone or anything that critisizes the system you live under.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by nomad:

Soback:

I can explain the suicide rate in China. Mainly related to farmers loosing their land due to corruption of local authorities who abusively expropriate in favor of new industrial implantations. You have maybe followed what happened a few days ago in China, were a whole village rebelled. Well, in the last years, there are 70'000 occurrences (yes, 70'000 !) of land-related conflicts due to farmers expelled from their land. I know you will dismiss this, because it is the direct consquence of introducing wild capitalism in a corrupted environment whose population is absolutely not prepared to cope with such novelty.


Actuall NO, Nomad, you are ABSOLUTLY WRONG there. It is NOT a consequence of introducing "wild capitalism", as EXACTLY the same thing happened in Russia to my grand grandfather, when he was 4 to 8 years old. Socialists came, and at first confiscated the farms supplies/materials (my grand grandfather was a child of an aristocratic family, that owned a lot of land, and ran a huge farm. They called them boojuya *spelling*.), then eventually as time went by, they took the land too. In capitalism, it's called bussiness, you give something in RETURN for something. In socialism, it's called, "for the good of the people". It's happening now in America, NOT because of capitalism, but because of kreeping infestation of SOCIALISM, that's why we have our constitution being ignored and laws passed that allow for the government to appropriate PRIVATE LAND, under Capitalism, this was UNTHINKABLE, and people barely stand for it now as it's slowly starting to change as socialists call the land ownership "unfair use of land, unfair use of resources, ect...and it should belong to the people, or at the very least to a shopping mall that everyone can use".

So no Nomad. It's not because of capitalism, because the system simply doesn't allow appropriation, it only allows the conduct of bussiness, not LOOTING. Socialism however, is the system of LOOTING, and that's why those appropriations happen in China, all 70,000 of them, just like in Russia.

quote:

Originally posted by nomad:

It's sad that you speak so much about communists systems without never having enjoyed the opportunity to interact in those systems as an adult. Maybe then you could remember what happened in Russia when wild capitalism irrupted in the country. You see, the difference between you and me, is that I was already an adult making business in WAPA countries BEFORE the fall of the USSR, and I continued AFTER.


You are kidding right. LOL, what a joke. NOBODY, could do bussiness in Russia the honest way. Anyone who had some integrity, or refused to pay off the officials, or the maffia and the thugs was promptly denied, harrased, threatened, ect...ROFL, even NOW doing bussiness in Russia is a thing of corruption, back scratching deals and pay offs, just look at the oil tycoon being jailed when he spoke out against the president and his handling of the country and politics, jailed with claims of "back taxes" and his property APPROPRIATED and Nationalized.

[ 12-12-2005, 05:26 PM: Message edited by: Soback ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by nomad:

Soback:

NONE of the people I knew in these countries have emigrated when free travel was finally allowed thanks democracy. So I guess they weren't so traumatised. Something you fail to realize, is that Russia and Bielorussia were extremely dictatorial systems, yet you take these systems and rubberstamp them on everything who was in that club at the time. Wrong. But again, I bet you and me did'n move in the same circles... Bojemoy

P.S. I like your definition of "MOST reprehensible". Some of the examples were democratically elected governments, and other ones were socialist. But it doesen't matter. Every functioning brain who consults history knows what all this was about... Question: do you consider that the fact that the population of a given country chooses a socialist system makes them eligible as legitime target from a US perspective ?

No, we didn't move in the same circles. We did know some factory owners. And they had things that normal people didn't have, those things were considered VERY luxorious. How did they get those things? Through barter and deals, off the top of their factory production lines. Then we also were friends with some people that worked as citys government officials, they were given a larger appartment, with bigger rooms, and higher ceilings. REASON, because they could offer something to the people that were in charge of assigning living appartments. Then we also knew some "bussinessman". Those bussiness people did conduct bussiness, but like I said, to do so, they had to pay off the government officials, and also the thugs.

So, while we did know those people (my mother and I), my family (her sisters/brothers, my grandfather) didn't engage in the same lifestyle that those people did. We had to actually work, and pay for every scum bag, every sick, every wellfare recepient in the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Soback:

And Aperson. In US, people usually commit suicide either after they had a lot and lost it all, or realize half their life went by and they threw it away without accomplishing anything. In China (socialism), people commit suicide because they tried, and realize that they CAN NOT accomplish anything because the more they make and the harder they try, the more is taken away from them and the more they are watched over and opressed. Once they realize that they can not change their own country, as any negative thing they say is monitored, then they are labeled an enemy of the people and dissapear, their only choice being emmigrating (not always possible), living a life of slavery (not a choice for a human mind that knows freedom and it's own potential, servitude is a choice for ignorants, hence the saying, ignorance is bliss), that's why some choose to change their country against all ods and end up being tortured and dying in some prison, and some take their own life.


