# Can we discuss socialism without it turning into a flame fest?



## hintonlady (Apr 22, 2007)

For anyone who didn't get the memo I had experiences in socialism as a kid. It isn't a big deal to me and I guess I see ways that it is a nice theory. Putting it into action may be dodgy but heck even democracy gets sloppy from time to time.

I guess I am honestly looking for understanding why people dislike the concept so much or feel threatened by it. I don't want to judge, just sincerely don't get what the big deal is. No debating just sharing of opinions and research okay?

PLEASE keep it civilized guys.......

No idea how to spin this as prep oriented but I am soooo not interested in general chat. Most of the people I enjoy learning from come here.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

I understand wanting to stay out of GC, but I also know I don't want this forum to turn into a GC.

Therefore, here's the ONLY way I'm going to give this thread a chance here.

Please explain how old you were, and how the Socialism worked for those that did not work, but partook of the stores of food and housing that others provided. And why did the workers take care of the non-workers. Was this a USA compound, or in another country?

That is the only way I see this thread pertaining to Survival. Otherwise, it's either political or General Chat topic.


----------



## Sam_Luna (Nov 16, 2008)

The reason I donât like and fear socialism is many fold. 

I have been in many countries that are socialist and found them to be stuck in the 3rd or 2nd world. I donât want to live in that kind of poverty.

I resent having the money I have worked hard for taken from me and given to someone elseâs idea of charity. I donât mind paying my fair share for infrastructure, and defense, but resent having to support the vast sea of social services. Let me donate to the causes I feel are important, it is _my_ money.

Socialism does not promote people to excel or achieve, the people that slack and do shoddy work are paid the same as those who work hard and take pride in their work product. Look at most of the stuff that came out of the USSR, and China, its junk because there was no incentive for anyone to care.

Socialist governments are more restrictive and control the population; Iâll take my freedom to choose over a regulation with an agenda.

The socialist system redistributes wealth, which at first might seem ok until you see that it changes from the have and have-notâs to the everyone has little. That might be grand for the have-nots, but for the haveâs that are doing the work it sucks.

And then you have those who exploit the system that are the government, military, or the ruling class that live very well off of the sweat of everyoneâs labor, just like now only without a middle class.

Capitalism may not be the do all and end all, but itâs the best system I have seen yet, Iâll keep it.

Sam


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

it wasn't neutral.


----------



## damoc (Jul 14, 2007)

just very tired of gov in every aspect of my life and business and dont
feel i am beholden to support people perfectly capeable of working
for themselves i have no problem with chipping in to help the true needy
people or people who have fallen on temporary hard times thats part
of being neighborly.

i think in the bible it even says a man that *will* not work should not eat


----------



## woodsman (Dec 8, 2008)

In the former Eastern Bloc people had a duty and obligation to work. there was no option for one to stay off work unless one was physically unable to work. Of course they had criminals and losers who live off their parents into their adulthood, but except for the inner circle party members no leechers as far as I know.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

damoc put what I was going to, "If a man will not work, he shall not eat." 2 Thessalonians 3:10. Socialism teaches people to rely on others for what they have. I don't see how anyone who supports a self-reliant lifestyle can be supportive of socialism.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

wasn't being neutral


----------



## adenblue (Apr 12, 2008)

I know someone formerly from Romania who is in his mid-20s. He says that as a kid his mom would save their allotted sugar all year long just so she could make a decent batch of cookies at christmas. That is one example of how socialism, enforced to its fullest, puts a hindrance on those who would like to stock up for emergency situations.


----------



## Wanderer0101 (Jul 18, 2007)

A Margaret Thatcher said, "Socialism is great, until you run out of other people's money."


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly (Aug 13, 2004)

Socialism doesn't work, unless you are in charge.
It is just one click down the knob from Communism.


----------



## woodsman (Dec 8, 2008)

Wanderer0101 said:


> A Margaret Thatcher said, "Socialism is great, until you run out of other people's money."


That was before we gave the Chinese (the PRC Chinese at that - PRC being PEOPLE'S Republic of China) so much of our money in exchange for cheap trinkets they might never run out of that money.... They probably have a saying in China - "Americans will hang themselves - all they need is cheap rope which they'll have no choice but buy from us".


----------



## hintonlady (Apr 22, 2007)

AngieM2 said:


> I understand wanting to stay out of GC, but I also know I don't want this forum to turn into a GC.
> 
> Therefore, here's the ONLY way I'm going to give this thread a chance here.
> 
> ...


Groovy I can dig that. I kinda thought most people knew from some older thread in here....

I was 10 to 11.

There just wasn't anyone that didn't work. I know that sounds crazy but it's true. You have to put it into context. The lifestyle was uncomplicated, people enjoyed simple tasks and serene lives. Jobs rotated for change. People got to move around in jobs they enjoyed. It was a sense of being a part of the team. The community was small so there was a lot of peer pressure I guess. No one really needed it though. Long term elderly members or the disabled who were born into the group had small jobs per their own abilities, even if it was filling salt and pepper shakers in the dining hall. No one actually ever sat around doing nothing unless ill. Even kids had age appropriate chores.

Once the community was established only able bodied singles or families were allowed to join. There was a family with a very high maintenance child who was disabled that were accepted to join. The community did have some room to wiggle in accepting new comers who may not be ideal in a work force. I guess his two parents and sibling who would grow into the work force were sufficient. The child also took a lot of time from a resident specialist for individual care..........

Not in USA. Kibbutz in Israel.


----------



## adenblue (Apr 12, 2008)

Do you remember anyone joining who did not want to?


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Hmmm - sounds lovely. But, we have to remember a 10-11 year old is remembering this.

So the questions come to mind - what was your job.

Why did you leave? Is the group still going?

If the group is not still going, why didn't it stay going?

Angie


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

And that's the key, Adenblue. I'm not necessarily against socialism. In fact, I can't be for freedom and simultaneously against socialism. If someone wants to set up a commune or a Kibbutz here in the United States then there's nothing stopping them. If it is made appealing enough I just might join myself!

What you experienced, HL, is not socialism. It was a group of people in a free society deciding to share their wealth and labors amongst each other. My family does that. My wife and I share our wealth and labor with our children. Are we socialists? No, we do it by choice. That's the operative phrase ... "by choice".


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

wasn't being neutral


----------



## Sam_Luna (Nov 16, 2008)

As a small scale situation like a Kibbutz, or a Village, Tribe, or Clan (a cooperative society) will work, its not socialism though. 

What you experienced at the Kibbutz is in my opinion what a lot of us are going to have to turn to in tough times. There will also have to be hard and fast rules as to who can be a part of the community, how big the community can and will be, what skill sets are needed, and much more. Slackers need not apply.

Small intentional cooperative communities and a socialist government are different as night and day.


Sam


----------



## hintonlady (Apr 22, 2007)

adenblue said:


> Do you remember anyone joining who did not want to?


*No, it was strictly voluntary. Children born to the community were free to leave upon adulthood. Adults who decided it was not for them could leave at will, even with some assistance to get started elsewhere. It wasn't taboo or punished when someone wanted to head out.*



AngieM2 said:


> Hmmm - sounds lovely. But, we have to remember a 10-11 year old is remembering this.
> 
> *Absolutely. My parents both remember it very fondly as well. Sure the community wasn't perfect. Anytime you get a group of people working together tensions arise*
> 
> ...




Okay, so I am very excited about your opinions and appreciate your honesty. 

I want to make it very clear that I am not anti democracy at all. In fact I love our constitution and all it stands for. I just like to explore other ideas. I am NOT bashing the US system as it was meant to be.

I saw two major themes which I would just like to offer my take on. I can see very clearly why many of you feel as you do and had it not been for this isolated oasis of socialism I saw I would probably feel the same as you guys. I guess itâs important to mention that the atypical community I was in is not at all like the mainstream versions you guys have learned about. So, while I disagree itâs only based on my personal experiences, one of those small wonders no one knows about.

As far as workers, non workers and sharing the wealth. I totally see your points. I guess the biggest thing to recognize is that this community was intentional and by choice. No one was forced to follow a doctrine. People could opt out. If an individual like the grass on the other side of the fence and wanted to leave no one held it against them. Not many people left though. When people lived simple lifestyles it was because they wanted to not because a corrupt .gov took from them. 

Itâs a real shame some shady governments put such a terrible spin on what can be a good thing for some. I think the main reason my community was a success and the others were not is size. I think socialism works in small communities of people with common goals. I think it doesnât work when it grows into a beast sized greed machine in leaders and a working class who supports their habits.

This leads me to think that the community I was in was a fusion of democracy AND socialism. People did have a say in matters and leaders were average members of the community. They saw no extra privilege, had no extra control. They were there mostly to facilitate some organization of the group.

As for haves and have nots, wellâ¦..a simplified life is best chosen not ordained. American culture is used to many extra freedoms and privileges. I can see how wanting to keep those things is important. That is everyoneâs right, to keep what they earn. I hope this doesnât come off bad but I thought it was funny that so many people who did voice opinions against socialism used the point of not supporting free loaders. It was funny because as it is we have such a ridiculous welfare state here in our democracy that it strangles us. As it is we are already supporting people who will not work, illegal residents and more,,,,,,,,,(this excludes people who are disabled or GENUINELY on hard times)

What Iâm getting at is our democracy has itâs share of non workers, a big share.


----------



## hintonlady (Apr 22, 2007)

:doh:

wasn't socialism...........deeeerrrrrr

Yeah, something tribal, EXACTLY. Maybe I get it consfused because so many people consider Israel socialist. 

You guys taught me something, lol. Whats the best way to explain it then? Commune has such a stigma. Was it a commune?

As far as size there were 300 official members and a collection of like 35 to 50 volunteer workers (youth from other countries for a few month adventure) and new members on probation. That was a perfect sized number where you knew everyone by name, had close friends but not so many as to get lost in the crowd. I don't think any bigger would work.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

wasnn't being neutral


----------



## Hip_Shot_Hanna (Apr 2, 2005)

Lets Define socailism , a lot of people that have allready posted here have called the ex Soviet controled countries Socailist , they were Comunist , and there is a WORLD of diffrence between Comunist East Germany and Socailist West Germany ,(before the wall came down ) Yes the second richest country on the planet (west Germany ) IS a socialist country , yes it does have Universal health care it has universal unemployment benefits , and universal socail security ,Socail housing , Germans can own guns , (Regestered) they have unlimited speed highways , in fact the German Socialist country is as socialist as the USA , the USA Claims to be a capitalist country yet it has as many "social "programmes as Germany , from the US Gov paying for GM/Ford car adverts to under taxed / subsidised oil companies , as well as all the rest .
Having Lived in the UK for a time i can se NO diffrence betwen the "capitalist " USA and the "socialist " UK , Yup Sweden is groaning , SO IS California ,and California is the 7th largest economy in the world compared to Swedens 27 th , you can call the USA a Capitalist country and Europe a socialist union , get down to the nitty gritty there is no diffrence it's just a matter of linguistics.


----------



## hintonlady (Apr 22, 2007)

wyld thang said:


> a result, in very large part, of liberal/nanny/socialistic policies




I won't take offense to that seeing as we already established I was a member of a rare tribe of civilized neo hippy something or others, lol.

I obviously don't know enough about socialism to debate it or even address your point intelligently. (no sarcasm)

As far as socialism?? or maybe just my version of tribal life.......I like to live simply and communally. I don't mind high taxes if it means more services that are shared EQUALLY. I have a problem with free loaders mooching off the system, that is bad. I guess what I mean is that I don't mind living a simple life, even making sacrifice as long as everyone is equal. I like to share amongst friends. Trouble is too many people abuse our system. 

Maybe my ideal utopia is beyond labeling. Sad for me. I'll spend my life missing it but my roots are too deep where I am. *shrug*


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shangri-la

Maybe you're remembering a version of the mythical place of Shangri-la. Peace, love, learning and beauty and all for the group/family/tribe.

It does sound like a huge family.

Angie


----------



## ovsfarm (Jan 14, 2003)

HL, I think your point about our American democracy being so committed to the support of freeloaders is a very pertinent point. Due to size, bureauracracy, corruption, political correctness, etc. we have developed a huge welfare state composed of individuals that would never be considered for welfare in many countries.

IMO, that is one of the driving forces behind the not thinly veiled dislike for those who will not work nor take any responsibility for themselves that is so freqently seen here on this forum. We are sick of it. Sick of seeing those who refuse to do the smallest bit of work to help themselves and who live parasitically off the fruits of our labors. Sick of having government officials determine which of these lazy slugs our hard earned tax dollars should support without giving the first iota of consideration to our feelings that very few of them actually deserve such support. I, for one, feel very marginalized and helpless against the welfare abuses I see. Sure, I vote and I try to help others to see this problem and act against it, but then we are usually accused of being closeminded, unkind and unloving. My frustration continues to simmer, fueled by every abuse I see (and there are many), with no outlet. It is no wonder like minded people find a venue like this forum to unload some of that pent-up sentiment.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

wasn't being neutral


----------



## Hip_Shot_Hanna (Apr 2, 2005)

ovsfarm said:


> HL, I think your point about our American democracy being so committed to the support of freeloaders is a very pertinent point. Due to size, bureauracracy, corruption, political correctness, etc. we have developed a huge welfare state composed of individuals that would never be considered for welfare in many countries.
> 
> IMO, that is one of the driving forces behind the not thinly veiled dislike for those who will not work nor take any responsibility for themselves that is so freqently seen here on this forum. We are sick of it. Sick of seeing those who refuse to do the smallest bit of work to help themselves and who live parasitically off the fruits of our labors. Sick of having government officials determine which of these lazy slugs our hard earned tax dollars should support without giving the first iota of consideration to our feelings that very few of them actually deserve such support. I, for one, feel very marginalized and helpless against the welfare abuses I see. Sure, I vote and I try to help others to see this problem and act against it, but then we are usually accused of being closeminded, unkind and unloving. My frustration continues to simmer, fueled by every abuse I see (and there are many), with no outlet. It is no wonder like minded people find a venue like this forum to unload some of that pent-up sentiment.


