Socialism (Moved from Grapes of Wrath)

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by xris

Those with moral values will abuse the systemi would by laws allow them more freedom to abuse the systemi 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.

[EmperorNero]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

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.

[xris]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

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.

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.

---------- Post added at 04:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:03 AM ----------

Originally Posted by EmperorNero

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.Fundamentalist attitudes such as yours frighten me.

[EmperorNero]

Originally Posted by xris

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

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

Originally Posted by xris

Your dispersing the debate because your loosing the argument.

Then respond:

Originally Posted by EmperorNero

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

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by xris

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.

[xris]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

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.

I do agree with a social welfare system and it will cost the richer more,i do agree with ethical business laws.
Its the examination and the exaggeration of the consequences that i object to.You assume i agree with those consequences because i have these views, i don't.

---------- Post added at 07:33 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:31 AM ----------

Originally Posted by EmperorNero

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.

[EmperorNero]

Originally Posted by xris

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?

[xris]

Originally Posted by EmperorNero

Huh? How do you want to end fire?

I have no idea why they banned him.

[EmperorNero]

Originally Posted by xris

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.

How do you want to end fire?

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by xris

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

Its an argumentative tactic. Show that a certain accepted opinion entails a certain unacceptable consequence. I never thought that you would accept those consequences, rather I thought that by showing those to be the consequences of your political viewpoint, you would abandon your viewpoint.

I posit that no government has been able to act without placating the empowered, and the history of state interference into free enterprise has at all points served to stratify society and entrench the wealthy. I can support this view with historical accounts from both socialists and capitalists alike. For support see any treatment of historical materialism by Marx, see The Triumph of Conservatism by leftist historian Gabriel Kolko, or for a abbreviated reading consult "The Iron Fist Behind the Invisible Hand" by modern-day socialist and mutualist Kevin Carson.

I will relinquish my position that your political prescriptions lead to the inevitable consequence of centralizing political and economic power amongst a privileged and parasitical few if you can offer ONE INSTANCE where real socio-economic change has been caused by state action without that consequence.