That's China, you know, an extreme. That doesnÔÇÖt explain why Canada and the US have had very similar suicide rates whilst having very similar cultures (regardless of what some Canadians may try to tell you), yet one is much more socialistic than the other (which economic model you attributed high suicide rates to).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL, I see that you failed to understand all the posts I've made in this thread, as is judged by your statment that money is what matters the most to me, and your conclusion that I don't have much.

On the contrary, what matters to me, is KEEPING WHAT I MAKE. It would be the same if I were to make $100,000 a year, or $10,000 a year. What I get because I spend my time doing work with the skills and knowledge I accuired, is for MY benefit, and is NOT to be forcefully taken away to feed, clothe, and be spend on someone else. I am NOT to be a slave of all the leeches, all the poor, all the sick, and all the "dispriveleged". You obviously failed to understand that, as you proclaim that you seen people of all walks of life happy. That has ZERO relevance on what I am talking about. A slave can be happy too when he is thrown a bone (that was HIS in the first place) once in a while (aka a tax return). So can a person that is ignorant of his surroundings, and are used to having the products of their labor taken from them and given to someone else. When that happens from the moment they were born, and when it's drilled into their heads that it's for the best, if they never get exposed to anything else, few of them ever make it out of that state of mind and grow to learn and undertand the injustice and servitude they were born into. Hence the situation in China. THAT IS WHY the information distribution is controlled there so TIGHTLY, with tv, newspapers, websites being monitored and filtered for ANY kind of information that talks about socialism in a negative way. Knowledge is power, and when you keep the population ignorant, you can control them. However, since we live in an information age, a lot of people in China DO start to understand and realize what sick horrible monster of a country they live in, but once they realize there's pretty much nothing they can do about it, they can't just go back to being ignorant, it's impossible, and every day they work, they realize that it's all for nothing. Their only choices become non-compliance/death sentence or suicide/cyber caffes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, and by the way, that optimal intersection you are talking about. It's different for everyone. One person will be happy by creating and building his own bussiness empire while having little time to spend fishing, sailing and other recreational activities, while the other one could be a beach bum, serf all day, and be happy with living on $300 a week. However, the problem comes in when you FORCE someone to PAY for another persons substinance or happiness. In capitalism that does not happen, as your life is in your hands, to make whatever you want of it. In socialism, it happens ALL the time, as the whole system is build on it. Socialism is a system of nothing but legalized slavery. We had slavery once, it was rulled un-ethical and illegal because it's illegal to forcibly take the property/earnings of a person away from him, and also to keep someone from conducting their life as they see fit to seek their happiness.

So people like you, and other socialists found a way to MAKE it legal, under the banner "for the benefit of the society". Socialism takes away the products of ones labor away from them (just like slavery) and gives it to those who haven't earned it, it precludes people from disposing of their lives as they see fit (perfect example is China, but you can throw Europe, Canada into it too, as they FORCE you to live and work for the benefit of another, proclaiming that you are NOT entitled to keep what you make and have to share it *sharing would be voluntary, but they use the word share because they don't even have the guts to tell you they are looting you, as that would invite a balk/fight back reaction, and loose the guilt trap effect of "you are selfigh, egocentric" would be lost*, LOL, HOWEVER, if it's selfish to have and honorable to give, aren't the others that TAKE and use what doesn't belong to them being selfisth then, or does it only apply to haves and not the have nots?)

So in light of all this I am going to ask you a question. How is socialism any different from slavery?

[ 12-12-2005, 08:40 PM: Message edited by: Soback ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2755

Socialism: Slavery vs. Freedom (1 of 4)

by Ludwig Von Mises (May 15, 2003)

Summary: In a market economy, the individual has the freedom to choose whatever career he wishes to pursue, to choose his own way of integrating himself into society. But in a socialist system, that is not so: his career is decided by decree of the government.