There are welfare abuses everywhere there is welfare , and the reason for welfare is simple . you have 100 million people and 50 million jobs thats 50 million unemployed , 50 million unemployed hungry people and you have revolution , better to feed them than fight them , and keep your well paid warm office into the bargain , It COSTS you nothing , the cost falls on those that elected you , and its sure easier to pay them to stay at home than to WORK to stop the outsoursing of their jobs , (and personaly more lucrative too )


----------



## countrymouse (Nov 9, 2004)

As with most things, balance is the way to go. There is nothing wrong with Socialism, it has a place in any healthy political system. Democracy is not immune to the same problems. There is a long history of freely elected leaders that turned out to be pretty doggone awful to their people. 

In fact, if a country were set up as a pure Democracy (i.e. majority rules) the results would be tragic (See: California, Prop. 13). I think that is the problem with the US these days, too much pandering to get votes instead of governing and upholding the rule of law. The result is a gov't that listens to the people instead of working for the people and we end up with things like negative amortizing home loans & really cheap (did we mention it's toxic?) toothpaste.

There is a lot of fear surrounding the dreaded "S-word" due to the recent (and upcoming) government intervention into the economy, but really that's why we have a government --to sort out the big problems. Of course, if the politicians had been doing their jobs all along it wouldn't have come to this, but sadly, it has. I hope that things will be sorted out somewhat fairly and the gamblers will actually lose something (hope I can believe in?)

Call me old fashioned, but I'd rather pay a king's ransom in taxes than spend the next ten years shooting zombies off of the porch--just sayin'! :lookout:


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

wasn't being neutral


----------



## Sam_Luna (Nov 16, 2008)

countrymouse said:


> Most people don't have a king's ransom to begin with, and sure can't pay it in taxes. Zombies, well... They were made for shooting I think. :nana:
> 
> I would like to add that I think its really cool that this has _*not*_ become a flame fest!
> 
> Sam


----------



## countrymouse (Nov 9, 2004)

wyld thang said:


> and education sure aint what it used to be



How so?


----------



## hintonlady (Apr 22, 2007)

wyld thang

I am NOT, let me repeat NOT mad. I was being honest when I admitted having no clue. Plenty of my knowledge is based on what I hear and minimally on actual research. (sad but true) I am eager to learn but I have so many interests I couldn't master all of them in one lifetime. So, I come here and ask questions of people I trust or at least respect. 

I can see how genuine and sincere asking of difficult questions on touchy subjects is suspect and can seem like bait or trolling. I really do like to learn and it excites me when someone can change my mind through CIVIL debate. I have no problem with shocking realizations, even ones that shake my core of experience. Sometimes people see my endless questions as a challenge, maybe they are but usually I am hoping that person can express their idea strongly enough to win this sceptic over. I'm an oddball, what can I say?:banana02:


Angie

Shangri la huh? The optimist in me wants to shout out how wrong you are, lol. The realist in me knows you are right. I live in between states of confusion or denial.

Hard to let go of that childhood dream, you know? I saw perfection, even if for a minute and nothing has seemed the same since. I have an unrealistic dream of a perfect world. Obviously a perfect world in my opinion not yours.

I do see so many disturbing and upsetting things in the world today, The world has always had those elements. That's why I homestead in a sense. I just don't want to be a part of the problem. I may not get my dream but it doesn't mean I have to live everyone elses. The common reality looks a lot like a nightmare to me. :lookout:

Here I am, an eccentric spending my life mourning all the potential mankind has and wastes. We are capable of so much more, even if it isn't my version of perfect, you know?


----------



## countrymouse (Nov 9, 2004)

Sam_Luna said:


> Most people don't have a king's ransom to begin with, and sure can't pay it in taxes.


Shhh, don't tell anyone the country's broke!


----------



## hintonlady (Apr 22, 2007)

wyld thang said:


> and education sure aint what it used to be



It isn't. I am a product of the American school system and am the first to admit it wasn't a good education. I try to learn on my own as much as curiosity leads me to. I wish I had gotten an old school version of the American education when it was still worth the paper it's printed on.

BTW it's a systemic issue, I mean no offense to educators, it aint an easy job. (aint, lol)

Had I stopped growing intellectually with what the state provided I would be a sorry lot indeed. Not having access to the better schools of higher education I am self taught. 

It is what it is, I'm okay. Life is an adventure anyway.


BTW I didn't assume you meant that to me and was not upset. I actually agree with you and am a perfect example of your point.


----------



## countrymouse (Nov 9, 2004)

hintonlady said:


> It isn't. I am a product of the American school system and am the first to admit it wasn't a good education. I try to learn on my own as much as curiosity leads me to. I wish I had gottne an old school version of the American education when it was still worth the paper it's printed on.
> 
> BTW it's a systemic issue, I mean no offense to educators, it aint an easy job. (aint, lol)
> 
> ...



Not to in any way endorse the former Soviet Bloc, but they did, on the whole, have a pretty good public education system.


----------



## hintonlady (Apr 22, 2007)

countrymouse said:


> Not to in any way endorse the former Soviet Bloc, but they did, on the whole, have a pretty good public education system.



Are there any nations that have a "good" standard of living, social medicine and programs, good education and happy citizens too? 

Has somebody gotten the whole enchilada and managed to make it work?

Are they self sustaining or at least competitve on the world market? Do they lack anything?


----------



## countrymouse (Nov 9, 2004)

hintonlady said:


> Are there any nations that have a "good" standard of living, social medicine and programs, good education and happy citizens too?
> 
> Has somebody gotten the whole enchilada and managed to make it work?
> 
> Are they self sustaining or at least competitve on the world market? Do they lack anything?



Denmark is supposedly the happiest (& it meets the other three conditions). They have a constitutional monarchy with a parliament (Socialist, Capitalist & Democratic).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5224306.stm

I suppose a place w/ good butter, decent beer, awful weather and socialism may have its merits. Hmmm.....


----------



## Joyfullyplain (Jun 18, 2008)

ovsfarm said:


> IMO, that is one of the driving forces behind the not thinly veiled dislike for those who will not work nor take any responsibility for themselves that is so freqently seen here on this forum. We are sick of it. Sick of seeing those who refuse to do the smallest bit of work to help themselves and who live parasitically off the fruits of our labors. Sick of having government officials determine which of these lazy slugs our hard earned tax dollars should support without giving the first iota of consideration to our feelings that very few of them actually deserve such support. I, for one, feel very marginalized and helpless against the welfare abuses I see. Sure, I vote and I try to help others to see this problem and act against it, but then we are usually accused of being closeminded, unkind and unloving. My frustration continues to simmer, fueled by every abuse I see (and there are many), with no outlet. It is no wonder like minded people find a venue like this forum to unload some of that pent-up sentiment.


I agree. I do not want to work hard to pay for welfare for someone else who choses not to work because they are lazy or they are too proud to take a job because it is not glamorous. Case in point: An ex-friend is welcoming socialism (while hoping for communism) because he _does not want_ to work. Said person would much rather be collecting welfare than *earning* money. 

I consider myself a charitable person and I give what I can. I want to be able to choose whom or what I want to contribute to and when. I would not throw money at people like my ex-friend, nor to people on welfare who get medications for free and then spend their cash on smokes, candy and lotto tickets! 

I work hard, in a thankless profession, pay out of my own pocket to further my education, pay for my prescriptions and all of my other healthcare expenses without insurance and try to help my family when they need it. I don't beg for handouts (bailouts) or free healthcare and I do not want the government to try to _help_ me either. I am a better person for these struggles. 

The way I see socialism is that it benefits the gov't and the lazy, irresponsible people at the expense of those people who have integrity and value hard work. Capitalism is not perfect but at least it challenges people to better themselves and rewards them for hard work. 
:stirpot:

Edited to add: 
Hintonlady, when I was reading what you posted about your experiences with your community, I thought you might be from a Hutterite community. Sounds similar. They live communally as well. Anyway it is interesting to read your point of view.

~JoyfullyPlain
We Surround Them!

I'll keep my freedom, my guns, my religion and my money. YOU keep the change!


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

wasn't being neutral


----------



## hintonlady (Apr 22, 2007)

wyld thang said:


> no prob, and no I didn't mean exactly you with my education comment(or anyone).
> 
> though I will question you putting the burden on someone else to be good enough to change your mind on something, or "educate" you (I guess). Find out facts for your own self and make up your own mind. My first thought when I read the OP was :doh: geez, crack a basic history book and read the track record(haha, to use a Sarah Palinism for your entertainment) of socialism--that's the beauty of real life, there are actions and there are consequences, socialist countries either succeed or fail. A lot of them crave democracy and make the switch when they can(some former Soviet states).



Gosh, I think you misunderstood and understimate me. I don't put the burden of educating me on anyone. I offer the opportunity for people to win me over to their way of thinking with good information. IE: Usually a situation where we have completely opposing view points. Simply stated I am open to new ways of thought. 

This thread is a good example of that. I am not ignorant to world poitics. I have read John Locke, followed plenty of history after him. Got to oligarchy, felt like it explained the US perfectly and moved onto the next shiny object that blew past me.

I'm well read and well rounded. Problem is I have some personal limitations that effect my ability to assimilate things into the long term. Somehwere in the confusion of the filing system of my mind I keep facts like Cliff from the show cheers. Sadly though my powers of recollection fade into abstract ideas that are hard for me to express or prove. I study study study and lose it shortly thereafter.

I joke about my limitations in a self depreciating way because I have no shame or nothing to prove. This thread isn't about me and my degree of damage. Just don't want anyone to think I am a garden variety dimwit. :banana02:


----------



## countrymouse (Nov 9, 2004)

Joyfullyplain said:


> I work hard, in a thankless profession, pay out of my own pocket to further my education, pay for my prescriptions and all of my other healthcare expenses without insurance and try to help my family when they need it. I don't beg for handouts (bailouts) or free healthcare and I do not want the government to try to _help_ me either. I am a better person for these struggles.


I admire your self-reliance (and that of so many others on this board), but doesn't it bother you that the government actively helps the private money making interests that keep education & healthcare so expensive for you?

Maybe it shouldn't be such a struggle. 
:stirpot:


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Plutocracy would better describe the current United States government, Hintonlady. I think that's what we've ultimately turned into. We're certainly no longer a republic and we've never been truly a democracy. 

As part of the studying, it helps if you can turn abstract ideas into something concrete. The mind needs some way of filing those ideas, of fully grasping them and turning them around in its mental "hands" to get a better look at them. You may have noticed that I speak a lot in metaphors. I'll turn complicated philosophical or political theory into farm anecdotes. That's my own way of getting a handle on those things. Someday I'm going to write a book collecting all those essays and thoughts into one work, and I'm going to title it, "Chickens are Libertarians; Ducks are Communists."


----------



## hintonlady (Apr 22, 2007)

Oooh, plutocracy. Seen it before but glad you rattled me so I would revisit it.

I live in the land of metaphor and allegory. No wonder I like you Ernie.

BTW how animal farmish of you, I love it.


----------



## countrymouse (Nov 9, 2004)

(As usual) Ernie's on point. What a government actually "is" takes a while to explain (and most of us don't have the vocabulary to do it gracefully). Part of keeping the whole Plutocracy thing going is to deter discussions like this by making things easily digestible (Socialism=Bad; Democracy=Good) --come to think of it that's very 1984, time to read some Orwell.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

wasn't being neutral


----------



## hintonlady (Apr 22, 2007)

wyld thang said:


> hintonlady said:
> 
> 
> > wyld thang
> ...


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

The problem with scocialism is the goverment is in charge of the funds.


----------



## tgmr05 (Aug 27, 2007)

The key to what makes the US stand out is ordinary people doing extraordinary things. The folks filling salt shakers in a simple socialist community are never seen as being able to build a sophisticated software company that revolutionizes the computer industry, much less dream about it. A simple lifestyle is not what makes everybody excel - though some have a dream of achieving a simple lifestyle, as this forum shows, and some communes show, like the Amish. The simple lifestyle deadens the 'dream' for the rest. The desire to achieve more than others believe is possible or what has always been thought was possible, AND the reward of doing so, is the drive behind so many of the great advances in human history. Some folks simply want the reward of knowing they personally did it, but that limits the pool of achievers to those of that mindset. Opening the pool of achievers to those that desire something else - say a better lifestyle, more conveniences, more choices, etc. is what has made this country so great and set it apart from nations that have existed for far longer. This pool of achievers actually live a more complicated lifestyle and like it. Plus, they are the reason we have achieved so much in such a short time. Socialism does not allow for these folks.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

wasn't being neutral


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

tgmr05 said:


> The key to what makes the US stand out is ordinary people doing extraordinary things. The folks filling salt shakers in a simple socialist community are never seen as being able to build a sophisticated software company that revolutionizes the computer industry, much less dream about it. A simple lifestyle is not what makes everybody excel - though some have a dream of achieving a simple lifestyle, as this forum shows, and some communes show, like the Amish. The simple lifestyle deadens the 'dream' for the rest. The desire to achieve more than others believe is possible or what has always been thought was possible, AND the reward of doing so, is the drive behind so many of the great advances in human history. Some folks simply want the reward of knowing they personally did it, but that limits the pool of achievers to those of that mindset. Opening the pool of achievers to those that desire something else - say a better lifestyle, more conveniences, more choices, etc. is what has made this country so great and set it apart from nations that have existed for far longer. This pool of achievers actually live a more complicated lifestyle and like it. Plus, they are the reason we have achieved so much in such a short time. Socialism does not allow for these folks.



great stuff!


