Bump dat!

your pissing off the socialists... not good PC

Get it back on topic

If socialism is such a wonderful thing, then why do we need to threaten people to
get them to participate? Shouldn't they just do it on their own?

If Socialism is so Great, Why Force It?
by Jonathan Gardner

If socialism is such a wonderful thing, then why do we need to threaten people to get them to participate? Shouldn't they just do it on their own?

I imagine someone out there willing to make the argument that people are too stupid to think collectively, and that only by forcing them to do what is right will they ever come to the right answer.

Such a person would have to be stupid to think such a thing.

After all, people will happily aggregate their efforts when everyone benefits. Look at all the international corporations out there with millions of employees. How many of those people are forced to work there against their will?

The bottom line is that socialism doesn't work. The people who are asked to put in the most get the least out of it. Only government can force them to participate.



Behold the 2013 Federal Register. It contains over 80,000 pages of new rules, regulations, and notices all written and passed by unelected bureaucrats. The small stack of papers on top of the display are the laws passed by elected members of Congress and signed into law by the president.


Statism At Work

on the whole I think they'd shore up traditional allies while becoming somewhat isolationist, and move toward a stricter interpretation of the constitution...since they wrote it. And, since they wrote it, I 'd guess a good deal of decision history would end up back in court to be revisited.

They would reign in agencies and more would be legislated and voted. I would not be surprised to see a popular vote with a paper ballot where ID is required because that is common sense. They'd pare down the size of gov't and probably cut both military and social spending..in other words a tea party...they would not stand for the tax code we have and I would not be surprised if they expected the states to be a bit more self supporting....might even loosen the reigns as far as the states as I am almost certain federal funding to the states would be cut.

I do not think they would change newer additions to the bill of rights but they would be surprised at the rights that women and minorities have.

While I would agree with the baseline of your argument, I would at the same time disagree with some of the details.

Our founders where a very diverse set of individuals from many different camps, hence our constitution was a compromise to deal with many views.

The largest of the differences where expressed by the Federalist and Anti Federalist. Interestingly, here is a great comparision:

http://library.thinkquest.org/11572/creation/framing/feds.html

Or an even more intense comparison of values for the two groups:

http://staff.gps.edu/mines/APUSH%20-antifederalists_vs_federalists.htm

people work for employers out of self interest,, the reason they do MOST Things,,

not because of how it 'benefits' everyone

slaves worked because they were FORCED to and the south went to war to keep it that way because it benefitted those who owned them,, not because it benefitted 'everyone'

maintaining a country a society a home,, etc,, takes MONEY,,,people have to pay their part into that,,,,


and since we have millions we don have any part of that that 'everyone' will agree for their personal payment to go to,, so the idea of just letting people opt out of paying into it while continuing to receive the benefits from it is fiscally illogical,,,

I know this may be off topic, but i think if you read about the civil war, you will find the south fought to keep the majority of government power at the state level. It wasn't really about slavery to the south. To some, perhaps, but not to many. This is a common misconception.

Anyhow, i agree with the inevitability of taxes. When talking about a large entity as the U.S. Federal government, people see a LARGE portion of their contribution get wasted on inefficiency, and the rest does not get used in the manner intended. Welfare, for instance, starts as being a selfless act. Everyone wants everyone else to have the essentials (food, shelter, medical care, etc) when said person comes on rough times. What happens is the monthly stipend is some cases ends up paying for beer, cigarettes, and junk food. Sometimes people end up milking the system, not searching for higher work, or not willing to take a job "flipping burgers" because A- "its beneath them" or B- because as soon as they start making money they will lose benefits. This is a system whose intent was pure, but the blanket policies resulting from shear volume have created inefficiency.

Things would be much easier if it were kept on a smaller, more individualized scale, where people have more say in exactly how their contributions are spent, and who get to see their money help. That would instill its own motivation i would think.

The notion of federalizing and centralizing everything is very illogical fiscally.

WELL!!!!
As long as I can't find a job that pays me better than welfare,I'll just milk the system.

It would be just plain stupid to work when the system pays so well?

