Socialism does work

[zerostao]

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

[ralis]

Out here in the Western USA, corporations strip out what they want and leave a mess. This particular area was partly logged and used as a cattle ranch for decades. The Valle Grande was a land grant which was given/purchased for pennies to a wealthy Texas ranching/banking family early in the 20th century. It took decades for the government to purchase this land so that the people can enjoy it. This is the second largest collapsed caldera on the planet and is now a national park. Social programs are a good thing. I hiked this land when it was in private ownership and I was appalled at the destruction of the forest.

 

[ralis]

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

Promote the general welfare is in several places in the Constitution.

[zerostao]

Promote the general welfare is in several places in the Constitution.

right and it is in the very opening statement highlighting its importance.

[Brian]

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

If that phrase were intended to be the carte blanche Regressives try to make it, there would be no need to have carefully crafted all the other language in the Constitution -- it could simply have read "the central government is hereby authorized to do anything it claims is for the good of the people."

 

Ever wonder why it doesn't?

 

You owe it to yourself to do a bit of research, my friend.

[Marblehead]

laisez faires having trade emabargo?? and other restrictions

this thread has it all

Well, a nation has to protect its own productivity, doesn't it?  (That's not my personal opinion.)

[ralis]

My! How binary and terrifying you strive to be.

 

 

We have lots of lands under private conservation right around me as well as many state-protected areas (which is consistent with both the US and NC Constitutions, BTW) -- in fact, one of my favorite mountains is Grandfather Mountain which, after decades of private ownership and operation as a tourist attraction by an evil capitalist was voluntarily converted into a state park, and it is still operating as a tourist attraction. The Federal government, on the other hand, simply seizes land and proclaims ownership (yes, they pay what they wish but there is nothing voluntary about it...)

 

I stated national forests in my post and you claimed that was unconstitutional and now you claim the opposite for your area.

[Brian]

Have you wondered why they used the word "promote" or exactly what they meant by "general welfare?" They discussed it in great detail, you know...

[Marblehead]

raphael ted 'trusted' cruz is one the enlightened cubans brain is probably referring to

marco is another

I actually doubt he knows what the fuck he is talking about.

[ralis]

If that phrase were intended to be the carte blanche Regressives try to make it, there would be no need to have carefully crafted all the other language in the Constitution -- it could simply have read "the central government is hereby authorized to do anything it claims is for the good of the people."

 

Ever wonder why it doesn't?

 

You owe it to yourself to do a bit of research, my friend.

 

Regressives? You narrative sounds like Republican Tea Party talking points that were created by revisionists.

[Brian]

 

I stated national forests in my post and you claimed that was unconstitutional and now you claim the opposite for your area.

Go read what I wrote again. Then point to the specific enumerated powers which authorizes the confiscation of private lands for the establishment of national parks. The Constitution is quite clear about the purposes for which the central government can acquire and hold lands.

[Marblehead]

... and French vanilla ice cream.

There are a lot of things I like the French way.

[Marblehead]

Don't mistake me for a libertarian ....

How could anyone ever possibly do that?

[Marblehead]

yes that evil social security socialism crap!!

Well, I enjoy getting my Social Security check every month.  Money returned on my investment.

[zerostao]

If that phrase were intended to be the carte blanche Regressives try to make it, there would be no need to have carefully crafted all the other language in the Constitution -- it could simply have read "the central government is hereby authorized to do anything it claims is for the good of the people."

 

Ever wonder why it doesn't?

 

You owe it to yourself to do a bit of research, my friend.

i am a bit covered up in research at the moment,, just finished rousseau--still in The Enlightenment trying to get to the modern world.  rousseau had this all figured out 200+ years ago btw

right now it is texas trying to impose its central authority on the rest of the nation

we'd all be better off if texas was its own country, then folks like minded could move there

if they reason that once a cowboy is past his prime he should be put out to pasture , er out of his misery

and left for the buzzards (texas state bird)

60 years ago IKE called the Koch family stupid

i can supply the document or you could research if you wanted

[ralis]

Go read what I wrote again. Then point to the specific enumerated powers which authorizes the confiscation of private lands for the establishment of national parks. The Constitution is quite clear about the purposes for which the central government can acquire and hold lands.

 

What are you complaining about? You area has beautiful National forest land which you and all benefit from thanks to the government.

[zerostao]

There are a lot of things I like the French way.

we have already heard about your views on french whores 

[Apech]

Well, I enjoy getting my Social Security check every month.  Money returned on my investment.

 

 

They send you money?  Karl is going to bomb Florida now.

[Marblehead]

With the exception of maintaining a Navy, ralis, all the rest are unconstitutional. Easy way to make any of them constitutional if the people so desire, of course! It's built into the Constitution itself -- two ways, actually, in case the government ignores the will of the populace. Instead, the federal government just does whatever it feels will help it/them gain more power and it steals money from the working citizenry to pay for it.

 

Sad, really. And whitewashed by those in favor of bigger and ever more powerful central authority.