----------



## kareninaustria (Dec 22, 2008)

People discussing this should get some terminology straight - democracy is not the opposite of socialism! Capitalism is the opposite of socialism. I live in a social democracy (Austria). The government is freely elected, just like in America. The dominant party is Socialist, though there are others that are farther left and others that are (much) farther right. Socialism is not a bad word here. There are advantages and disadvantages to a socialist system, as you might imagine. Here are some advantages:

Everyone is pretty well taken care of, there are very few homeless and hopelessly poor people. No one falls through the cracks. 

Education, even higher education, is free or nearly free. The public schools are all uniformly good.

It is very safe, there's very little violent crime, or crime in general. Children can walk to school, play anywhere, etc. without fear.

Decent health care is available to all. A doctor is accessible at all times, day and night, and will come to your house if necessary.

Families with children are helped financially by the government, regardless of income status. A parent (woman or man) receives a stipend from the government of around $800 per month to care for a new baby for THREE YEARS after the baby is born. Older children continue to receive a lower stipend (around $200) until they are financially independent.

My husband and I have 4 children. We are frugal and can live comfortably on one average income. That might be hard were we to move back to the US.


And here are some disadvantages:

The government is pretty cumbersome, so if you want to, say, build an addition to your house or start your own business, there's a lot of red tape in the way. Being innovative and creative is not rewarded. 

Self-employed people have it hard, since the taxes are so high. Hiring someone for a business is expensive, since the employer must pay so much of the employee's taxes. 

People do tend to be kind of slack, since it's not "dog eat dog." They seem to sometimes loose the ability to dig in and do hard work, and handle stress. People from more capitalistic societies seem more robust. 

In general, people are in your business more. There's a sense of the collective, which can be very supportive but also very stifling. You are punished for being a "rugged individualist," which is something we Americans value.

It's VERY hard to get rich here.



Also remember, the US is not a pure Capitalistic state. It's not all or nothing, just shades of grey. Social Security and Welfare are socialist elements. If there were no socialistic elements in US society, it would just be every man for himself, which I don't think anyone wants.


----------



## hintonlady (Apr 22, 2007)

tgmr05 said:


> The folks filling salt shakers in a simple socialist community are never seen as being able to build a sophisticated software company that revolutionizes the computer industry, much less dream about it.


The woman who filled salt and pepper shakers was mentally handicapped (don't know proper term to use). She had lost a good portion of her capabilities lost to a chunk of metal that lodged in her brain from an explosion. She had been a soldier........I was using her as an illustration of what this community did for "welfare". They brought their own home and let her fill salt and pepper shakers. That wasn't the typical job.

This community did have a deep agricultural base in avocado, cotton, dairy, poultry and fish. They also had a small teak wood modern danish furniture factory and a small highly mechanized textile mill to turn the cotton to t hsirt material. By pooling the labor force they were not only able to be financially independant they also turned a *gasp* profit.

I personally enjoy technology but given the choice would rather live in a world where there are jobs for those who are only able to fill salt shakers than fancy new computer technology. May not work for everyone else. Just my preference.

edited to add: I agree with the dreamers making change part of your post. I am just of a mindset that less is more. I'm not seeing the global humanity keep up with thechnology. I don't equate material gains with success. Must be my liberal pinko background. (lol)


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Hintonlady - how did your family end up in this community? Did your family travel there particularly to join this group?

Also, since your Dad did something so unacceptable, why did your Mom and you get invited out? Or did your Mom decide to stay with Dad and all of you leave.

Also, how on earth could a Mother allow her child to be taken over by the group and live in a dorm setting? That right there would have been the first "NO WAY" with me.

And kareninaustria thank you for term clarification and the plus's and minus's of it where you are. From your minus column, I guess those conditions are why Bill Gates and his type are heard from in the US and not there or other similar countries. Are you missing the USA system?

Angie


----------



## hintonlady (Apr 22, 2007)

kareninaustria said:


> People discussing this should get some terminology straight - democracy is not the opposite of socialism! Capitalism is the opposite of socialism. I live in a social democracy (Austria). The government is freely elected, just like in America. The dominant party is Socialist, though there are others that are farther left and others that are (much) farther right. Socialism is not a bad word here. There are advantages and disadvantages to a socialist system, as you might imagine. Here are some advantages:
> 
> Everyone is pretty well taken care of, there are very few homeless and hopelessly poor people. No one falls through the cracks.
> 
> ...



Thank you. I appreciate your answer very much. 

It seemed neutral, factual and gave me a great deal of insight.


----------



## hintonlady (Apr 22, 2007)

AngieM2 said:


> Hintonlady - how did your family end up in this community? Did your family travel there particularly to join this group?
> 
> Also, since your Dad did something so unacceptable, why did your Mom and you get invited out? Or did your Mom decide to stay with Dad and all of you leave.
> 
> ...


My parents asked to join the community. It may have been some left over 60's liberal stuff that concieved their idea to go.

We had two extended visits to the country. The first was in 1978 ish. Dad JUST graduated and couldn't find a job in his field to save his life. Came back home, both my Grandmothers died and my parents were feeling very homesick. Both my parents found they loved the "way things were over there", couldn't get it out of their systems. We went back in 1984 probably due to my Dads lack of job opportunities again. (not sure if it was the economy or he was just a loser, my Dad is a piece of work)

sidenote: My parents would correspond to family in the US via casette tape because it was cheaper than phone calls. I have all sorts of their thoughts about Sadam in the late seventies, Israeli version of hyperinflation at the time(1978) , striking workers and all sorts of pretty entertaining/interesting stuff that was happening at the time.

My Mother and I were welcome to stay with the standard of housing we already had. Adults had modest sized homes, very modest. I would continue my indoctrination into the group by residing with other 5th and 6th graders in the kids dorm/school house. (on site boarding school) Kids were free to come and go, it wasn't forced.

The dorm thing was a rude awakening. All the childrens homes were encapsulated in the middle of the community. Life was very simple. I could feel free to drop by my Mothers work during the day to visit her. I ate my evening meals with my parents in the common dining hall. 

As a mother I have to say something like that would pretty much be a red flag for me too. My mother felt as if she were sarificing certain things to gain others. We were a part of an extended family and that had it's own benefits. I would probably have to ask her about it because you have me curious now........


I want to make it clear (AGAIN) that I am not trying to advocate or sell socialism in any way. I am enjoying the assimilation of new ideas. I never really cared enough about socialism to want to spend time diving into it's philosophy. I just had what I thought was a recollection of it not being so bad. I also see a lot of people making Mccarthy era comments about socialism. Since I am pretty much numb to the controversy I was simply curious why it rubbed people the wrong way.

*sheesh*


Now I know socialism will continue to freak out lots of folks
I wasn't exactly in a socialist community so my experiences have zero to do with actual socialism. Good, I got it.
Learned that I would like bits of socialism and other bits I can see being not so good. That is typical for me, liking a patchwork of ideas. The hard and fast rules just aren't my style. I'm a shades of grey kind of girl.

Came here for OPINIONS, didn't come here to sell a way of life. A simple "that was not a socilaist community but this is why I like/dislike socialism" would have sufficed. My recollections of some oddball lifestyle in childhood actually have nothing to do with the original post apparently.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Ah, but I think your recollections of this part of your life has everything to do with the original post. So, it does a lot to explain why what you've called socialism is more good than bad in your memory.

and I was just preparing breakfast (day off work, yea!) and got to thinking about this version of "socialism' or commune living. I'm finding it really would bother me because.
1. The children group living thing I've mentioned
2. A group of others being able to tell me to leave my home. 
3. It appears to be a nice place to 'get off the world' and loose stress and RESPONSIBILITY.
4. It's totally anti-preparedness individually in this presentation
5. This seems a really good way to kill initiative

And apparently our Capitalistic and somewhat supposedly Republic has the opportunity to take care of folks that don't fit in intentional 'socialistic' types of places.

Also, the lady with the salt shaker job - I thought that was a child's job, guess I read wrong. And here in AL I know there are places where 'disabled' teens and adults have jobs making some things and selling them to support themselves and earn an income. It may not be much, but it gives them the same self respect as the "normal" working folks.

I must say, I'm a capitistic person at heart. If I work and earn it, I only want to give to those that I choose to help. (and I do it without anyone or very few knowing who or when),

Angie


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

So the question that lurks back somewhere in all of this for me ...

Who would be willing to join a similar community here in the states, assuming one could be found? In this day and age?

I like the thought of it ... but the reality for me is that I'm a loner and a tyrant. I like having my own way in my own life in everything I do. It would be extremely difficult for me to fit in well with any group. A better option for me might be to purchase a large chunk of property and then sell pieces of it surrounding me to like-minded neighbors. Crafting my own community where everyone does their own thing but rather stays interconnected.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Ernie - I think what you are envisioning is more the old fashioned Western town or to me, a small close Southern town. Where one neighbor having problems or needs, has close friends, family and good acquaintances coming together to help each other out. 

Angie


----------



## hintonlady (Apr 22, 2007)

AngieM2 said:


> Ah, but I think your recollections of this part of your life has everything to do with the original post. So, it does a lot to explain why what you've called socialism is more good than bad in your memory.
> 
> *Yeah, I was confused. Somebody shoot me:banana02:*
> 
> ...



I don't think there is a perfect scenario. My little piece of paradise wasn't perfect. As an adult I may actually hate it. No way to know. All I know is that the world as it is makes me sad. That's all, sad. Part of the girl in me that is naive enough to hope for fairy tales still dreams of better times.......

This discussion won't change the world. I just NEED to understand the world more because it feels so out of control. It's unsettling to be a grown up in this day and age. That sense goes waaay beyond what my opinions about socialism may or may not be.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Yeah, that would be about as much as I could tolerate. Even that might be too much.


----------



## hintonlady (Apr 22, 2007)

Ernie said:


> So the question that lurks back somewhere in all of this for me ...
> 
> Who would be willing to join a similar community here in the states, assuming one could be found? In this day and age?
> 
> I like the thought of it ... but the reality for me is that I'm a loner and a tyrant. I like having my own way in my own life in everything I do. It would be extremely difficult for me to fit in well with any group. A better option for me might be to purchase a large chunk of property and then sell pieces of it surrounding me to like-minded neighbors. Crafting my own community where everyone does their own thing but rather stays interconnected.



Yes Ernie, your modified version sounds nice. Although I am sure due to human nature there would be speed bumps.

The thing is though for me it isn't really possible. My wonderful DH built a home for us on family ground. He built it extra sturdy bearing in mind that we hope that someday the next generation and a few after of our young ones will be able to live in it too. Not something I could sell and walk away from.

As it is though we have a group of the most incredible neighbors imaginable. They give us a wide berth but would drop everything should we need them. This particular micro community started with a group of young families moving away from the city growth and staying in a new area with neighbors. 

Those folks were the grandparents and great grandparents of the "kids" who are coming up and running the show now. It's like an extended family and as close to perfect for me as I can get.

MIL and BIL live across a pasture, Uncle and aunt live across another pasture, grandparents live across the driveway. Plenty more of the same with other families as you go up the gravel road.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

by hintonlady
"This discussion won't change the world. I just NEED to understand the world more* because it feels so out of control. It's unsettling to be a grown up in this day and age. *That sense goes waaay beyond what my opinions about socialism may or may not be.

{bolding mine}

HL - if it's any consolation, the bolded part I totally agree with. My dream is the Little house on the Prairie with a large dose of old Southern small town with front porches and folks sitting on them in the evenings with the children running and catching lightening bugs and playing catch and Red Rover, etc.

Garden in the back yard, bread risisng in the kitchen, and such. Or similar but with the "place" being in the edges of the little town.

And I have a 77 year old uncle that tells me of his summers with his grandparents in Mississippi. Washing clothes down by the stream, breaking the garden ground with a mule team, and a room of stuff that his grandpa would use to cut the tongue off an old leather shoe to nail to a gate post on one side and to the gate on the other to make a hinge he didn't have.

We all seem to have a memory of our own, or of something in history, or a group of things that we long for when times are tough. And times are tough and probably getting tougher. 

Angie


----------



## hintonlady (Apr 22, 2007)

AngieM2 said:


> by hintonlady
> "This discussion won't change the world. I just NEED to understand the world more* because it feels so out of control. It's unsettling to be a grown up in this day and age. *That sense goes waaay beyond what my opinions about socialism may or may not be.
> 
> {bolding mine}
> ...


:Bawling:

Stupid Grizzly Adams and Little House On the Praire. THAT'S where I got my obsession with homesteading. grrrrrrr See what happens when parents leave the TV on too long. Then I get shipped off to hippietown the euro version. I also had an obsession for petting zoos as a kid.

It's almost funny looking back on how much of my opinions were affected by nurture, not nature. :lookout: I was molded to be me. :banana02:


This thread has some deeply personal philisophical implications for me to consider. I always wonder how my life could have gone differently if I wasn't so misunderstood. I rarely find people who truly get me. (obviously my problem) I'm a grown up version of the kid who doesn't know how to shut up and stop asking those annoying questions.


edited to add:

kid: can I go play outside?
Mom: no
kid:why?
mom:because it's too cold out.
kid:why
mom:it's winter
kid:why
mom:because winter is cold, it's part of the changing seasons
kid:why
mom:maybe because nature needs time to rest before spring
kid:why

why why why


I love to humor little ones on the why questions to see if they ever just feel satisfied and walk away........they don't. The best answer is simply: BECAUSE. I never really liked because.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

I sanitized myself from this thread for your protection.

I obviously would not make a good socialist.