[www.CapMag.com] I am here in Buenos Aires as a guest of the Centro de Difusión Economía Libre. What is economía libre? What does this system of economic freedom mean? The answer is simple: it is the market economy, it is the system in which the cooperation of individuals in the social division of labor is achieved by the market. This market is not a place; it is a process, it is the way in which, by selling and buying, by producing and consuming, the individuals contribute to the total workings of society.

In dealing with this system of economic organization--the market economy--we employ the term "economic freedom." Very often, people misunderstand what it means, believing that economic freedom is something quite apart from other freedoms, and that these other freedoms--which they hold to be more important--can be preserved even in the absence of economic freedom. The meaning of economic freedom is this: that the individual is in a position to choose the way in which he wants to integrate himself into the totality of society. The individual is able to choose his career, he is free to do what he wants to do.

This is of course not meant in any sense which so many people attach to the word freedom today; it is meant rather in the sense that, through economic freedom, man is freed from natural conditions. In nature, there is nothing that can be termed freedom, there is only the regularity of the laws of nature, which man must obey if he wants to attain something.

In using the term freedom as applied to human beings, we think only of freedom within society. Yet, today, social freedoms are considered by many people to be independent of one another. Those who call themselves "liberals" today are asking for policies which are precisely the opposite of those policies which the liberals of the nineteenth century advocated in their liberal programs. The so-called liberals of today have the very popular idea that freedom of speech, of thought of the press, freedom of religion, freedom from imprisonment without trial--that all these freedoms can be preserved in the absence of what is called economic freedom. They do not realize that, in a system where there is no market, where the government directs everything, all those other freedoms are illusory, even if they are made into laws and written up in constitutions.

Let us take one freedom, the freedom of the press. If the government owns all the printing presses, it will determine what is to be printed and what is not to be printed. And if the government owns all the printing presses and determines what shall or shall not be printed, then the possibility of printing any kind of op­posing arguments against the ideas of the government becomes practically nonexistent. Freedom of the press disappears. And it is the same with all the other freedoms.

In a market economy, the individual has the freedom to choose whatever career he wishes to pursue, to choose his own way of integrating himself into society. But in a socialist system, that is not so: his career is decided by decree of the government. The government can order people whom it dislikes, whom it does not want to live in certain regions, to move into other regions and to other places. And the government is always in a position to justify and to explain such procedure by declaring that the governmental plan requires the presence of this eminent citizen five thousand miles away from the place in which he could be disagreeable to those in power.

It is true that the freedom a man may have in a market economy is not a perfect freedom from the metaphysical point of view. But there is no such thing as perfect freedom. Freedom means something only within the framework of society. The eighteenth-century authors of "natural law"--above all, Jean Jacques Rousseau--believed that once, in the remote past, men enjoyed something called "natural" freedom. But in that remote age, individuals were not free, they were at the mercy of everyone who was stronger than they were. The famous words of Rousseau: "Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains" may sound good, but man is in fact not born free. Man is born a very weak suckling. Without the protection of his parents, without the protection given to his parents by society, he would not be able to preserve his life.

Freedom in society means that a man depends as much upon other people as other people depend upon him. Society under the market economy, under the conditions of "economía libre," means a state of affairs in which everybody serves his fellow citizens and is served by them in return. People believe that there are in the market economy bosses who are independent of the good will and support of other people. They believe that the captains of industry, the businessmen, the entrepreneurs are the real bosses in the economic system. But this is an illusion. The real bosses in the economic system are the consumers. And if the consumers stop patronizing a branch of business, these businessmen are either forced to abandon their eminent position in the eco­nomic system or to adjust their actions to the wishes and to the orders of the consumers.

One of the best-known propagators of communism was Lady Passfield, under her maiden name Beatrice Potter, and well-known also through her husband Sidney Webb. This lady was the daughter of a wealthy businessman and, when she was a young adult, she served as her father's secretary. In her memoirs she writes: "In the business of my father everybody had to obey the orders issued by my father, the boss. He alone had to give orders, but to him nobody gave any orders." This is a very short-sighted view. Orders were given to her father by the consumers, by the buyers. Unfortunately, she could not see these orders; she could not see what goes on in a market economy, because she was interested only in the orders given within her father's office or his factory.

In all economic problems, we must bear in mind the words of the great French economist Fr├®d├®ric Bastiat, who titled one of his brilliant essays: "Ce qu'on voit et ce qu'on ne voit pas" ("That which is seen and that which is not seen"). In order to comprehend the operation of an economic system, we must deal not only with the things that can be seen, but we also have to give our attention to the things which cannot be perceived directly. For instance, an order issued by a boss to an office boy can be heard by everybody who is present in the room. What cannot be heard are the orders given to the boss by his customers.

