Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Ideologies > Socialism

Socialism Socialism Forum - Political Philosophy Forum


Thanks Tree23Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old June 1st, 2018, 03:18 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: East Coast Of U.S.A.
Posts: 145
Self Is A Property Right

Walter E. Williams always scores high with me:

Several recent polls, plus the popularity of Sen. Bernie Sanders, demonstrate that young people prefer socialism to free market capitalism. That, I believe, is a result of their ignorance and indoctrination during their school years, from kindergarten through college. For the most part, neither they nor many of their teachers and professors know what free market capitalism is.
Today’s Socialists have no heart. Today’s Socialists are just plain stupid and likely to remain stupid as long as they live:

If a man is not a socialist by the time he is 20, he has no heart. If he is not a conservative by the time he is 40, he has no brain. Anonymous
Williams blew me away with his take on my long-running defense of private property:

Free market capitalism, wherein there is peaceful voluntary exchange, is morally superior to any other economic system. Why? Let's start with my initial premise. All of us own ourselves. I am my private property, and you are yours. Murder, rape, theft and the initiation of violence are immoral because they violate self-ownership. Similarly, the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another person, for any reason, is immoral because it violates self-ownership.
Possession is 9/10ths of the law. Possession is 100 percent of the law when everyone owns themselves after you include Williams’ insight.

I used to believe that the American people would someday take an important step on the evolutionary road to individual liberty; that is to say freedom from oppressive government through limited representative government. I had hoped that it would happen in my lifetime whatever that advance turned out to be. I now believe that instead of moving forward we are going backwards. If not going in reverse, it is at least fair to say that we are so locked into the evil ways of past governments we cannot move forward.

The U.S. and the world has advanced technologically since this country was founded, but it has not taken one important step forward in the field of government and private sector intercourse since the Bill of Rights was ratified.

NOTE: The income tax is Socialism’s paymaster. So long as there is a tax on income civilization will go backwards.

Just look at how Communism/Socialism is a return to the past through taxation. A look at the basic structure of past governments will confirm my view; not only concerning America’s ancestral European governments, but all governments going back to the dawn of civilization.

In every country since the beginning of countries, the common man was only permitted to own land under very unusual circumstances. Such occurrences were rare. The landlords owned the land and taxed the tenants they forced to work the land.

The governing aristocracy supported the sovereign no matter which title was used —— pharaoh, king, emperor, czar, sultan, etc. (Add president to the list if you are a spoilsport.) A sovereign is only one person; the landlords are many; so they have always been the primary beneficiaries of taxation.

A landlord is defined as anyone who lives on taxes, but is not actually an essential ingredient in necessary government.

NOTE: Necessary government means severely limited government with clearly enumerated responsibilities. In short: If it is not authorised in the Constitution legislators, judges, and bureaucrats cannot do it.

The most common image of landlords is an image of private sector individuals who earn income from apartment rentals, etc. In truth, such landlords are actually functioning as unpaid government tax collectors when they pay their commercial taxes which they collected from their tenants in the first place.

So as not to be seen as tax collectors, government landlords in bygone governments decided they would like a few titles, too; so they were given lesser titles just to show the world they were not cold-hearted money-grubbers: duke, baron, mandarin, and so on.

The guys who sucked up to the boss by actually going out and collecting the taxes by beating the peasants over the head took the rap. Taking the rap did not involve jail time; although it should have in most cases. In the distant past, taking the hit for collecting taxes only meant that you were not a very nice person. Contemporary public trough parasites, without benefit of titles, not only want the government to support them in the time-honored way, they want to be loved as well. (Now that is carrying chutzpah a little too far for my tastes.)

I do not know if François Noël Babeuf (1760 -1797), Karl Marx (1818 - 1883), and Friedrich Engels (1820 - 1895) meant to abolish private property with a tax on income when they first preached their gospel, but the application of their religion has resulted in servitude benefitting the very type of person they preached against.

Private property Rights still do not exist in absolute form for private sector homeowners, and the landlords are as fat and sassy as ever they were throughout mankind’s history. Nothing has really changed for the better insofar as government goes. There are still tax collectors; there is still an aristocracy living on taxes, and the private sector working man is still a tenant farmer required to pay the land barons for the privilege of keeping a roof over his head.