You wanted "neutral" gah, WHAT was I thinking????


----------



## hintonlady (Apr 22, 2007)

wyld thang said:


> I sanitized myself from this thread for your protection.
> 
> I obviously would not make a good socialist. *agreed*
> 
> You wanted "neutral" gah, WHAT was I thinking????


:bdh::stirpot:




> *Can we discuss socialism without it turning into a flame fest?*



Apparently not.

Welcome to HT today a microcosim of American culture and everything it represents. :boring::rotfl::boring:


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

hintonlady - relax, 

wyle thing is doing quite well and so is everyone. Let's keep it that way, and remember not everyone is going to agree with you, and if you start getting testy with those that don't agree, then you'll be the one that is the flame.

So far, this has been a really interesting thread, but I have been watching it more than most.

So, just remember - not everyone agrees with pensive thoughts and examinations of memories. They are just as right as you and I.

Angie


----------



## Wanderer0101 (Jul 18, 2007)

I've lived in two socialist countries that would be considered to be on the enlightened end of the scale. Life was OK for the most part, taxes were high but a lot of things were provided by the government. What wore on me over time was the ubiquity of government control over many, many aspects of your life and the fecklessness of many people who were prepared to live the life of drones in return for the security of a pretty modest standard of living. The thing that really troubled me as time went on was that the extent of government control never regressed, it always expanded, and there was absolutely no concern about taking money away from the most productive members of society and giving it to the least productive. This was coupled with the fact that many of the people in government making decisions about your life or controlling some aspect of it were just not very bright, acted completely arbitrarily and always took refuge in mind numbing bureaucracy. All of that together made living under socialism, certainly more socialism than in the US currently, very unattractive to me. It is a creeping thing though and we're certainly seeing more of it here in the USA all the time.


----------



## Hip_Shot_Hanna (Apr 2, 2005)

IMHO 
Comunism = the State owns everything,including the people who are little but slaves .
Socialism = the state is supposed to put the wishes of the people first , capital takes a back seat .
Capitalism = the state looks after those with capital , (millonares and up ) the rest do not have enough capital to worry about therefore can be ignored and are wage slaves in hock to capital .


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

hintonlady said:


> I'm getting the impression that you are just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing because we are obviously on opposite ends of the political spectrum. Not a place we can both learn from, now is it?
> 
> I personally do not like Sarah Palin, in fact out of respect for you I never brought up how deeply I do truly dislike her. This is after exhaustive research mind you. Therefore if you would wish to change that opinion I would assume it is sort of up to you to make her "shiny", no? I'm under no obligation to pursue opposite opinions once I have formed my own.
> 
> ...


with apologies to Angie for trying to keep things civil, I was going to let the dead horse die, but then I realized I've been Alinkski-ized, and just like Glenn CLose in Fatal Attraction you can imagine me all wild eyed saying "I will not be ignored"

HL---
"RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)"

well done!!!:banana02:


----------



## hintonlady (Apr 22, 2007)

I'm cool angie

I love it when people disagree with me, honest. Sometimes bridging gaps in communication styles is complicated. I still love to hear other peoples ideas while reserving the right to still disagree. No biggie.

Just seems kind of silly to have to examine my thought process (or lack there of) vs. actual discussion of the topic at hand.

Originally I wanted opinions, just opinions. My history is facts that I base my opinions on. Great, I think we are all up to speed on that.

I just wanted to know why people dislike socialism. Didn't ever see my former community as a model for socilaism in action. Just mentioned it as my foundation of why I may not get worked up over the concept. Thus more of my opinion. I also agreed it was not socialism so although I may have leftist inclinations I am now officially not pro socialist anyway. I did learn something and based some new ideas on that. Did I change my mind? Well no, my mind obviously was not clear from jump street. STILL nothing to do with the original post.

Debating my recollection of history or invalidating my own experiences has very little to do with the original question.

ALL I wanted was to know why people dislike socilaism so I could understand them more. I'm getting a stronger sense of vehemence than I am opinons as to why or why not socialism (outside of my history) does or does not work. i was super excited when people put into the context of current events. I was thrilled when someone living in that type of system had cold hard facts, as they see them. 

I just wanted to know:

why why why

why do you feel that way?

Gosh folks, this thread was taken way more seriously than I had hoped. Origianlly I put about as much thought into it as "why do you or don't you like spicy food". I wasn't trying to start drama.


----------



## hintonlady (Apr 22, 2007)

Okay wyld thang

You are a wild one and much too much too handle......much like myself. Although on opposite ends of the spectrum we are probably more alike than not. I think we are still on the same team just have different ways to win the game. Look where this conversation is taking place!! 

Can we be friends now?

I pity the fool we both disagree with at the same time 


edited to add: I was listening to you, very closely


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

Socialism, like capitalism and democracy(as well as many other -isms) all seem to work great on paper and in theory, but it's when theory becomes practical application that things get messy.
If you want a fictional look at things that seems to summarize the problems with socialism, read Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand. The ironic thing about that book and how it shows the problems with socialism is that *it is set in the US*.
Many people have problems with Rand and her opinions, but I think she pegged socialism accurately in that book.:rock:


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

So let me throw some stones at democracy for a moment. Do you realize that our founding fathers were absolutely terrified of democracy? Go through all the founding documents our country and political system was based on and you won't find anything about democracy. You'll find a lot about liberty and some about a republic but nothing anywhere about democracy.

Why is this? It's because democracy unchecked is nothing more than mob rule. Theft properly voted on and approved by the majority is still theft. In order for business and people to get on with their lives, they must have some basis for liberty to make their plans around. As opposed to the whim of the mob changing every so often. Imagine watching a baseball game where every 10 minutes the crowd had a vote to change the rules. 

There are two natural laws which Thomas Paine spoke of, and which prove as the cornerstone of all of our founding documents:

1. Do what you agreed to do.
2. Do not encroach upon someone else's freedom or property.

Every law after the fact must stem from one of those two natural laws. I think if you look at those two laws and assumed that there was absolutely nothing else on the law books or in the courts, we'd still be better off than we are today.

Just before the American revolution, natural law was extended to include "God's Law", as a direct result of a preacher named Jonathan Mayhew who spoke of a right, no, an _obligation_ of people to rebel against their government if its laws contradicted God's laws. It was really the first time people heard rebellion preached from the pulpit and it covered the rumblings of revolution that were going on in the backs of pubs and taverns with the cloak of religion. People began seeing things in a different light and it quickly fueled the fires that the founding fathers were trying to ignite. I consider Jonathan Mayhew one of the forgotten founding fathers.

For more, read his sermon entitled, "Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission". You'll come away with a brand new point of view, I promise you.

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/etas/44/


----------



## Freeholder (Jun 19, 2004)

I have a question that I've been pondering some time. It may be slightly off-track for this thread....

I pretty well understand what Communism is, and what Socialism, Capitalism, and etc., are. But what I don't know is what to call what I would consider the 'ideal' society -- Thomas Jefferson's nation of small farmers and shop-keepers. Free enterprise? Free enterprise with a Republican form of government? (Economic system doesn't have to match the government system, of course -- can have small farmers in a Communist country, too.) 

In all this, no matter what form of government/economic system we are discussing, we have to keep in mind that human nature tends toward evil. There are those who don't believe this (just like there are those who believe in Evolution against all the evidence), but it needs to be understood, because it's the reason why even a good system of government couldn't stay good for very many generations. Ditto for churches/denominations -- often they start out great, with sound doctrine and a real heart for the Lord, but within three generations they've usually fallen into a man-made 'religion.' (I don't want to get into a discussion of religion, here, I'm just using it as an analogy. Let's please stick to discussing forms of government and economic systems.)

Kathleen

ETA: Ernie, have you ever looked at the Free State Wyoming website? I was looking at it yesterday, and something you said sounded just like what they say on there.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

I think the country that was established by our founding fathers came pretty close, though many of them felt they missed the mark greatly. Patrick Henry just about picked up a rifle and started a second revolution in 1787. It was a country based on natural law and not political law, which had a large degree of built in protections for individual liberty.

If you want to see where we sort of fell apart, read _The Federalist Papers_ and then contrast them with _The Anti-Federalist Papers_. My sympathies lie with Patrick Henry and the Anti-Federalists. 

Once you concede that government has any right at all to interfere in your personal liberty, then you've given up ALL personal liberty. And the founding fathers realized that every day government would be trying to encroach on individual liberty. That's why they built in so many safeguards. 

It's like when you let a dog put his foot on the sofa. Next thing you know he's up on the sofa. If you don't say anything, then before long he's tearing up the seat cushions, and then it's ridiculously hard to get him off the couch. Our government is like that now. We disregarded the safeguards for so long that people don't even realize they are there. They don't know about jury-nullification, or they foolishly think that the 2nd Amendment is there so we can go out and shoot a deer when the government licenses us to do so and tells us what season it can be done in. No! The 2nd amendment is there so we can _shoot government officials when they become too invasive!_

I haven't looked at that website, BJF, but I'll go do so when I get a bit of free time. It doesn't surprise me if you're hearing my words in other places ... because they aren't solely my words. I've picked them up from my reading. There is a great dialogue out there, in case y'all haven't been listening. It's a conversation that spans _generations_. Those who walked this path before us laid down a map, complete with warning signs, in their writings of the time. I consider everyone from Locke to Thomas Paine to Patrick Henry to (heh) Tyler Durden to be a mentor in my search for understanding.


----------



## hintonlady (Apr 22, 2007)

BlueJuniperFarm said:


> I have a question that I've been pondering some time. *It may be slightly off-track for this thread*....



:rotfl:


----------



## hintonlady (Apr 22, 2007)

Ernie said:


> I think the country that was established by our founding fathers came pretty close, though many of them felt they missed the mark greatly. Patrick Henry just about picked up a rifle and started a second revolution in 1787. It was a country based on natural law and not political law, which had a large degree of built in protections for individual liberty.
> 
> If you want to see where we sort of fell apart, read _The Federalist Papers_ and then contrast them with _The Anti-Federalist Papers_. My sympathies lie with Patrick Henry and the Anti-Federalists.
> 
> ...


Ernie, buddy ole pal

You are the .gov's worst nightmare, an educated free thinker.:hobbyhors

I know you well enough to know you will think that a compliment!!:rock:


----------



## basicposter (Nov 27, 2008)

We get what we deserve.
We have confused self righteousness with morality....education for intelligence........greed for success......fame for wisdom and honor is a prize on a game show.

I guess that I should not be surprised that many think America is a Democracy
(which it is not). America is a Republic. But we elect officials in a democratic process.

This really requires that we be very careful in who we choose ........but we do not. We elect them based on what if they do or don't, will or won't.We select them based on things which should be decided for our family by us (see self righteousness). It requires that we be informed in our choices.....we are only selecting people who can decide if and when and how you and yours live or die.

Watch this vid www.wimp.com/thegovernment/

We have been selecting politicians instead of statesmen (this includes women)
If History tells us something what is it telling us ......we spread democracy to The Congo,Cambodia,Iran,the philippines,Viet Nam, Central America ect. ect.

Our politicians today are like some old busy-body with spoiled children ...not taking care of their home and telling others what to do (only at the point of a gun).

Ok I'll put my high horse back in the barn now:hobbyhors

just remember it is our fault for letting it get this far and letting it stay this way.

( insert some latin phrase here)


----------



## hintonlady (Apr 22, 2007)

basicposter said:


> We get what we deserve.
> We have confused self righteousness with morality....education for intelligence........greed for success......fame for wisdom and honor is a prize on a game show.
> 
> I guess that I should not be surprised that many think America is a Democracy
> ...


That was a heckuva first post basic:rock:

Welcome.

Think we may be over our patriot quota but I am sure we can squeeze you in.........


----------



## 50calray (Feb 9, 2009)

basicposter said:


> just remember it is our fault for letting it get this far and letting it stay this way.


Yes but nothing is set in stone. 


Anyhow, I'm not sure I can discuss Socialism or Communism in a civil manor people. So I'll limit my discussion on this topic. All I know is I've yet to see one country applying either philosophy that I would want to call home. It's not for me, and to try and change my country to either one is Treason. If you want to understand what it is to be an American, try living outside a Socialist controlled state. Find some place with rolling hills similar to Little House on the Prairie. A place where people still wave to their neighbors as their passing by and open doors for the lady folk. 

Best of luck in your search.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

50calray said:


> Find some place with rolling hills similar to Little House on the Prairie. A place where people still wave to their neighbors as their passing by and open doors for the lady folk.
> 
> Best of luck in your search.


Totally understand you, and I've found it. Except we have WAAAAAAAYYYY more trees. and rain.


----------



## spiffydave (Mar 19, 2008)

What an interesting and mostly civil conversation.

What a great blessing to experience something completely different growing up Hintonlady. It certainly must give you a different perspective and that's worth a lot.

[tryingtobefunny]I'm sure those people at the Darma Initiative seemed nice at the time, but it seems clear now that you were lucky that your family was kicked out since it's all gone south since Ben Linus started leading the group.[/tryingtobefunny]


----------



## hintonlady (Apr 22, 2007)

spiffydave said:


> What an interesting and mostly civil conversation.
> 
> What a great blessing to experience something completely different growing up Hintonlady. It certainly must give you a different perspective and that's worth a lot.
> 
> [tryingtobefunny]I'm sure those people at the Darma Initiative seemed nice at the time, but it seems clear now that you were lucky that your family was kicked out since it's all gone south since Ben Linus started leading the group.[/tryingtobefunny]


That cracked me up so much I wasn't able to come up with a sarcastic/humorous reply.