The fact is that, under the capitalistic system, the ultimate bosses are the consumers. The sovereign is not the state, it is the people. And the proof that they are the sovereign is borne out by the fact that they have the right to be foolish. This is the privilege of the sovereign. He has the right to make mistakes, no one can prevent him from making them, but of course he has to pay for his mistakes. If we say the consumer is supreme or that the consumer is sovereign, we do not say that the consumer is free from faults, that the consumer is a man who always knows what would be best for him. The consumers very often buy things or consume things they ought not to buy or ought not to consume.

But the notion that a capitalist form of government can prevent people from hurting themselves by controlling their consumption is false. The idea of government as a paternal authority, as a guardian for everybody, is the idea of those who favor socialism. In the United States some years ago, the government tried what was called "a noble experiment." This noble experiment was a law making it illegal to buy or sell intoxicating bever­ages. It is certainly true that many people drink too much brandy and whiskey, and that they may hurt themselves by doing so. Some authorities in the United States are even opposed to smoking. Certainly there are many people who smoke too much and who smoke in spite of the fact that it would be better for them not to smoke. This raises a question which goes far beyond economic discussion: it shows what freedom really means.

Granted, that it is good to keep people from hurting themselves by drinking or smoking too much. But once you have admitted this, other people will say: Is the body everything? Is not the mind of man much more important? Is not the mind of man the real human endowment, the real human quality? If you give the government the right to determine the consumption of the human body, to determine whether one should smoke or not smoke, drink or not drink, there is no good reply you can give to people who say: "More important than the body is the mind and the soul, and man hurts himself much more by reading bad books, by listening to bad music and looking at bad movies. Therefore it is the duty of the government to prevent people from committing these faults."

And, as you know, for many hundreds of years governments and authorities believed that this really was their duty. Nor did this happen in far distant ages only; not long ago, there was a government in Germany that considered it a governmental duty to distinguish be­tween good and bad paintings-which of course meant good and bad from the point of view of a man who, in his youth, had failed the entrance examination at the Academy of Art in Vienna; good and bad from the point of view of a picture-postcard painter, Adolf Hitler. And it became illegal for people to utter other views about art and paintings than his, the Supreme Führer's.

Once you begin to admit that it is the duty of the government to control your consumption of alcohol, what can you reply to those who say the control of books and ideas is much more important?

Freedom really means the freedom to make mistakes. This we have to realize. We may be highly critical with regard to the way in which our fellow citizens are spending their money and living their lives. We may believe that what they are doing is absolutely foolish and bad, but in a free society, there are many ways for people to air their opinions on how their fellow citizens should change their ways of life. They can write books; they can write articles; they can make speeches; they can even preach at street corners if they want--and they do this in many countries. But they must not try to police other people in order to prevent them from doing certain things simply because they themselves do not want these other people to have the freedom to do it.

This is the difference between slavery and freedom. The slave must do what his superior orders him to do, but the free citizen--and this is what freedom means--is in a position to choose his own way of life. Certainly this capitalistic system can be abused, and is abused, by some people. It is certainly possible to do things which ought not to be done. But if these things are approved by a majority of the people, a disapproving person always has a way to attempt to change the minds of his fellow citizens. He can try to persuade them, to convince them, but he may not try to force them by the use of power, of governmental police power.

This article is serialized from Economic Policy: Thoughts for Today and Tomorrow, a book based on six lectures delivered in Buenos Aires in 1959 on Capitalism, Socialism, Interventionism, Inflation, Foreign Investment, and Politics and Ideas by the great 20th century economist who was too good to receive a Noble Prize: Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973). Copyright © 1995 by Bettina Bien Greaves. All rights reserved

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

All of the above was just to show you the psychological difference between communism and socialism, government regulation vs. market freedoms. Below is something I just dug up by typing in Socialism and slavery into the search engine. Enjoy.

http://antislavery.freeservers.com/#1

Summary - A Quick Look At The Main Idea

This is also a Constitutional Argument

All wealth is labor in a stored format.

The money you earn is your labor in a stored format. Your earnings have been called 'income', but earned money is actually compensation for your time and mental and or physical labor.

When the government taxes your money/labor, then distributes your money/labor to people via government hand out programs (welfare), the government is making you work for those people who are receiving the handouts. This is servitude.