Obviously, the creation of absolute private property Rights is the best way for the private sector homeowner to break from the past as well as breaking Communism’s back in this country, but I do not realistically expect to see it happen anytime soon. And in the topsy-turvy world of government, it is Socialists/Communists who still preach class envy to the private sector at every turn, when it is they who should now be identified as the hated class. My, my, how the wheel does come around.

Civilized man seems unable to break away from ancient government crimes perpetrated by the same personalty type century after century. There have been struggles against government parasites all through history, but educated men and women never take the step that will permanently arrest the growth and power of government over the very people who are forced to support the tax dollar class. No matter how well-intentioned a government is when its life span begins, the loophole that allows private property taxation, which always leads to governmental abuse of working people, is never closed. That abuse is equally destructive to individual liberties when it is administered by the totalitarian jackboot and enforced by institutionalized, tax dollar funded, compassion.

The concept of government is eternal, but mortal governments are born, grow old, and finally die because they all live the same way. It is the enduring marriage between brutal suppressors and champions of the people that give birth to the same old government villainy time after time. It is difficult to determine which of the two begins life with the worst intentions, but it is easy to see that everyone suffers under both because champions of the people always become jackbooted suppressors and so we begin again.

Perhaps too many people believe it is government that is responsible for improving life in much of the world? If that were true why have so many governments come and gone since the beginning of time? If just one of those governments would have gotten it right, the people in every country would have imitated it. Or perhaps too many people are simply afraid to set out on an uncharted course. And so mankind continues on the same course; even to the point of creating a global government fashioned after all of mankind’s proven failures. A supreme one government world will not commit itself to individual liberties strengthened by absolute private property Rights no matter what global village advocates now say. Governments possess awesome institutional power. That power is inevitably used to enslave in one form or another. That fact alone should warn decent-people away from even more government despite the utopian promises.

Without property Rights every other Right is meaningless. More so when every individual is his own private property. Indeed, what in hell good is freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press without property Rights? (To democracy-loving parasites the Rights of criminals and Muslim combatants is more sacred than property Rights.) The abolition of private property is Communism’s foundation principle and its fatal flaw.

The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property. Karl Marx (1818 – 1883) and Friedrich Engels (1820 – 1895)
Throughout history every generation produced a legion of fools and parasites who believed that a benign totalitarian government is possible. Throughout history democracy has been the parasite’s preferred form of government. Throughout history democracy failed. Obviously, Socialism’s failed governments is a failure of democracy.

Democracy is the road to socialism. Karl Marx

More socialism means more democracy, openness and collectivism in everyday life. Mikhail Gorbachev
Regardless of how democracy starts out it ends in tyrannical government. To be precise, democracy is always going towards something worse; never towards liberty guarded by property Rights.

As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron. H.L. Mencken
Today’s morons are convinced them they are not only right, but morally superior as well:

Free market capitalism is disfavored by many Americans -- and threatened -- not because of its failure but, ironically, because of its success. Free market capitalism in America has been so successful in eliminating the traditional problems of mankind -- such as disease, pestilence, hunger and gross poverty -- that all other human problems appear both unbearable and inexcusable. The desire by many Americans to eliminate these so-called unbearable and inexcusable problems has led to the call for socialism. That call includes equality of income, sex and race balance, affordable housing and medical care, orderly markets, and many other socialistic ideas.
Capitalism vs. Socialism
Walter E. Williams
Posted: May 30, 2018 12:01 AM

https://townhall.com/columnists/walt...alism-n2484341
Finally, as Socialists bring the country closer totalitarian democracy nobody can make the case that America today is governed by, of, and for the people. Nobody can convince me that AMERICANS demanded open-borders, sanctuary cities, loss of their sovereignty, and everything else democracy imposes on them. Everything the federal government does came from Lincoln’s blueprint. The result has been government by, of, and for the UNIC (United Nations/International Community) and illegal aliens.