DANG

I guess that's why the island is calling to me even though it doesn't exist in the same time and place. Better off on the mainland now. :shrug:


----------



## Freeholder (Jun 19, 2004)

Ernie said:


> I think the country that was established by our founding fathers came pretty close, though many of them felt they missed the mark greatly. Patrick Henry just about picked up a rifle and started a second revolution in 1787. It was a country based on natural law and not political law, which had a large degree of built in protections for individual liberty.
> 
> If you want to see where we sort of fell apart, read _The Federalist Papers_ and then contrast them with _The Anti-Federalist Papers_. My sympathies lie with Patrick Henry and the Anti-Federalists.
> 
> ...



Ernie, I would love to have you and your family for near neighbors!

Kathleen


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

We cann't be scocialist till every one who is capable contributes to our society. 
Even if it is only filling the salt shakers. In my opinion the people of this country are to selfish to be scocialist.


----------



## quietstar (Dec 11, 2002)

In any society, human nature will always, eventually dominate. Undisputable fact: Humans will always try to act in their own self interest. Socialisim will always succomb to this natural truth, spawning some type of organized force to combat natural behavior.
Study of history teaches this lesson over and over...Glen


----------



## Bigkat80 (Jan 16, 2007)

SquashNut said:


> The problem with scocialism is the goverment is in charge of the funds.


The problem with Socialism is that it is contrary to the american Dream. Socialism as a form of government neither rewards good production or punishes bad production. In many modern examples of socialism while not in the pure form failure come to mind. Where-ever you have people involved with an easy way out they will take it. The thing about the american dream is everyone can pursue it...not every one will achieve it but they can pursue it. Is the playing field level Perhaps not in past history but I see it changing every day. The constitution gives us a right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness but those can be given away should we choose to break laws or covenants. The pursauit of happiness is what sparks most of us to succeed in given(chosen) professions, without it I doubt very seriously if anyone on here would go to work for no check..we need the check to fund the pursuit...In many ways we are not a democracy but rather a collection of republic states and citizens all striving to acheive. When we strive to be mediocre or just the same or average we have failed before we started...that is the biggest problem with social ism even in HL's example of communial living note that chores were age specific and one didnt seem to have the ability to move on to chores that they could do prior to reaching the age accepted by the group in short that means over achievers would be stymied from a faster pace opf developement. Kinda jumbled thoughts my blood sugar is high but the jist is accurate if not agreeable to the grammar police and spelling gurus, as always I hope my transgressions against the aforementioned will be forgiven.....Will :icecream::icecream:


----------



## hintonlady (Apr 22, 2007)

quietstar said:


> In any society, human nature will always, eventually dominate. Undisputable fact: Humans will always try to act in their own self interest. Socialisim will always succomb to this natural truth, spawning some type of organized force to combat natural behavior.
> Study of history teaches this lesson over and over...Glen






Bigkat80 said:


> The problem with Socialism is that it is contrary to the american Dream. Socialism as a form of government neither rewards good production or punishes bad production. In many modern examples of socialism while not in the pure form failure come to mind. Where-ever you have people involved with an easy way out they will take it. The thing about the american dream is everyone can pursue it...not every one will achieve it but they can pursue it.


Not sure how to put the idea in my mind to words, please bear with me. If it comes across wrong assume I didn't mean it that way. Just "thinking" out loud.........

Since a certain level of non workers will naturally be present lazy and accounted for shouldn't those who choose to work to attain the American dream accept their presence as a sort of neccessary evil that is a side effect of their preferred lifestyle. (preferred lifestyle being NON socialist)

gosh I hope that makes sense, not sure if I could spit it out any more or less coherently.:banana02:


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

hintonlady said:


> Since a certain level of non workers will naturally be present lazy and accounted for shouldn't those who choose to work to attain the American dream accept their presence as a sort of neccessary evil that is a side effect of their preferred lifestyle. (preferred lifestyle being NON socialist)
> 
> :


why?

lest anybody gets their panties wadded over me seemingly advocating Soylent Green...

it even goes against the natural order of the natural world--the slow, the stupid, the sick (sss) all get eaten. at least first.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

quietstar said:


> In any society, human nature will always, eventually dominate. Undisputable fact: Humans will always try to act in their own self interest. Socialisim will always succomb to this natural truth, spawning some type of organized force to combat natural behavior.
> Study of history teaches this lesson over and over...Glen


Correction.

Human beings with religion removed will always try to act in their own self interest.

The key to any successful enterprise with other people is having a common set of values and ideals to work from.


----------



## Gunga (Dec 17, 2005)

When you factor in local, state and federal taxes, sales tax , payroll deductions for social security and all of the gov't fees we pay about 50% of everyones income is taken by the government. The gov't says unemployment is about 7% but figure it is higher about 15%. If you take 50% from 85 people and spread it out to 15 unemployed neighbors the 15% would be loaded with cash. We know people on unempoyment and food stamps are still in bad shape financially so it is fair to ask what is happening to all of the money the government takes from us. Our borders aren't protected, the FDA doesn't protect our food supply, our bridges are falling down, our healthcare system is a joke, the states are bankrupt.
The money taken from us is not used to help our neighbors or ourselves when we have hard times. Instead it is taken to finance a hugely inefficient government and the corporate interests that own our elected officials. 
When the government sacrifices its citizens for the benefit of itself and corporations its called fascism. 
All of this socialism talk is pushed by the gov't to divide us as a people so we don't see the truth. White folks hate the brown folks, black folks hate the white folks, southerners hate the yankees, conservatives hate the liberals and everyone is blinded to the fact that we are all getting screwed.
We would be lucky to have socialism so our taxes helped pay for child care, healthcare and our neighbors when they lose their job.
Instead we have fascism. This is so because even when the people say no to bank bailouts by 100 to 1 our representatives give the money to corporate interests anyway.
The gov't took our money, despite our objections and gave it to international investment banks because they want to help us? That's what they said ..it's to help us. 
Learn the definitions and watch what is happening and it will be obvious that we live in a fascist state.

my opinion only,, rant off. 
Good luck and God speed to all.


----------



## hintonlady (Apr 22, 2007)

wyld thang said:


> why?
> 
> lest anybody gets their panties wadded over me seemingly advocating Soylent Green...
> 
> it even goes against the natural order of the natural world--the slow, the stupid, the sick (sss) all get eaten. at least first.



why? Still hard for me to elaborate because it's only a half formed idea.

I guess another way to put it is:

Say person A likes a capitalist society and enjoys democracy because they do have an opportunity to move on up and realize their dreams. They reap the rewards of their labors.

Person B is a slacker, maybe even an occasional non worker.

Person A is upset that their taxes go to support person B. Of course without a free society in which person B can choose to be less, person A likewise could not choose to excell. 

My question is that in having certain freedoms do we not accept certain limitations that are indirectly linked? Although we may choose to achieve more we have to preserve the right for others to disagree lest we all have zero choice such as in a socialist society.


Like I said before, it's really hard to express what I mean with this one.



I'll leave natural order out of it because chances are we all have quite different opinions on what exactly is natural such as Ernie mentioned with mans law vs. gods law etc.

I saw soylent green as a kid so don't have enough of a clear recollection to get references to it. It's mostly just a brief plot outline in my mind if that. My best guess is that advocating the plowing under of the slow, stupid and sick would require us to lose all that makes us civilized. I wouldn't consider that exactly progress. It also depends on the situation too, regular life vs. TEOTWAWKI. JMHO


----------



## Bigkat80 (Jan 16, 2007)

hintonlady said:


> Not sure how to put the idea in my mind to words, please bear with me. If it comes across wrong assume I didn't mean it that way. Just "thinking" out loud.........
> 
> Since a certain level of non workers will naturally be present lazy and accounted for *shouldn't those who choose to work to attain the American dream accept their presence as a sort of neccessary evil *that is a side effect of their preferred lifestyle. (preferred lifestyle being NON socialist)
> 
> gosh I hope that makes sense, not sure if I could spit it out any more or less coherently.:banana02:


That would be one solution and the one I think most have adopted as of late...another and the one i prefer is to let natural selection take place if they (the lazy and accounted for) are not rewarded in anyway by the state then realistically only 2 options will be left them and they are to either produce for themselves or die in either case that result would be acceptable to my libertarian mind....as I have stated many times on numerous post...I have nothing against any group of people that are pulling their weight (with the exception of *radical *muslims as I feel that the two terms do not reconcile nor are they compatible)... the dillema i face is this.... if we are heading to what many percieve as some sort of catastrohic event (choose one that suits you) and I make preparations it behooves me to not allow my work support those that did not or mine wont last as long as it could or will be necessary. That being said the thinking of many bright minds is that those woefully unprepared will be put amongst us as a burden by the nanny state that will no longer be able to care for them....I can not tolerate this line of reasoning because it does not protect my family...i do that....Hope that you see where my point is aiming if not agree with it( and perhaps you may) but I will assume based on the op you do not which is perfectly okay...:angel:


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

hintonlady said:


> why? Still hard for me to elaborate because it's only a half formed idea.
> 
> I guess another way to put it is:
> 
> ...


Look up SOylent Green on wikipedia, it would take2 minutes to read through the plot. SHould be a staple.

Sometimes we think to much and get FUBARed. Get all wadded up in the what if and lose our way in knowing/making a decision "how should we then live". The cure for that is to go sit in the forest, or the desert, or the ocean, SHUT UP and listen and watch.

(not that I'm actually telling you to shut up--it's good to wonder about things, but it's also good to know when it's getting silly)

(not that I'm saying you're silly)


----------



## tyusclan (Jan 1, 2005)

I did not read all 4 pages of posts, but I simply want to answer the original question that was asked.

I don't like socialism because I like freedom. Socialism limits freedom. The founders of this country risked their very lives for the _chance_ to be free. They knew if the effort was lost, they would be tortured and killed. Yet, in their minds the freedom was *the* most important thing. Freedom was much more important to them than "security".

Far too many people in our country today are willing to give up almost any freedom if they can feel "secure".


----------



## hintonlady (Apr 22, 2007)

wyld thang said:


> We do NOT have to accept the "limitation" of bearing the consequences of other's decisions. In a perfect world we are self responsible and each man chooses their path and deals with the consequences. Not saying there is no room for charity, nonono--that's the measure of enlightenment, but ENABLING, no freakin way, no how
> 
> *Charity, yes. Do you think we collectively would contribute enough charity or help in general voluntarily to help those who really NEED it without government taxation and distribution?*
> 
> ...


Yeah I tend to waaay over analyze stuff, not even sure why. Tends to make the mundane less boring. Ultimately no matter what magic fairy kingdom I can dream up or that we could even possibly brain storm as a group things will always be the same. People are as they are and as they always have been.

I'm just in the waiting room of existence taking a wacky journey between life and death. As I wait for my number to be called I like to ponder possibilities. It sure beats watching TV. :banana02:


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

I throw this into the convo

I copied this from Gary Snyder's book "The Practice of the Wild" it is written on the wall of the school in an Inupiaq village (far north/arctic native people). It's written centered, and it looks like a conifer--on purpose--as a visual symbol of the people's connection to the land. It's a list of values I always thought was pretty darn good and workable in the "real world"

humor
sharing
humility
hard work
spirituality
cooperation
family roles
avoid conflict
hunter success
domestic skills
love for children
respect for nature
respect for others
respect for elders
responsibility for tribe
knowledge of language
knowledge of family tree

(in other words lots of charity and no enabling. I kinda think the values of a couple milleniums old society is worth considering, even if they struggle in our modern world. At first glance one would probably think that's what socialism is all about...but spirituality, family roles, avoid conflict, responsibility and respect are not in the socialist's bag of tricks.)

OMG I just can't help this...Sarah Palin would dig that list btw


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

yes on charity, though some zombies will have to be dealt with

the babies at the bottom of Mount Olympus were sacrificed for good luck--we're there already

nothing wrong with animals--BAMBI and SMOKEY THE BEAR is the real problem


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

"My best guess is that advocating the plowing under of the slow, stupid and sick would require us to lose all that makes us civilized. I wouldn't consider that exactly progress."

Now you see the difference between progress and CHANGE.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

hintonlady said:


> Not sure how to put the idea in my mind to words, please bear with me. If it comes across wrong assume I didn't mean it that way. Just "thinking" out loud.........
> 
> Since a certain level of non workers will naturally be present lazy and accounted for shouldn't those who choose to work to attain the American dream accept their presence as a sort of neccessary evil that is a side effect of their preferred lifestyle. (preferred lifestyle being NON socialist)
> 
> gosh I hope that makes sense, not sure if I could spit it out any more or less coherently.:banana02:


They may have to accept the PRESENCE of those people as a "necessary evil", but that doesn't mean they have to accept the burden of supporting those people.:baby04:


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

I have friends in Australia and Canada, both are considered socialist by some folks. But in my opinion my friends are much more free than I am. Though part of it may be their total disregard for the countries laws they don't agree with.


----------



## hintonlady (Apr 22, 2007)

FourDeuce said:


> They may have to accept the PRESENCE of those people as a "necessary evil", but that doesn't mean they have to accept the burden of supporting those people.:baby04:


Oh my gosh that is so simple and actually makes sense. Leave it to me to over complicate a simple concept.

They have to accept others free will but they don't have to like paying out for the free ride. :doh: to each his own but if one chooses to slack they can also choose to starve. Therefore everyone else can choose to feel no sympathy.:goodjob: I get it now.

Dare I ask where social security fits into all of this compared to plain ole welfare?

Is it correct then that we have sort of had socialist type welfare programs for a long time now? Is there another way to describe it? Are the payouts we make considered part of a democracy, republic or whatever it is we are supposed to be? (since I am no longer sure what we are anymore)


Do socialists actually need welfare since everyone is sort of on the dole already?


Everytime I learn something it just reminds me of how much I still don't know.