Virtually all government money comes from taxation. All government handout programs, such as Food Stamps or Medicare, require tax money in order to operate. Government handouts are government run socialism. All government social programs are taxpayer servitude.

If you don't like being forced to work for people via government handouts, then government hand out programs are putting you into involuntary servitude.

Involuntary servitude is illegal in the U.S.A. and is specifically forbidden by the 13th amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

In the long standing Supreme Court case Boyd v. United States Volume 116 U.S. Reports page 616 February 1, 1886, the Court noted that "constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. . . . It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon." At p. 635. The court went on to say that what may not be done directly, may not be done indirectly through legislative fiat. In other words, something which cannot be done directly like involuntary servitude, cannot be done indirectly by creating government programs (legislative fiat) which make people involuntarily serve.

Charities, that only get money from donations, are voluntarily servitude because the labor/money is voluntarily given. Charity is only charity when it is given voluntarily.

Over half of the Federal budget is socialism. Income taxes are only about 50% of the money the Federal government takes in each year, therefore; all of your income taxes can be considered involuntary servitude. You can get a feel for how much of your labor is involuntary servitude by looking at the amount of income taxes you pay.

The Supreme Court will only rule on cases which are brought before the court. This case must be argued to the Supreme Court in order rectify the situation, which has existed since the year 1933. If nobody stands up and formally complains about being an involuntary servant, then the government can assume we are serving voluntarily. The only thing that can stop us from freeing ourselves, is saying it can't be done and then failing to act. We owe it to our children to pass on the freedom that so many have died for.

The definition of Taxpayer Slavery cannot yet be found in the dictionary because it is a new and revolutionary, as well as accurate, way of describing government run socialism. Taxpayer Slavery is defined in the preface section of this web page.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The 13th amendment reads as follows - Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the Unites States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Notice that voluntary servitude is legal so you can Volunteer your time and labor if you want to (charity). When we go to work each day and get paid for the time and labor, that pay is our labor in a stored format. If we will just make our legally honest case that all government wealth transfer programs are involuntary servitude, we will have solved this hideous problem once and for all.

Article 6 paragraph 2 of the Constitution states that anything (any law) in the (state) Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary (to this Constitution) notwithstanding (has no legal standing). It means that even though the legislators have passed documents that look like laws (which is how every government program is created), they are in fact not law (which means that you legally don't have to do it and can't be taxed for it) and there have been many Supreme Court cases which hold this standard, Marberry v. Madison being the oldest and longest standing. To put it another way, any government program which violates the Constitution is illegal, and has been even if it has been done for 100's of years. All it takes is for the people, who are being damaged by them, to stand up and claim their rights."

"It doesn't matter if the whole country votes for it and you don't, if it is unconstitutional, they can't make you go along with it unless they change the Constitution first. For example; if every non-black person in the U.S. (88% of the population) voted to put the 12% of blacks back into slavery, only one black person would have to stand up and say no, and he would have the power of the Constitution on his side to tell the rest of us we are not allowed to vote that way, which is how it should be. This is how our founding fathers designed our Constitutional Republic so that it would not be capable of the evil a Democracy is capable of, where all it takes is a majority vote to reign tyranny on the minority.

Like me, you probably have felt that you were being put upon by the welfare system but didn't know how to express it. The key is realizing that all wealth is labor in a stored format. For instance, a house is labor in a stored format, and that is why money, which is labor in a stored format, can be traded for it.

When somebody wins the lottery they are winning stored labor, that is why they are able to quit their job and still buy a house which is full of the labor from the people who built it. People who built the house traded their labor for the money they earned so they could possibly buy a car which is full of the stored labor of the people who built the car and who built and maintained the machines which helped build the car and so on and so on. Even if you found a gold nugget on the ground with virtually no labor, that nugget still represents the effort it would take to replace it. In other words, try doing it again with virtually no labor on your part, you would find out just how much that nugget was worth.

Which government programs are involuntary servitude and which aren't? For any government program the tax payer should ask the question "is this government program primarily designed to benefit me with side effects that benefit others, or does this program primarily benefit others with only a side effect of benefiting me?" Remember that anyone who receives more money back from the government than they paid in taxes is not a tax payer but is effectively one of the people which the tax payer serves. The above question is only for taxpayers to ask which excludes all government employees and welfare recipients. "

"EXAMPLES:

Federal judges are to maintain law and order for the protection of your rights and property, a direct benefit to you the taxpayer which happens to benefit non-tax payers.