This is my favorite among many articles by Williams:


The Real Lincoln
Walter E. Williams | Mar 27, 2002

http://townhall.com/columnists/walte...e_real_lincoln
p.s. This board lists Socialism and Communism as separate forums. Most boards do it that way. They should be listed as one forum: Socialism/Communism or Communism/Socialism.
Thanks from webguy4

Last edited by Flanders111; June 1st, 2018 at 03:47 AM.
Flanders111 is offline  
Old June 16th, 2018, 05:22 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: East Coast Of U.S.A.
Posts: 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flanders111 View Post
Regardless of how democracy starts out it ends in tyrannical government. To be precise, democracy is always going towards something worse; never towards liberty guarded by property Rights.

As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron. H.L. Mencken
Today’s morons are convinced them they are not only right, but morally superior as well:
June 16, 2018
What Is a Liberal Democracy?
By Peter Skurkiss

A question worth asking is, what is a liberal democracy? That's because a recurring topic in the media is that liberal democracy is being threatened. If you think the culprits are countries like China, Russia, and Iran, you'd be wrong. Most of this negative commentary on this subject is directed to the rise of populism in Europe, especially in the eastern part. America is not left out of the mix, either, as President Trump is often painted as the head ogre in this tale that is said to be the path to authoritarianism.

If this sounds ominous, it's because such is the intent of those propagating this message. But before taking it seriously, let's first examine what is meant by the term "liberal" democracy, at least in the eyes of those who say it's under attack.

To begin with, the adjective 'liberal' is needed in this narrative for two reasons. One is for the connotation that what is "liberal" is good and whatever deviates from that is necessarily bad. Second, all the leaders of the so-called illiberal democracies of the West have come to power through free and fair elections, i.e., democratic means. That's true in Poland, Hungry, Austria, Italy, and certainly in the United States, notwithstanding the fantasies of Hillary Clinton, Robert Mueller, and the media. So the concession has to be made that they are indeed democracies, albeit not liberal ones.

What do these non-liberal democratic countries have in common with each other that sets them apart from, say, the western half of European and the America of Barack Obama's aspirations? First, they tend to be much more religious than their liberal counterparts. To the elite, religion is toxic because it is the essence of intolerance -- intolerance against things like homosexual marriage, abortion, transgenderism, gender flexibility, radical feminism, and other socially destructive innovations.

Also, religious citizens steadfastly refuse to believe that government is a god that must be bowed down to and worshiped. This is heresy against the reigning liberal dogma which views Christianity -- true Christianity, not the version the left has bastardized -- as medieval and an impediment in furthering globalism. Throughout liberal democracies, Christian believers who venture into the public square and show their values are subjected to ridicule and harassment. The prevailing view is that if you must have religious beliefs, keep them in the closet and definitely out of the public discourse... unless, of course, the religion in question is Islam.

That's a segue into the next point. The non-liberal democracies all resist open borders and uncontrolled immigration into their countries. Liberal democracies, on the other hand, welcome it. Poland, Hungary, America, etc. are proud of their countries, cultures, and histories and are intent on keeping them. In contrast, countries like Germany, Sweden, Canada, and others in the West have overdosed on the Kool-Aid of multiculturalism and seem intent in committing national suicide with their immigration policies. Hanging the pejorative of 'illiberal' around the necks of sane countries is a way of trying to coerce them to join the suicide pact, holding hands and singing Kumbaya for as long as the light lasts.

Then there's the democracy deficit. The EU, the epitome of liberal democrat governance, was always meant to be undemocratic. That is, unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats were intended to call the important shots, not the people. This is not a bug in the EU's design but a feature. If any group is non-democratic, it is those criticizing the populist movements. Some irony, isn't it?

Now look at minorities. In non-liberal democracies they enjoy the same rights as everyone else. But his is not good enough. In the liberal democracies, minorities must be granted special rights. Racial quotas under the euphemism of affirmative action is a formal example of this set in law. But in addition, there's also the constant activity of the thought police, which debases the national culture as an indirect way of empowering minorities.

It's the same with assimilation. Liberal democracies see assimilation as an affront to the sensitivities of immigrants and minorities and don't encourage it while the 'illiberal' democracies see assimilation as an absolute necessity for national cohesion.

To be a liberal democracy, it is said that a country need not have merely free and open elections, but also for the leaders to disavow absolute control of politics, of the economy, of the judiciary, and the media. This is deceptive rhetoric.