I agree with your post.  The efforts are worthy though.  But then, your conclusion is valid and I have already spoken about mis-management.

[Karl]

But man, being the animal it is, is naturally greedy and very selfish.  Man will do anything in order to get the upper hand including enslaving other men (and women).  This is why Laissez Faire capitalism must be regulated - the need for government.

 

Man enslaves children to be sold as sexual slaves.  That's unregulated Laissez Faire capitalism.  And yes, it still happens even with all the regulations.  Man is no better than the animals species that cannibalize of their own kind.

 

 

While what you say is true it seems that we are not practicing that very well if we consider all the wars going on thoday and throughout the history of man.  Seems that only greed and desires are the concerns of man.

 

 

No.  I could never do that.  These two are main reasons why there is so much inequality between men.

 

 

For man, my observations are that there is little thought concerning long term results of their actions.

 

Rational thought?  You gotta' be joking.  Look at the world today.  Where's the rationality?

 

I would agree with you if you said Communism denies all three but I won't agree that socialism does.

 

No, you are looking at the negative extremes of socialism.  It does not deny identity or existence. 

 

 

Were it not for the bees man would not be able to sustain itself.  Base food sources would be depleted and the entire food chain would be destroyed.

 

Ants recycle nature's resources.  Vultures are a very important part of the Earth's ecology.

 

Socialism allows for the care of those who are unable to care for themselves as well as insuring the elderly are allowed to age and greet death with dignity.  Capitalism does not, in the most part.

 

Socialism respects the life of all men (and women and children); capitalism does not.

i

 

Man must 'choose' survival and life as a value. He is not automatically granted it. Laissez Faire needs no regulation, all that is required is for there to be law and justice. Criminal activity hasn't been stamped out because of regulation, on the contrary, it has exploded. There will always be bad actors, if you give them regulation, then there will be regulated bad actors. In other words, bad actors become legalised. That's what has happened and why so many are seeking an alternative through the ballot box.

 

That people don't think rationally doesn't mean they can't. Eventually they will have no choice. I hope that I'm pushing up dasies before that day comes.

 

Communism, socialism, progressivism, liberalism, capitalism (as it's currently practised) are all part of the collectivist philosophy. Wether it's Gordon Gecko and his 'greed is good' hedonism for hedonists sake, or intellectual liberals talking of fairness it's all the same bollox. I think you justify it as perhaps a lesser, necessary evil, but in objectivist terms that is just evasion and in many ways that is much worse than pure ignorance as you don't have any excuse.

 

You are equating socialism with the good, because it appears to be doing good, but, like all evils, the devil is in the detail. It is in what is unseen. Even death camp inmates received shelter and food.

 

Socialism doesn't respect life. It's only because you have decided to call it something which makes the underlying philosophy seem milder. You wouldn't act like that had you lived under Russian or Chinese socialism. You would know what it was and what it meant. Socialism is from Marx and Marx got it from Hegel and Kant plus all the others that believed man was incapable of good. Where Kant and Hegel restricted themselves to individuals, Marx took it further into a particularly destructive kind of social collectivism. The result was Hitler, Mao, Mussolini, Stalin and all the other tyrants who have caused greater death, misery and destruction than the world has ever known. To admit you support 'a bit of that' a moderately watered down version is to misunderstand how the spark can become a flame.

[Brian]

 

Regressives? You narrative sounds like Republican Tea Party talking points that were created by revisionists.

You sound like someone caught without substantive arguments when confronted with details about a failed ideology which is blindly supported despite the facts showing it always fails. Well, always has so far, anyhow. I know someone who says, "Yes, but it sounds like such a good idea that we have to keep trying!"

[ralis]

i am a bit covered up in research at the moment,, just finished rousseau--still in The Enlightenment trying to get to the modern world.  rousseau had this all figured out 200+ years ago btw

right now it is texas trying to impose its central authority on the rest of the nation

we'd all be better off if texas was its own country, then folks like minded could move there

if they reason that once a cowboy is past his prime he should be put out to pasture , er out of his misery

and left for the buzzards (texas state bird)

60 years ago IKE called the Koch family stupid

i can supply the document or you could research if you wanted

 

I have many wealthy clients that are from Texas. Most of them are disgusting people with way too much money and power. Unfortunately, Texas borders my state of New Mexico.

Edited March 14, 2016 by ralis

[Marblehead]

I don't hate life.

Neither do I.

[Karl]

They send you money?  Karl is going to bomb Florida now.

 

Why would I bomb Florida ?

Also, as a side note, I would take every penny and service you are due from the state without the slightest equivocation.

[ralis]

You sound like someone caught without substantive arguments when confronted with details about a failed ideology which is blindly supported despite the facts showing it always fails. Well, always has so far, anyhow. I know someone who says, "Yes, but it sounds like such a good idea that we have to keep trying!"

 

I just don't agree with your ideology regarding the Constitution. Further, you don't include references to your argument, but also lacks details. Your argument is framed as follows " I read the Constitution and all other documents, the facts are obvious and therefor I am right and you are wrong".

Edited March 14, 2016 by ralis