The military prevents other countries from coming in and burning the Constitution so that you may continue to enjoy the freedom the our founding fathers died for, a direct benefit to you that also benefits non-tax payers.

The U.S. mail system would be a borderline subject, but is specifically provided for in the Constitution which makes it constitutional, and it financially supports itself which makes it a slavery non-issue.

Public schools are supposed to be a program that taxpayers pay for so that children learn our system of government in order to keep this country free by teaching the Constitution and their rights. This would maintain order and freedom, at direct benefit to the taxpayer. Unfortunately, since Democrats are in charge of many of the school systems, many children are taught the Democrat mind set which leads to voting for Democrats and their slavery programs, a subsequent loss of freedom. This makes the tax payer involuntarily serve the Democrats by helping the Democrats gain young voters. Many high school graduates do not know what the Bill of Rights is, even if they did learn to read. Many students are taught that the Constitution is a living document which can be reinterpreted to suit Democrats whenever they choose. This makes many public school systems part of the slavery system.

Welfare is a government program which primarily benefits somebody other than the taxpayer and any benefit to the taxpayer would be a theoretical side effect, this puts the taxpayer in a definite position of servitude and since taxes are thought of as mandatory, it is involuntary servitude, a violation of the 13th amendment to the Constitution. I have heard experts say that wealth transfer programs make up over half of the Federal budget. It doesn't matter where the taxes are collected from, income tax, sales tax etc., all taxes come from the tax payer and are part of a sacred public trust which is being abused at this time and has been since president F.D.R. "

"One person should be able to claim his right and argue this all the way to the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court once ruled that black slavery was legal, so the Supreme Court doesn't always get it right. A slow transition where no new welfare cases were allowed could be done if the general public was clarified on this subject and voting took care of it. Informing many people would also create the possibility of a class action law suite, after all, taxpayers are currently not getting equal protection under the law. We can get out of this mess just like we got into it, one welfare case at a time.

A new law could state that nobody new would be allowed on welfare and everybody currently on welfare would be investigated to see if they actually needed it. That should drop the numbers to less than half within 3 months, the rest would be dropped as they became disqualified or could move to private charities more quickly on their own. To anybody who would use the argument "If we stop welfare there will be riots", I say, as our founding fathers did, "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute!!" Which means, don't use money to pay off trouble makers, use it to defend ourselves against such people. So pass this on. Let's return this country back to "The land of the free." Do it for your children's sake. "

"1) A politician who agrees with confiscating peoples labor/money in order to make them involuntarily serve someone else.

They use this unconstitutional position to buy votes from certain people by promising to take the stored labor of other persons. This politician is leveraging the labor of the hard working people of society for his own political campaign. This is the worst form of campaign contribution abuse. These politicians are usually Democrats. This is just the kind of thing that the Constitution was supposed to protect each and every American from. Somehow Democrats have succeeded at convincing people that they are for "the working man" when they are actually for the non-working man since their biggest political agenda is to come up with endless ways of giving away the labor of people who work.

In the old slavery model, this person would have been the plantation owner because these are the people running the slavery system.

2) A person who agrees with confiscating peoples labor/money in order to make them involuntarily serve him.

This person uses the government to steal money that they might not otherwise be able to get with permission, probably because he doesn't actually need it. This person doesn't care about taxes because they get more money back from the government than they pay. They are therefore, not a tax payer. This is just the kind of person that the Constitution was supposed to protect each and every American from. They think they are coming out ahead even though the whole country is poorer, including them, due to lack of incentive to work.

In the old slavery model, this person would have been a hired hand because they are basically being paid by the Democrat politician for their vote, via government handout, and their vote keeps the slavery going.

6) A person who disagrees with confiscating peoples labor/money in order to make them involuntarily serve others.

This person is a true "Don't Tread On Me" American. This person intuitively knows or actually understands that any government run socialism is a form of involuntary servitude and that the same social functions are better served by private organizations because it keeps politics and government waste out of the social picture. He probably understands that he could immediately quit giving to any privately run socialism (charity) which becomes corrupt literally without an act of Congress and without sour grapes people, ambitious politicians or non-thoughtful people giving him permission. This person would most likely give to private charities. Even if he didn't, the lack of corruption because of the checks and balances inherent in private charity, and the wealth he created, by spending or investing the money, would enable other people to give more than enough needed to satisfy social need. Opportunity in such a society would make giving much less necessary. In such a prosperous society a "have not" person would be much more a function of choice unlike our present greedy government fear based system.