----------



## sgl42 (Jan 20, 2004)

hintonlady said:


> Dare I ask where social security fits into all of this compared to plain ole welfare?
> 
> Is it correct then that we have sort of had socialist type welfare programs for a long time now? Is there another way to describe it? Are the payouts we make considered part of a democracy, republic or whatever it is we are supposed to be? (since I am no longer sure what we are anymore)


if social security was voluntary, would people participate? If it was voluntary, could it pay it's own way or would it go bankrupt? I would opt out if I had the chance. By my calculations I'll only get back about 1/2 of what I paid in, adjusting for very low bond return on investment over the life of the payments into the system. Even worse payback if I compare it to what I could get from the stock market over that time.

it is socialism because the first wave of beneficiaries paid nothing into the system. It was a way to make up for old people that lost their life savings in the bank failures of the 1930's. (Of course, if you were young and lost money -- tough. And if you were old and had squandered all your money, you get a bonus. ie, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.")

If you look at the party platform of the socialist party in the USA from the 1920s, every single one of their party platforms has been enacted, with the exception of universal health care. In 2000, about 46% of all healthcare spending was paid for by gov't (federal, state, and local) via medicare and medicaid and subsidies to medical schools, etc. As more people retire and go on medicare, that number will increase. When medicare changes the rules and policies, most insurance companies go along. So what the gov't doesn't control directly, they control indirectly via regulation, and via insurance companies following the gov't. So de facto, contrary to everyone's huffing and puffy that we're a capitalist country, we're a socialist country already. 

A few other odds and ends.

* I don't believe it's "charity" or compassion when you're spending someone else's money. Politicians are not charitable unless they're making contributions from thier *own* money, not the public purse. 

* A "Right" is a constraint on someone else's behavior, not an *obligation* for them to do something. Eg, your right to swing my fist ends where my nose begins. By this definition, healthcare imposes an obligation on others to do something, ie, pay for your services, and therefore cannot be a right. Note that "life, liberty, pursuit of happiness" doesn't mean others have to make you happy, only that you have the right to pursue happiness -- no guarantee you'll find it. Your right to life means that I can't take your life, it doesn't mean that I have to spend my time (and my life) to give you incredible amounts of last-minute expensive healthcare to keep you alive. I may *choose* to donate my time or money to improve your life or save your life, and since it's voluntary on my part, that is true charity and true compassion.

--sgl


----------



## hintonlady (Apr 22, 2007)

Okay, so I'm finally up to speed as to why people dislike socialist ideals. You can't legislate ethics in a free society. Thus charitable acts should be voluntary in order to be truly charitable vs. obligatory.

Even if I feel that charity is important, in a non socialist community others can and should be able to opt out.

I am sensing that we have many socialist programs that have been long in force. Due to that it does seem odd that some people are trying protest socialism in order to preserve a way of life we already have.......which essentially may be considered socialist but goes by another name?!?!?! Anyone else confused here?


I keep having light bulbs go off in the ole dome but I'm still confused on a few things. I doubt there is a clear answer because it seems like it is all subjective anyway.

Are we now, were we supposed to be and were we ever a true democracy?

Was what we are ever actually clearly defined? I've heard talk of facism, republics and so much more which leads me to believe we are a very complex fusion which defies explanation and labels.

With all the ambiguity it sort of makes moving forward very complicated. It's like a giant company that doesn't have a mission statement (that they follow anyway) and every few years everything that was decided gets turned upside down again, assuming any progress was made in the first place.


Oh bother, I should have given up while I was ahead. The more I understand the more I find not to like. That just makes more questions.........


----------



## Bigkat80 (Jan 16, 2007)

hintonlady said:


> Okay, so I'm finally up to speed as to why people dislike socialist ideals. You can't legislate ethics in a free society. Thus charitable acts should be voluntary in order to be truly charitable vs. obligatory.
> 
> Even if I feel that charity is important, in a non socialist community others can and should be able to opt out.
> 
> ...


Dont give up the seeking of understanding is never bad....With regards to the bolded portion... I think many of us recognize the socialist policies already in place and I think the biggest issue is the many more trying to be forced upon us it may just be a case of the straw that broke the camels back so to speak...I think collectively we are saying enough is enough....it is okay to be successful and it is not okay to be a burden....

Have a good Day


----------



## hintonlady (Apr 22, 2007)

Bigkat80 said:


> Dont give up the seeking of understanding is never bad....With regards to the bolded portion... I think many of us recognize the socialist policies already in place and I think the biggest issue is the many more trying to be forced upon us it may just be a case of the straw that broke the camels back so to speak...I think collectively we are saying enough is enough....it is okay to be successful and it is not okay to be a burden....
> 
> Have a good Day


*Official announcement*

(are you listening wyld? lol)

I'm thinking that my own granola, feel good, lets play nice tendencies are just my own life philosophy, have zero bearing in regard to socialism or it's relative merits/faults.

I believe in kindness but *I do NOT believe in socialism *as much as I can understand it. I certainly have a problem with capable yet non workers. I also have ideas of how my taxes would be best spent, certainly not as they have been for the most part. 

I think people should have freedoms, that is an inherent truth. I also however don't like portions of capitalism. Of course it motivates people but I see flaws in living to excess and a materially oriented society. 

I wouldn't want to impose my way of life on anyone, just as I would not want anothers ideas imposed upon me.
I would like the freedom to live as I choose as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.
I like charity, I loathe welfare.
I dislike taxes on services I do not use or at least agree with. I would much rather spend on schools, fine arts and sciences than military. 
I like the idea of consensus but know it's complexities make using it impractical.
I dislike excess taxation on things such as land we already own. Think taxing food, a basic need is sleazy and having income taxed along side taxing everything we buy or use is double taxing. Lower my pay and then get me for fees on utilities too?!?!?!?! Taxing on luxuries such as high end vehicles, jewelry, smokes, alcohol...heck even taxing road use and charging for education makes more sense to me than the system we have now.

So what label would I fit most closely besides a small tribal community?
Who am I anyway?


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Kindness has as little to do with socialism as a butterfly has to do with a rhinoceros. 

I notice when you speak of taxes you dislike taxes on services and things you do not buy or utilize. I contend that ALL taxes are bad and must be mitigated at the lowest level possible.

Government is a predator. It arose from the subjugation of peaceful people intent on nothing but sanctuary and commerce. I contend that government does not tax in order to provide services, but rather provides services in order to tax!

The basic nature of government is intrusive force. It can be nothing else. Notice how when people speak against the nationalization of private community functions, they don't particularly speak against the nationalization of _force_ as in law enforcement or military, though we could easily provide those things for ourselves as we do many other community projects. That's because a government, even a relatively free one such as how ours began, will very quickly move to nationalize those forces which can compel citizens. 

Socialism is force. Look at every country in the world where socialism has been tried and you will find loss of liberty and prosperity. You will find countries drowning in debt and overrun with tyranny. It is not logical to assume that all of those countries just "did it wrong". It is obvious that when you grant the power of force to any government, even with a good intent such as helping all citizens, then the force quickly corrupts and the government becomes a predatory entity. 

I think at this phase in your life you are too old to be believing in the fairy tale of socialism. What may work on a small scale, for a limited period of time, in a commune or a kibbutz, does not work when you apply the force of government and people are compelled to enter into such a contract and prevented from leaving.


----------



## Sam_Luna (Nov 16, 2008)

Ernie said:


> Correction.
> 
> Human beings with religion removed will always try to act in their own self interest.
> 
> The key to any successful enterprise with other people is having a common set of values and ideals to work from.


I agree with your second sentence but disagree completely with the first. A common set of values and ideals are not dependant upon religion to exist. I know many people that are not religious that are benevolent and act in the best interest of their community.

I like you, and would enjoy living next to you as others have said. I find your posts to be well though out, wise, and insightful. Lets not muddy up a great thread by making religious edicts.

Sam


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

You will find that _everyone_ is religious when you examine them carefully. 

For some their religion is secular humanity, for others Christianity, and for yet others Buddhism, Hinduism, or Islam. Some just follow an agreed upon set of guidelines which governs their behavior and may not call it a religion, but it serves the same purpose. It gives a moral foundation so that they may interact with others without causing harm or having harm done to them. 

Humans who don't follow any moral law, whether it comes from biblical scripture or some shared agreement, are nothing but animals. Probably less than animals, for even animals follow the common instinct within a species. A wolf acts like a wolf within its pack. 

Don't be fearful of religion, Sam. It's all around you. That some have used it as a tool for their own agendas is a huge problem, but you need to not be scared of the word itself. All religions boil down to basically two laws:

1. Do what you agreed to do.
2. Don't encroach upon others.

There. That wasn't so bad, was it? As far as a religion goes, that's pretty simplistic and would provide a pretty good starting ground for any society, wouldn't you think?


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

I'll even go so far as to add this second thought ...

Polycultural societies cannot survive UNLESS they follow those two basic laws. They will splinter and fracture along the lines they've set up within themselves as soon as one group feels its identity being threatened by another. 

So if you wish our current polycultural society to survive, there's nothing we can do BUT return as quickly as possible to those two natural laws and get rid of all political law as fast as possible.


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

Ernie said:


> Socialism is force. Look at every country in the world where socialism has been tried and you will find loss of liberty and prosperity. You will find countries drowning in debt and overrun with tyranny. It is not logical to assume that all of those countries just "did it wrong". It is obvious that when you grant the power of force to any government, even with a good intent such as helping all citizens, then the force quickly corrupts and the government becomes a predatory entity.


I do not really disagree with your statement but the irony of a socialist state (China) bankrolling much of the US government is hard to pass up.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

postroad said:


> I do not really disagree with your statement but the irony of a socialist state (China) bankrolling much of the US government is hard to pass up.


But China didn't do it much until they became more Capitalistic in their marketing. It may be the whole country as a whole, rather than an individual - but America gave it away.


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

AngieM2 said:


> But China didn't do it much until they became more Capitalistic in their marketing. It may be the whole country as a whole, rather than an individual - but America gave it away.


Thats why the "I do not really disagree"


----------



## Bigkat80 (Jan 16, 2007)

> Ernie said:
> 
> 
> > Kindness has as little to do with socialism as a butterfly has to do with a rhinoceros.
> ...


Perhaps the clearest and best post in the thread it sums it up in a nutshell...especially the Bolded part(which I bolded)....Great understanding and insight Ernie.....Thanks


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

HL, welcome to the dark side. 

I like your choice of words "I do not *believe* in socialism"


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

postroad said:


> I do not really disagree with your statement but the irony of a socialist state (China) bankrolling much of the US government is hard to pass up.


I have thought much on this, and here's my conclusion. 

When we disconnected money from any real wealth, be it precious metals or raw materials, we set in motion events that can't truly be predicted. China uses its vast labor pool as a resource and draws in raw materials from all over the world, assembling them into assorted junk in their factories. They sell it to us cheap and flimsy so that we'll need to continuously be buying their junk every couple of years. 

This creates a pseudo-wealth, which is in reality a mutual state of dependence. We send the raw materials, they assemble it, we buy it back. It's a wealth transfer mechanism which will cost us dearly once all of those raw materials are rotting in a landfill.

I believe China is taking that wealth from its citizens and corporate entities and is then forced to put it back into our failing economy to keep us afloat. It's an arrangement which doesn't help us and doesn't help them, as they could have been better served investing in their own infrastructure with those resources. Essentially they have fed a tiger which now keeps returning to their doorstep wanting more and more food. 

This leads me to ultimately predict a war with China. We can't pay them back what we owe and they will eventually give up on us. They may try to reclaim their debts in land and forcibly seize California and its strong agricultural base. When the money stops flowing back in from the United States, China won't just shut down all its factories, but would be better served retooling them for war. We are not in a position to retool anything, as even most of our military uniforms come from overseas. What weaponry is still made in America is almost cost-prohibitive to use in combat.

So to summarize ... a self-destructive relationship between two nation-states leads to the potential collapse of both of their economies. One nation with massive amounts of labor and factories retools for war and launches an invasion of the other, which has only a state of pseudo-liberty and no industrial capability remaining.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

And to additionally add ... China is not a socialist country, but rather a communist one in the truest sense of the word.

Capitalism - everyone builds a pyramid for themselves
Socialism - we should all have a pyramid
Communism - we must build one pyramid for the people
Fascism - everyone builds a pyramid for the state
anarcho-primitivism - why do we need a pyramid anyway?

The young woman working in a factory sweatshop in China has been forced there by economic circumstances set up by the government as surely as if they'd marched to her village and led her away at gunpoint.


----------



## Sam_Luna (Nov 16, 2008)

Ernie said:


> Don't be fearful of religion, Sam. It's all around you. That some have used it as a tool for their own agendas is a huge problem, but you need to not be scared of the word itself. All religions boil down to basically two laws:
> 
> 1. Do what you agreed to do.
> 2. Don't encroach upon others.
> ...


Based on the above quote, I agree and do not have an issue. I also agree with your two laws. 

Based on the wikipedia definition of religion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion I can see where youâre coming from. 

Itâs when overzealous followers of any religion start unwanted, and un-requested proselytizing that I begin to cry foul.


----------



## hintonlady (Apr 22, 2007)

"Owners of capital will stimulate the working class to buy more and more of expensive goods, houses and technology, pushing them to take more and more expensive credits, until their debt becomes unbearable. The unpaid debt will lead to bankruptcy of banks, which will have to be nationalized, and the State will have to take the road which will eventually lead to communism" 

Karl Marx, Das Kapital, 1867


----------



## Sam_Luna (Nov 16, 2008)

hintonlady said:


> "Owners of capital will stimulate the working class to buy more and more of expensive goods, houses and technology, pushing them to take more and more expensive credits, until their debt becomes unbearable. The unpaid debt will lead to bankruptcy of banks, which will have to be nationalized, and the State will have to take the road which will eventually lead to communism"
> 
> Karl Marx, Das Kapital, 1867


That is bloody scary!