Got a link for others who agree.

ID say that claiming the civil war wasn't about slavery but about 'states rights'

is like saying people get divorced because of a lack of trust,, which they do

but much of that lack of trust is in the form of ADULTERY

the 'state right' being fought over was the right to own slaves,,,


other than that, I Agree with everything else posted

the system pays an average of 200 dollars a month to individuals who are enslaved in that system

yeah, that's paying well,,,

it would be dumb not to choose something that paid enough to actually provide FREEDOM


problem is those jobs are not so easy to find in EVERY neighborhood or community in AMerica or for every demographic,,,,educational or socio economic

So, that's whey obama returned the bust of Churchill.

Excuse me, did you make a wrong turn as you entered the forum? This thread is about the illegal federal government, not Odumbo's vacation.

But since you bought it up, so you do believe all the rhetoric and hype that has been fed you. You really do need to actually do some research on the Civil War, slavery was not the cause.

Slavery was on it's last leg and many states had already overturned the law making it illegal to free your slaves.

Now you want to talk benefits, the anthem of the political parties. The democrats want your money and the Republicans want your rights. Together, they had placed us where we are today.

But as to what exactly your are saying, haven't a clue. But I wouldn't mind having a couple of tokes off what ever you are using. Sounds like some dang good stuff. Are you in Colorado or Washington or just sick in California?

You are right about the civil war having a disagreement other than slavery, but the war started because of taxes. The Southern states were very upset that Lincoln (another jerk from Illinois) was elected and they saw the handwriting on the wall at how the industrial north was going to have a field day at the expense of the south. Back then, the federal government relied on the states paying taxes to operate. The Southern states refused to remit those taxes and seceded from the Union. Lincoln used a false flag to start the war.

But anyhow this isn't really off topic as it is but another illegal act of the federal government.

But you would be totally wrong. It would be paramount to saying the Spanish American war was because Spain sank the Maine, another false flag. And like saying Vietnam was because of an attack in the Gulf of Tonkin, another false flag.

Freedom, I would love to hear your definition of freedom. Would that freedom involve working for someone else or is that freedom asking for permission to work for yourself. What illegal acts of this government promote freedom?

It wouldn't be that insinuation that the first 20 to 35 percent of your labor belong to the government, would it?

You want intelligent debate, I can't wait to hear this. And yes I will be right up front, I'm baiting you. Bring it on.

Dude? I Said NOTHING about anyones vacation. I responded to someone eLSES Post about people being willing to do the right thing if it benefits everyone by comparing it to how international corporations have employees,,,


ya know
,,it was frustrating, these tangents and terrible paraphrases,, but now its just amusing

talk about people having 'tokes' of something,, ( are fear tactics and propaganda pieces included?)

yeah, TOTALLY WRONG,,,,

in its declaration of secession, Mississippi explained, "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world … a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization."


In its declaration of secession, South Carolina actually comes out against the rights of states to make their own laws — at least when those laws conflict with slaveholding. "In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals," the document reads. The right of transit, Loewen said, was the right of slaveholders to bring their slaves along with them on trips to non-slaveholding states. In its justification of secession,

Texas sums up its view of a union built upon slavery: "We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable." - See more at: http://www.livescience.com/13673-civil-war-anniversary-myths.html#sthash.AWSsPftx.dpuf

when it comes to me, freedom is not being beholden to others

there is no ABSOLUTE Freedom in any society because it has to function with some sense of responsibility to the COMMUNITY

BUT, when it comes to having some scraps in return for constant reviews, interrogation, sugjugation, insult and the risks to ones children of drug infested, crime heavy communities,,

I would gladly spend the time making enough to actually live in some sense of security and stability for my children, than continue being so subjugated and humiliated for some scraps,,, and I believe MOST PEOPLE WOULD,,,

the highest freedom , to me, would be working for myself, earning enough to provide a LIFE for my family instead of an existence of struggle and separation

at that level of freedom < I would gladly contribute that thirty pecent,, to finally be more free, have more resources and more of a LIFE,,,