In the old slavery model, this person was a abolitionist. Someone who wanted to end slavery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"It has been said that the older somebody gets the more conservative they become. Conservatism is the result of knowledge AND wisdom. The reason that so many college professors are liberal is that they only have knowledge. Wisdom means knowing something about people, like they won't work if their labor does not directly affect the quality of their life. This is why Communism failed, it was total socialism, people were economically helpless, i.e. working hard didn't pay. So they stopped working and Russia had to buy grain from us so that they would not starve to death. All government run socialism is slavery, the more socialism you have the less people work and the problems socialism was supposed to solve (poverty) gets worse. In Russia, their solution to the supposed problem of the "haves and have nots" was to make everybody a "have not", they achieved equality but the price for that, as always, was to sacrifice excellence. In China, their condition improves to the extent that people are given enough freedom so that it pays to work, i.e. their effort can make a noticeable difference in the quality of their own life. Conclusion, less socialism = better quality of life for all, no socialism = best possible quality of life for all. Warning: people who live fear based lives will not like this conclusion. "

-------> LOL, man that's a lot of stuff. Go ahead Nomad. What do you have to say about all that? All those things are commons sence. And Aperson, Volio, what have you to say about socialism now?

" You will know them by their fear based reasons for rejecting it which will start with something like "What about somebody who . . . ?" Also, not liking the conclusion does not change the accuracy of the conclusion, because the conclusion is based on the truth of what human nature is. The majority of people will not work unless they have a reason to go to work, Democrats take away those reasons when they make things available without having to work, such as food, medicine, housing etc. This causes less work to get done and therefore, shortages of goods and services, such as food, medicine, housing etc. Don't forget that this country survived quite nicely before Democrats became vote buying socialists, because people in need have the private charity option, an option which does a much better job of keeping people, who receive help, honest. Too bad conservatives didn't know how to articulate what was wrong with government socialism (slavery) back then.

Socialism is slavery, slavery is evil and anything based on evil will have bad side effects just as we have seen with government run social programs. The people who have enough time and energy to protest the removal of these slavery programs are the perfect candidates to be the people who organize and run prescription drug, medical and food charities etc. "

"I have seen old people who are still liberal. How does a liberal stay liberal? I have noticed that most die hard liberals, engaged in political discussion, end up doing one of 2 things when logic inevitably shows liberalism to be flawed. They either start criticizing the person who showed them the flaw (name calling), or they decide that it is time to stop talking about it, anything to change the subject. "

--------------> ROFL, Hey Nomad. The above paragraph is 100% about you. LOL. You either try to insult me when I post FACTS that contradict and destroy your posts, or you dissapear, only to reapear as if previuos discussions has never taken place.

"Staunch liberals don't make decisions based on logic, they make decisions based on emotion, so don't confuse liberals with the facts. The Democrats, the liberal party, has passed many government programs based on emotion, that is why the failure of a program like welfare is irrelevant to them, the program was passed to make them feel better, and they don't want to hear that it failed because that won't make them feel better. Since liberals refuse to listen to evidence which proves them wrong, you can conclude with confidence that they don't know what they are talking about.

Liberals make emotion based government policy with good intentions. Policy which is emotion based rather than logic based is unreliable. It is how wars are started. Liberals are in charge of most of our public schools. Have you noticed that the rash of school shootings has occurred at public schools not private schools? This is not a coincidence, it is the reality of how the road to hell is paved with emotion based good intentions. If liberals started using their head for something other than a hat rack, they would gain wisdom and turn into a conservative.

The quick fix for our public schools is a voucher system. If the public schools are as worthy of dollars as the Democrats would have us believe, they won't lose one student even with a voucher system. But what are vouchers? They are a form of freedom and it is typical for Democrats to oppose your freedom. "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Soback:

So in light of all this I am going to ask you a question. How is socialism any different from slavery?


In a way you are right. Socialism can be compared to slavery in a sense where we see it as a ideology defined by a state, which is ruled by collective that is controlling power(means of production).

Furthermore defination of political power itself can be seen as a manifestation of slavery if we look at one of it's most popularily quoted definations where power is "Entity A's ability to to make Entity B do like A wants, despite B's opposition.".

If we follow this kind of thinking bit more, we can conclude that economic power is manifestation of slavery as well as socialism, as money and wealth can be power.