Sam


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

hintonlady said:


> "Owners of capital will stimulate the working class to buy more and more of expensive goods, houses and technology, pushing them to take more and more expensive credits, until their debt becomes unbearable. *The unpaid debt will lead to bankruptcy of banks, which will have to be nationalized*, and the State will have to take the road which will eventually lead to communism"
> 
> Karl Marx, Das Kapital, 1867


What is scary is that we can't be grownups and rein ourselves in BEFORE we get to collapse. Karl Marx's solution is NOT inevitable. It's a "solution" for a nation of selfish, spoiled CHILDREN.


----------



## diane (May 4, 2002)

wyld thang said:


> What is scary is that we can't be grownups and rein ourselves in BEFORE we get to collapse. Karl Marx's solution is NOT inevitable. It's a "solution" for a nation of selfish, spoiled CHILDREN.


I think the collapse is in progress and it is too late. :grump:


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

I think so too.

One of the issues is that our nation will fall differently than others. Russia had a relatively wealthy society under the czars when it fell to communism. We've already squandered most of our wealth. I'm not sure where we'll go from here.

There are two basic models of revolution ... the American revolution and the French revolution.

The American revolution promoted liberty and prosperty. Its symbol was the liberty bell and it attracted thousands of immigrants from all over the world, each just wanting to be free and make a living.

The French revolution was steeped in bloodshed and set the stage for the Napoleonic empire. Its symbol was the guillotine. 

I believe that we are currently undergoing a coup d'etat in the United States today. Socialist forces have taken over our government through various means, some legal and some not. Like it or not, we are going to go through a period of socialism, then possibly communism or fascism, and then there will be another revolution. Upon which model will this next revolution be based, the American or the French?


----------



## hintonlady (Apr 22, 2007)

I'm sensing French. People are already pretty unhappy. Sure many are spoiled and made mistakes. 

The news spins this housing bubble as the fault of greedy house flippers and interest/budget ingorant home buyers. What they don't talk about is the every day Joe who had a practical mortgage, a regular life and is/did lose it all because of economy related layoffs. Plenty of people are desperate and did nothing wrong but to get unlucky and be employed with the wrong company.

These are desperate people getting closer and closer, if not past the point of having nothing left to lose and a whole lot of anger. Due to that I vote for French style revolution. It is going to build and build and build because so many have had comfortable lives. By the time they eventually break down and hit rock bottom they will be wild eyed beasts, not revolutionaries with high ideals.

Can't say I would be eager to have land siezed for the greater good. However, a life of planting potatoes with my commrades isn't so far a depature from what I do now already. Only difference is I will have to listen to fancy folks whine about how they are over qualified for the labor. They can whine down wind from me all they want. If they stop working I will punch them in their throat come supper time. KWIM?


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

and what did the French accomplish with their revolution?


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

A Republic, if they could keep it. Apparently they couldn't.


----------



## GingerN (Apr 24, 2007)

Ernie said:


> I think the country that was established by our founding fathers came pretty close, though many of them felt they missed the mark greatly. Patrick Henry just about picked up a rifle and started a second revolution in 1787. It was a country based on natural law and not political law, which had a large degree of built in protections for individual liberty.
> 
> If you want to see where we sort of fell apart, read _The Federalist Papers_ and then contrast them with _The Anti-Federalist Papers_. My sympathies lie with Patrick Henry and the Anti-Federalists.
> 
> ...



Can I just tell you that I love you????:clap::clap: This is probably the simplest, but most profoundly truthful statement I have read in a long time


****
*****Once you concede that government has any right at all to interfere in your personal liberty, then you've given up ALL personal liberty. ******. 


:cowboy::cowboy:


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

even Putin is saying sociallism sucks...


----------



## GingerN (Apr 24, 2007)

hintonlady said:


> "Owners of capital will stimulate the working class to buy more and more of expensive goods, houses and technology, pushing them to take more and more expensive credits, until their debt becomes unbearable. The unpaid debt will lead to bankruptcy of banks, which will have to be nationalized, and the State will have to take the road which will eventually lead to communism"
> 
> Karl Marx, Das Kapital, 1867


WELL S***ugar H***oney I***ced T**ea!!!! Even a blind squirrel will find a nut once in a while.
Sam, I am with you-that is scary stuff.


----------



## hintonlady (Apr 22, 2007)

wyld thang said:


> and what did the French accomplish with their revolution?


Wasn't advocating it. Just personal opinion/observations.

I would rather not see anything decline, collapse and get that brutal.

As for accomplishments I would think it depends on when you are looking back from, now or 50 years from now..............


edited to add: I think you misunderstood what my intent was when I said vote for French. I meant it as in that is what I suspected was most likely, not that I would jump on some blood bath band wagon.


----------



## Joyfullyplain (Jun 18, 2008)

Bigkat80 said:


> The problem with Socialism is that it is contrary to the american Dream. Socialism as a form of government neither rewards good production or punishes bad production. In many modern examples of socialism while not in the pure form failure come to mind. Where-ever you have people involved with an easy way out they will take it. The thing about the american dream is everyone can pursue it...not every one will achieve it but they can pursue it. Is the playing field level Perhaps not in past history but I see it changing every day. The constitution gives us a right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness but those can be given away should we choose to break laws or covenants. The pursauit of happiness is what sparks most of us to succeed in given(chosen) professions, without it I doubt very seriously if anyone on here would go to work for no check..we need the check to fund the pursuit...In many ways we are not a democracy but rather a collection of republic states and citizens all striving to acheive. When we strive to be mediocre or just the same or average we have failed before we started...that is the biggest problem with social ism even in HL's example of communial living note that chores were age specific and one didnt seem to have the ability to move on to chores that they could do prior to reaching the age accepted by the group in short that means over achievers would be stymied from a faster pace opf developement. Kinda jumbled thoughts my blood sugar is high but the jist is accurate if not agreeable to the grammar police and spelling gurus, as always I hope my transgressions against the aforementioned will be forgiven.....Will :icecream::icecream:


AMEN!

The problem in this country is the laziness of the up and coming generation (the 18+ year olds), who feel they are *entitled* to whatever they want and don't have to work for it. These are the type of people who welcome socialism. It's like a slap in the face for our parents and grandparents who worked very hard to make life better for their children. Socialism rewards laziness and mediocrity. As you can probably surmise, I do not have a high opinion of socialism (or any form of government in which the people lose their rights or gov't gets involved in the private sector) so I am trying hard to keep my rants civil. :soap:

~JoyfullyPlain

Yes Glenn, We Surround Them!

I'll keep my freedom, my guns, my religion and my money. YOU keep the change!


----------



## Joyfullyplain (Jun 18, 2008)

hintonlady said:


> I think people should have freedoms, that is an inherent truth. I also however don't like portions of capitalism. Of course it motivates people but I see flaws in living to excess and a materially oriented society.


My thought on this is that it is not a problem inherent of capitalism but rather a fault of human nature. Most people will not stop accumulating wealth because of greed. People value things and money over God, family, friends, etc. I think that is the problem. Of course not everyone is like that, thank goodness. 

~JoyfullyPlain

Yes Glenn, We Surround Them!

I'll keep my freedom, my guns, my religion and my money. YOU keep the change!


----------



## ||Downhome|| (Jan 12, 2009)

theres so much to say on this issue where to start? with age comes wisdom! well Im not that old, I am older than my years. when you go to the grocery store and you know for a fact that you only picked up 10 dollars worth of product but the bill says 39.95 do you 
let it slide ? we as a country have been sold a short bill of goods for a long time. everytime you turn around they try to sell you something else, then start a fight between you and your nieghbor! they cant start a fight between you and your family they already destroyed that. but its in your better interest to go along with the program no waves maybe some benifits something anything right oh well what do i care im good my needs are met. united we stand -divided we fall ! when your nieghbor suffers you suffer ! when your countryman is at arms you are at arms! people dont get it ! when everyone wakes up and the coffees done call me I am ready for a cup. put the blame where it belongs big buisness and our elected officials then lets talk about how to fix it.
cut the bs out of the legal system. restore every god given right and seek ways to keep the leechs from draining the country of its lifes blood! excuse any spelling im tired long haul but felt i should comment thanks


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

For those who don't want to slog through the whole book, Atlas Shrugged, to read what she thought about socialism, here's my take on what she wrote.
The slogan, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" doesn't sound that bad when you're reading it on paper and in theory, but when it comes time to put it into practice, you run in to that bothersome human factor, which influences everything humans do.
Deciding and defining what a person's "abilities" are and what his "needs" are gets a bit tough when you factor in human factors like the prejudices of the people in power. Being friends with the person in charge tends to help when they're deciding who needs what(at least it helps their friends  )


----------



## Chuck R. (Apr 24, 2008)

Here's another good quote on Socialism.

From Dr. Adrian Rogers:



> You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
> When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Bravo, Doctor Rogers!


----------



## pickapeppa (Jan 1, 2005)

I haven't chimed into this thread as yet due to having been otherwise occupied with practical matters, and maybe that's a good thing.

It seems to me that both sides have equally valid points, and an extreme of one over the other is a ticket to national failure. But there can be a balance of both that brings more prosperity and stability nationally. I'm one of those odd people who tends to look at regulated capitalism and true free markets (which we don't have today, and it's not all on the shoulders of the government) as a good thing if kept from growing too quickly - as it has over the last decade. 

Capitalism can't be allowed to run amok, or else it will bankrupt the country as easily as extreme socialism. As evidenced by our current situation.

Socialism isn't the answer, but not having some built in safety nets makes a country weaker and less stable when hard times come knocking. 

Since the 80s and 90s, free market capitalism has been the mantra of the right, and yet at the same time they wanted it without over sight, without checks and balances and they got what they wanted and it crashed.

It's the natural result of putting the addicted gamblers in charge of the casino. They'll keep gaming and playing until the house runs out of money.

Would any sane bar owner allow a drunk in charge of his business? That's what's happened to our capitalist system.

I've also noticed that since the 80s (my only point of reference having entered the workforce at that time), our system of capitalism has done more to stifle innovation than to promote it. There are a lot of folks out there with degrees in science, and no place to work. 

We have the most educated workforce on the planet, yet due to all the anti-competitive laws placed on the books at the behest of the large corporations in addition to the tendency to debt straddle the population keeping them in wage slavery for a lifetime, there is very little opportunity for folks who've paid a lot of money to learn a respectable profession to get a small business off the ground. Once they do, the bigger corps snap them up and buy them out, reduce the workforce and drive down wages.

This country needs to focus more on small business, science and technology, people over capitalist crooks, crooked politicians and celebrities, and creating sustainable communities as opposed to overly dependent, over-sized large cities. 

The efficiencies and technologies that once built this country are no longer effective in the climate we have today. We're out dated and have grown too fast for reality to keep up with the changes. This current recession is a natural part of that cycle and gives us time to re-evaluate our direction, principles, and update our nation and lifestyles for the next phase.

That's my optimistic outlook for the day. :happy:


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

You'll have to explain how capitalism can possibly "run amok" and how it bankrupted the country.

We haven't had a free market since industrialization began. The government has heavily subsidized various industries and fixed prices on others. There's been so much manipulation in the system that it's not even close to an unrestrained economy such as we had from about 1770-1820, the most prosperous boomtime our country has known.

Then you have the unhooking of our currency from a gold and silver standard. Do you realize that virtually none of the poor fiscal policies would be possible if our currency was backed by precious metals? 

I'd like you to read the following book:

"Whatever Happened to Penny-Candy" by a man named Adler. I guarantee it will change your outlook on economics.


----------



## pickapeppa (Jan 1, 2005)

Well, there is the loosening of regulations on credit card companies allowing higher interest rates and other changes on a whim, making what used to be illegal usury legal.

There is the deregulation that allowed investment banks to become commercial banks to become hedge funds all intermingled under one roof. Big mistake.

There was allowing the federal reserve to control the money supply and issue oodles of government bonds creating the housing bubble.

There was the lack of educational and licensing standards in mortgage brokerage houses allowing uneducated folks to hand out mortgages like candy at Halloween unaware of the ethical reasons for doing so.

There was the lack of oversight from the SEC of regulations still in place to investigate fraud and abuse.

There was the mistaken belief by free market fundamentalists in charge of policy that the people in charge of the companies would do what was best for their shareholders. They are now aware of the folly of those beliefs and have publicly admitted to this fact.

There was the lobbying efforts on the part of private business (with enormous sums of cash to throw away, apparently) to influence Congress to change laws in their favor and against ours as a working people.

There was the development of 'safe' investments for all those working baby boomers to give up part of their earnings into the stock market, locked until retirement age, which all of a sudden disappeared right before they retired. Fancy that.

All of the above combined together have consequences that bankrupted the country. If we hadn't had all of these complicated ponzi schemes running at the same time, competing for everyone's money, we'd be in a much better position today.

Let's face it, both government AND big biz need watched. Neither one is responsible or altruistic in nature. They never were, and never will be. Power hungry people crave power, get in positions of power, and abuse the power. They need replaced as often as four year old boys change underwear.


----------



## diane (May 4, 2002)

I would prefer a government that only is responsible for the military at the national level. Everything else is controlled by the people that live in the communities. We have allowed the feds to control everything and subsidize that which lobbys with the most money. My neighbor has been able to buy up every little farm that comes up, not because he is all that great a farmer, but because he has known how to play the game and get the huge subsidy checks. 