On the courts, Hungary is a case in point. It's denigrated by the EU as not being acceptably democratic because Prime Minister Viktor Orbán wants to reform the courts and purge, by legal means, a number of lifetime appointed ex-communist on the bench. That's a no-no. To the liberal mind, judges must be free to pursue their own agenda un-tethered from the will of the people. If, in the United States, there was ever a concerted effort to impeach lawless progressive judges by constitutional means, you'd hear the waling all the way to the moon. It would be proof positive to the elite opinion shapers that the U.S. was on the way to becoming an authoritarian country.

As for the media -- which in reality is comprised of a few large conglomerates controlled mostly by liberals -- it should be free to be as progressively one-sided as it pleases. This is wrong. If the press is to serve a legitimate purpose in a true democracy, it must be a watchdog on government activities, not a monolithic lapdog for leftist political parties. When President Trump, rather than lying down before the media like a typical Republican, instead points out its biased coverage and fake news, this is a sign to the elite that he is an authoritarian and the U.S. is morphing into an illiberal democracy.

What is currently meant by liberal democracy is, if not rule by the elite, then at least giving the elite a heavily disproportionate say or even a veto power over the main issues of governance. This is the antithesis of how a democracy is meant to function. America was designed to have a government of the people, for the people, and by the people. Anything else is offensive.

So it is actually true that liberal democracy is threatened, when one understands what a liberal democracy actually is. And that threat is coming not from fascists or dictators but from the proponents of true democracy as practiced in the lawful, constitutional and representative form.

For the longest time, the liberals have been having their way in lassoing countries into their fold, including America. All this is in jeopardy now what with the rise of nationalism -- healthy nationalism -- and especially the election of Donald J. Trump. So the elite try to play every trick in the book to keep their agenda moving forward, like this word game with what is and what is not a suitable democracy. These efforts are doomed to fail. Globalism and its twin of liberalism have reached their high-water mark. That tide is now receding. Hence the desperation.

https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...democracy.html
I have one complaint with Skurkiss’ brilliant analyses. He, like so many others, repeatedly call the worse people in our society elites:

elite or élite (noun)
plural elite or elites

1. a. A group or class of persons or a member of such a group or class, enjoying superior intellectual, social, or economic status: “In addition to notions of social equality there was much emphasis on the role of elites and of heroes within them” (Times Literary Supplement). b. The best or most skilled members of a group: the football team's elite.

2. A size of type on a typewriter, equal to 12 characters per linear inch.

elite (adjective)
They are elitist:

elitism or élitism (noun)
elitist (adjective & noun)

1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.

2. a. The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class. b. Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.
Flanders111 is offline  
Old June 16th, 2018, 05:31 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
iolo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Rhondda
Posts: 2,003
Socialism, as is obvious, is the only possible future. The present insane system will destroy us all, and soon.
Thanks from skews13
iolo is offline  
Old June 16th, 2018, 08:32 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: East Coast Of U.S.A.
Posts: 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by iolo View Post
Socialism, as is obvious, is the only possible future.
To iolo: The government created by this country’s Founders is the only form of government that has never failed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flanders111 View Post
Perhaps too many people believe it is government that is responsible for improving life in much of the world? If that were true why have so many governments come and gone since the beginning of time? If just one of those governments would have gotten it right, the people in every country would have imitated it. Or perhaps too many people are simply afraid to set out on an uncharted course. And so mankind continues on the same course; even to the point of creating a global government fashioned after all of mankind’s proven failures. A supreme one government world will not commit itself to individual liberties strengthened by absolute private property Rights no matter what global village advocates now say. Governments possess awesome institutional power. That power is inevitably used to enslave in one form or another. That fact alone should warn decent-people away from even more government despite the utopian promises.

XXXXX

Throughout history every generation produced a legion of fools and parasites who believed that a benign totalitarian government is possible. Throughout history democracy has been the parasite’s preferred form of government. Throughout history democracy failed. Obviously, Socialism’s failed governments is a failure of democracy.
You might have a good case if our government fails in the future. I will stick with it until then.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iolo View Post
The present insane system will destroy us all, and soon.
To iolo: Since you are not an American, let me remind you that T. J. was talking about every ideology that seeks to abolish private property Rights for everyone ——and/or individual liberties:

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. Thomas Jefferson
Incidentally, I am assuming you are not familiar with T. J. Here is a bit of insight:

There has never been a greater concentration of intellectual power here at the White House since Thomas Jefferson dined alone. JFK
Thanks from Kate
Flanders111 is offline  
Old June 17th, 2018, 04:16 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
iolo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Rhondda
Posts: 2,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flanders111 View Post
To iolo: The government created by this country’s Founders is the only form of government that has never failed.