I thought that slavery was about forcing another to do something even against his will? Also slaves hardly receives any benefits of their work to themselves. I think that's where socialism(and capitalism) distinguishes from slavery most.

What comes in taxation to uphold wellfare society to all, I pay it freely, as obviously does most people here in Finland(Yes, right next to Russia).

Some people aren't tho, thats why they may commit taxation crimes(or what they are called..). I wish that Europe would still expel it's criminal into the america like in "ol' good times".

-v

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you compare economic freedom, and the ability to make money to slavery over others, then you have failed to read my next post after the question. Which DISCUSSES economic freedom and compares it to government regulation. It shows how economic freedom is NOT slavery as you are free to make money or to be a beach bum.

Second, LOL, learn history. Europe expelled their criminals to Australia, NOT America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your statement Nomad, has a huge, enormous, gaping flaw in it. All the places you mentioned ARE NOT CAPITALISTIC. Capitalism doesn't go hand in hand with lack of social law as you proclaim. Capitalism is based on laws of FREEDOM, INDEPENDENCE, and PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, and would survive only as long as those three basic laws are upheld. NONE of them are upheld in Panama, nor ANY of the places you mentioned.

So nice try, but like I said, your statement is fundamentaly flawed. As for those things that I have quoted, they are not theories, they are facts. It's a fact that I work for my money, it's also a fact that the government takes the products of my labor in tax/fee form and GIVES it to those who haven't earned it. If you have read my posts above, then go ahead and make a coherent argument how government taking my money away by force and using it on things that DO NOT BENEFIT ME is not making a slave out of me to the poorest, sickest, and dumbest in our society.

If all you can come up with is examples of how things are run in third world countries, where laws that guarantees your personal freedoms and rights to live your life without upression from others does not exist, then I would say you are doing quite poorly to argue your points.

I however, will point to the Greatest achievements of Capitalistic societies in the history of man kind. I will point you to the rise and creation of Rome, where only tax payin, property owning citizens that CONTRIBUTED to the government could vote. And then the fall of Rome after it was corrupted by leeches, it's parlament infested by liberal socialist scum. I will point you to United States of America. A country that was born, fought and earned it's freedom, build by the labor of free man, inventors, capitalists, ALL were FREE to work or not for compensation recieved. And the decline of USA as it also got oppulent and was infected by the cancer of socialism and a mental desease of liberalism. Know your history Nomad. There's also good books around, that detail how socialism develops at the hight of the countrys development, when it's strong and oppulent, and then ALWAYS follows the decline and fall of it, to be repeated by the survival of the strong, Monarchy, and some form of Republic/Capitalist system all over again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah Aperson, good reasoning there, great intellectual and factual response about how socialism is different from slavery. Both systems take the products of labor, be it physical or mental, by force, and give/spend it for benefits of those who haven't worked for it.

Good come back to three long posts with easy to read explanations that appeal to your REASONING sence, with statements that are FACTUAL. Too much for you to read maybe? Next time, try replying with a coherent, reasoning statement, backed up by facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nomad:

I'm going to laugh my @$$ off if Soback actually does accumulate that cool million you seem to think so impossible. In America, nothing is guaranteed, but it IS possible to do exactly what you described.

My father completely lost his retirement nest egg when he was laid off in 1999 at the age of 56. Now, a scant 6 years later, through shrewd investments, wise moderation, and a positive attitude, he has amassed an even larger treasure trove of cash and he still plans to retire at 65. And my dad was born into virtual poverty in a poor Italian immigrant family. He has made enough money to retire TWICE! This is America! It CAN be done!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Soback:

Yeah Aperson, good reasoning there, great intellectual and factual response about how socialism is different from slavery. Both systems take the products of labor, be it physical or mental, by force, and give/spend it for benefits of those who haven't worked for it.

Good come back to three long posts with easy to read explanations that appeal to your REASONING sence, with statements that are FACTUAL. Too much for you to read maybe? Next time, try replying with a coherent, reasoning statement, backed up by facts.

It wasn't an argument or even a response. My answer was a semi-question (made up words, yay!), which you didn't say anything about. Therefore based on what you said and what I consider "loose" I came to that conclusion.

But, to be honest, some of your argument hinges on the communist-style socialism while others were just weird, some did make a bit of sence fortunatly. Oh, and for a person who bashed nomad on his insults you certainly don't mind breaking your own rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...