None of these crooks could have made a dime if people had not been wanting so badly to believe something that was too good to be true or been too ---- lazy to put in a hard day's work. The stock market, the whole banking system, etc. etc. etc. all based on gambling IMHO.
Greed, greed and more greed. People unwilling to live within their means and put in a fair day's labor for a fair day's pay.

I say let the whole house of cards fall and get back to some sort of reasonable living.


----------



## pickapeppa (Jan 1, 2005)

diane said:


> I would prefer a government that only is responsible for the military at the national level. Everything else is controlled by the people that live in the communities. We have allowed the feds to control everything and subsidize that which lobbys with the most money. My neighbor has been able to buy up every little farm that comes up, not because he is all that great a farmer, but because he has known how to play the game and get the huge subsidy checks.
> 
> None of these crooks could have made a dime if people had not been wanting so badly to believe something that was too good to be true or been too ---- lazy to put in a hard day's work. The stock market, the whole banking system, etc. etc. etc. all based on gambling IMHO.
> Greed, greed and more greed. People unwilling to live within their means and put in a fair day's labor for a fair day's pay.
> ...


I'm so on that page. Unfortunately, it's not going to happen that way, nor would it be wise to let it happen that way. We'd be going the way of Iceland by now if it had.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

Joyfullyplain said:


> AMEN!
> 
> The problem in this country is the laziness of the up and coming generation (the 18+ year olds), who feel they are *entitled* to whatever they want and don't have to work for it. These are the type of people who welcome socialism. It's like a slap in the face for our parents and grandparents who worked very hard to make life better for their children. Socialism rewards laziness and mediocrity. As you can probably surmise, I do not have a high opinion of socialism (or any form of government in which the people lose their rights or gov't gets involved in the private sector) so I am trying hard to keep my rants civil. :soap:
> 
> ...


yeah, but...

there are MANYMANY fine young men and women...most of them are already on duty


----------



## hintonlady (Apr 22, 2007)

News just in, had an ephiphany. I HATE HATE HATE socialism.:grit:

It turns out I was assuming that people who are against social services are preoccupied with material posessions, maybe in some way unwilling to live simply. I couldn't have been more wrong. It isn't about giving up a yacht so you can feed a village of hungry people. It is a much more complicated moral and ethical contest in fairness.

Below is a post I made in CF which illustrates a very painful emergence into my new political "philosophy". (work in progress btw, lol)

http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/showthread.php?p=3648256#post3648256


----------



## pickapeppa (Jan 1, 2005)

Too strange, I had a similar epiphany today, not for the same reasons but more like a light bulb came on out of nowhere. I think I'm starting to understand why some people get so angry about being taxed to pay for things they don't agree with. I've never understood why people get angry over being taxed to help someone else through a rough time - despite the cheater issue which I don't consider that big of a deal - it happens. But I think I'm starting to get it. I may start agreeing in time, but it's going to take a while.

And yes, if there's more money in the system to pay for things, the higher the prices are going to get.

On another topic similarly related, I'm wondering how much of a backlash Big Ag is going to give when Obama cuts their subsidies.


----------



## Joyfullyplain (Jun 18, 2008)

wyld thang said:


> yeah, but...
> 
> there are MANYMANY fine young men and women...most of them are already on duty


Wyld thang;

I'm trying to figure out what you meant in your post. Perhaps it is due to being awake for 18+ hours and wearing myself out at work (mentally) today, I just don't understand what you meant. :stars: I apologize for my ignorance. Would you please elaborate? Thank you. It stinks to be brain dead...:shrug:

~JoyfullyPlain
Yes Glenn, We Surround Them!

I'll keep my freedom, my guns, my religion and my money. YOU keep the change!


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

hi Joy, just saying, there are a lot of fine young people in the military "on duty"

and sure there are a lot of snotty brats out there, but I usually find that consistant discipline, real work and genuine friendship works wonders(hmmm, that sounds like Cesar Milan! so what, it works!)


----------



## basicposter (Nov 27, 2008)

pickapeppa said:


> Well, there is the loosening of regulations on credit card companies allowing higher interest rates and other changes on a whim, making what used to be illegal usury legal.
> 
> There is the deregulation that allowed investment banks to become commercial banks to become hedge funds all intermingled under one roof. Big mistake.
> 
> ...


Walks like a Fascist, quacks like a Fascist..........


----------



## hintonlady (Apr 22, 2007)

pickapeppa said:


> On another topic similarly related, I'm wondering how much of a backlash Big Ag is going to give when Obama cuts their subsidies.



Such a complicated topic, honestly:hand:

I for one will be celebrating as if my life depended on it. The farm programs have been needing change for a long time. At least you think that way as a mid sized producer who has to fight tooth and nail to survive. Forget about growing to a living wage due to insanely and artificially controlled market prices, chemical prices that seem to follow hand in hand and land rents that are based on idiotic "rules" that resemble the start of the housing bubble.

If I were a mega farmer who buys new equipment every year for the sheer depreciation and glory, spend my winters in Florida, grab up every acre I can regardless of it's ability to profit............plus *know how to work the system to get farm payments enough to overshadow a lottery jackpot*....then I may be purdy darned chapped.


The backlash will be huge depending on who you are. Then small time, loserville farmers like me who operate on cash (not credit like most) will gleefully swoop down like vultures and pick up land and a bigger operation after the ensuing farm bubble bursts.:rock:

It's coming folks, this I promise to be true. Regardless of the .gov new plan. Farm ground value went up at ridiculous rates based on housing land value. For a long time farm ground was selling at a premium because of incoming subdivisions. Now that has stopped and the remaining values have a very thin profit margin. Removing farmer welfare would be a blessing for me and a death sentence to others. Either way it's coming though..........just like the 80's.


----------



## pickapeppa (Jan 1, 2005)

:buds:

Farm subsidies really are a double edged sword. But in the end when they're removed, we'll finally see the real costs of food production. We'll be paying for it at the check out instead of on April 15. It's downright scary to think of what the true cost of food should have been all this time.

And I'm not familiar with your location in IL, but around here, there are already two large tracts of land worth millions, purchased to cash in on the development boom that are defaulting.

I agree, that crash is coming. It has been predicted as early as last year in a congressional hearing. Hold on to your cash and be ready.


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

pickapeppa said:


> On another topic similarly related, I'm wondering how much of a backlash Big Ag is going to give when Obama cuts their subsidies.


Personally, I think slashing all Ag benefits would be a blessing in the long run, for farmers and America. Let 50 million or so Americans starve, because Big Ag collapses, and then the American People that survived, would have a deeper appreciation for farming. Big Ag feeds the excess human population. Small Ag feeds a single family and a handful of others.

If every human had to get intimitately acquainted with soil and seeds, and grow at least some of their own, the country would be better off.

Expensive food would in the long run be good for Ag, and raise American's food expenditures to more what a third world country human spends for sustenance (and what America spent a 100 years ago).

We can live without stock brokers. Can't last long without stock drovers.

[so, we do agree!]


----------



## hintonlady (Apr 22, 2007)

pickapeppa said:


> :buds:
> 
> Farm subsidies really are a double edged sword. But in the end when they're removed, we'll finally see the real costs of food production.
> 
> ...


Funny, I mentioned it to DH around then. He thought I was being a silly girl and being over creative with my imagination. now all of the sudden he is realizing that I am right. 

We have a series of crashes coming, the mortgage deal was just the tip of the ice berg.


----------



## pickapeppa (Jan 1, 2005)

Not only that Tex, but if the cost of food goes up in any measurable way (I wouldn't be surprised to see prices double or even triple once subsidies are removed), it's likely more and more will start growing their own to better economize.

I just wonder if we'll be importing more grain from third world countries, as farm subsidies are the only way we've managed to be exporters who out compete third world labor.

I also wonder if we'll be seeing big ag the next industry moving overseas. Think of the land price bottoming we'd see if that happened.

I don't necessarily agree people here would starve if ag subsidies were discontinued. It seems more likely to create a major shift in the import/export balance until we're on a level playing field with the rest of the ag producers across the world.


----------



## pickapeppa (Jan 1, 2005)

hintonlady said:


> Funny, I mentioned it to DH around then. He thought I was being a silly girl and being over creative with my imagination. now all of the sudden he is realizing that I am right.
> 
> We have a series of crashes coming, the mortgage deal was just the tip of the ice berg.


Mine thought I was being overly imaginative as well. He's coming around now though.


----------



## hintonlady (Apr 22, 2007)

pickapeppa said:


> Not only that Tex, but if the cost of food goes up in any measurable way (I wouldn't be surprised to see prices double or even triple once subsidies are removed), it's likely more and more will start growing their own to better economize.
> 
> *We are owned serfs by the payment system. We HATE HATE HATE the farm program. The problem is we are practically bullied into it by policy and the inflated costs to farm pigeon hole us into a situation where we have zero control and cannot live without it.
> 
> ...


Land bottoming out would be a great thing for homesteaders, not so great thing for the average consumer who depends on agriculture biz.


----------



## pickapeppa (Jan 1, 2005)

But if the decline in subsidies happens in an environment without any other regulatory change in the market place, does it make sense prices would go up?

I have been blissfully ignorant of all the other difficulties you describe. But it's not often someone mentions those things. I think traditionally, farmers aren't the type to whine and complain.


----------



## hintonlady (Apr 22, 2007)

pickapeppa said:


> But if the decline in subsidies happens in an environment without any other regulatory change in the market place, does it make sense prices would go up?
> 
> *It all depends on so many interconnected and yet still independant factors. As long as certain mega coorps have a strangle hold on certain markets and control basic rights like outlawing keeping seed back (an ages old tradition) the farmers would simply not have the money to plant as much.
> 
> ...


I absolutely am one to whine and complain.:rock: There are some basic reasons why it isn't public knowledge.

*Complaceny and being beaten into submission. Farmers know they are trapped and have no say. They are a salty bunch who just keep on living one season after another. To go against the grain and opt out of the game as it is, no matter how unsavory has consequences. For instance if a small producer tells the usda where to put their paltry hand out they are not eligible for ANY help for a long time and getting help again is near impossible. So, if a major disaster strikes and destroys every bit of a crop you get none of the extra disaster help because you told them to shove some silly couple grand every year out of pride. Then you are out of business the instant an act of God seeks you out. It's about fear.

*If you don't keep on keepin on another eager up and comer will gladly rent the ground you pay bills with right out from under you. There are lines several bodies thick of young suitors who court older near retirement land owners/farmers. It's really sick........many are chosen because they have brand new equipment of a certain brand that makes the retiree feel big to watch roll in his field. Then retiree number two who has lower yield ground down the road expects the same rent as the first guy even though it runs his farm in the red. The payments make up for ridiculous rents. Lots of guys run ground that goes into the negative because payments cover them to a degree. Then they can boast having several 1000 acres even though the money doesn't come from sales but .gov payments. The beauty of being a mega farmer is you play the system for a paycheck either way. There is no incentive for hard work and honest prices. This creates a BAD cycle.

*The whole payment process is very complex and many guys just ignore it since it is just the way it is. The usda is actually set up to hand hold and help/enable some of these guys to navigate loop holes, policies and what nots in order to maximize their profits from .gov. (justifies usda existence and keeps them in a job so it's in a usda workers best interests to help guys squeeze the system) 

Some farmers wouldn't make a red cent if it weren't for the way they gamble payments vs. crop prices and loan deficiency payments. There is a myriad of payment programs that can be balanced delicately to actually pay you more for producing less due to market fluctuations. Plus, from .gov it is a guaranteed payment instead of worrying about the futures markets. You basically lock in at one price and no matter what .gov assures you a certain profit, they make up the difference if the market changes.

*Farmers can't agree on spit. The NFO tried to get guys to join forces in order to assert their wishes (think around the 80's) to control their own market. Fell apart because there were constantly line jumpers, early sellers and basic cave ins at the last minute. Lots of double talk and broken promises. It was a mess. What could have been leveraging for control turned into each man for himself.


I honestly had no idea about any of this stuff. Found it dull as can be when my sweet DH would foam at the mouth about it. Took me a good year of serious study to understand it all. The more I learn the more furious it makes me. This farm payment program is the epitomy of welfare moochers getting very fat checks.

As hard as it is for me to understand imagine average city born and bred congressman trying to make heads or tails of it, especially when the mega companies are whispering in their ears like the devil. I promis you that no one in Washington has ever heard the skinny from someone who knows better on the other side. Thick wool over the eyes is prevalent.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

NFO was in the 60's. Farmers will never get a fair price, at least for long, because of the highly perishable nature of their product. That and the society's perception of farmers and farming is the downfall of the family farm.


----------



## hintonlady (Apr 22, 2007)

bowdonkey said:


> NFO was in the 60's. Farmers will never get a fair price, at least for long, because of the highly perishable nature of their product. That and the society's perception of farmers and farming is the downfall of the family farm.



My bad, I get inundated with a dizzying array of current events and history while sitting at a table with DH and his gramps. It is hard to keep up with, I'm learning every day.

I still have to wonder how a season of grain bins staying filled instead of sold would affect price..............

As far as perceptions, I agree. So many see farmers as uneducated hay seeds with dirty hands and a piece of straw between their teeth. The more we move toward mega farms the closer we become to losing farm bred kids who have ages old traditions passed down to them. More and more farms depend on execs. with nothing more than book learning to make decisions.

Nature doesn't always go like text book scenarios. Having semi skilled hired hands instead of a true, love the ground he is on farmer is dangerous. I would never try to do brain surgery by watching a video about it and reading some articles. Same goes for it being stupid to base a large populations food source of a farm run by a guy who never had the grit of blowing soil in his teeth. KWIM?


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

The date is irrevelant, but you were right on regarding the reasons for NFO failing. Most farmers being in debt didn't help matters either. Even with the hidden cost of subsidies this nation has enjoyed CHEAP food. I hope the party is over.


----------