You might have a good case if our government fails in the future. I will stick with it until then.



To iolo: Since you are not an American, let me remind you that T. J. was talking about every ideology that seeks to abolish private property Rights for everyone ——and/or individual liberties:

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. Thomas Jefferson
Incidentally, I am assuming you are not familiar with T. J. Here is a bit of insight:

There has never been a greater concentration of intellectual power here at the White House since Thomas Jefferson dined alone. JFK
You are writing all that from a Country that empowered McCarthy and elected Trump as something other than dog-catcher? I'm afraid you won't convince anyone but the village idiot.
Thanks from Clara007
iolo is offline  
Old June 17th, 2018, 05:13 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: massachusetts
Posts: 11,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flanders111 View Post
[B]Walter E. Williams always scores high with me:...


Free market capitalism, wherein there is peaceful voluntary exchange, is morally superior to any other economic system. Why? Let's start with my initial premise. All of us own ourselves. I am my private property, and you are yours. Murder, rape, theft and the initiation of violence are immoral because they violate self-ownership. Similarly, the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another person, for any reason, is immoral because it violates self-ownership.
...
So, in a free market capitalist society, if a woman desires an abortion, it's her body her choice...PERIOD

Got it!
Thanks from iolo
goober is offline  
Old June 17th, 2018, 07:56 AM   #7
#freetommy
 
Sabcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 27,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
So, in a free market capitalist society, if a woman desires an abortion, it's her body her choice...PERIOD

Got it!
Most definitely. She may have to drive a few hundred miles for it or take a tumble down some stairs at billy-bobs abortion clinic and chicken but sure.
Thanks from Flanders111
Sabcat is offline  
Old June 17th, 2018, 10:11 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: East Coast Of U.S.A.
Posts: 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
So, in a free market capitalist society, if a woman desires an abortion, it's her body her choice...PERIOD

Got it!
To goober: She also has the choice of paying for it herself, or not have an abortion.

Do you get it now?

Last edited by Flanders111; June 17th, 2018 at 10:18 AM.
Flanders111 is offline  
Old June 17th, 2018, 10:51 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: East Coast Of U.S.A.
Posts: 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by iolo View Post
You are writing all that from a Country that empowered McCarthy and elected Trump as something other than dog-catcher? I'm afraid you won't convince anyone but the village idiot.
To iolo: I hope to hell you are not lecturing your countrymen about Joseph McCarthy (1908 - 1957)?

I do not know where you get your information? So I assume you did not get the memo. Even Hollywood Lefties no longer think it is fashionable to demonstrate their courage by attacking a dead senator. Senator McCarthy is a hero to most Americans. It was the Left that made Americans look stupid because Senator McCarthy was supposedly fooling them. As it turned out the Venona Papers proved McCarthy was right.

If you are really interested in learning what was actually happening during the so-called McCarthy era listen closely to these videos and learn a bit about our history:



In the second video M. Stanton Evens covers different aspects of what can justifiably be called the Communist Conspiracy:


Flanders111 is offline  
Old June 17th, 2018, 11:18 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: massachusetts
Posts: 11,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flanders111 View Post
To goober: She also has the choice of paying for it herself, or not have an abortion.

Do you get it now?
That's what I said. She also should have the choice of having her health insurance that pays for it, it is a medical procedure.
goober is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Ideologies > Socialism

Tags
property



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Looking for an Investment Property? pensacola_niceman Housing Market 26 May 25th, 2018 07:07 AM
Private Property Is the Essence of Liberty Sabcat Political Talk 4 January 28th, 2018 05:56 AM
Property taxs and why they matter. roastpork Current Events 11 May 15th, 2015 09:46 AM
Ending Property Rights excalibur Current Events 8 March 16th, 2014 12:55 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.