ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

The Conservative/Libertarian appreciation thread

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this Mar. 23 2013, 10:20 pm

Secondly, Capital "S" Socialism is a a phase in transition to Communism. We've never experienced it here.


This is incorrect. There are more Socialist aspects to our government than many realize.


Compare the ten points of the Communist Manifesto and some current American laws and regulations. Its interesting food for thought.


Socialism sounds really good, and single payer systems sound really good too, but they don't work over the long term, because there is no check to prevent waste, fraud and abuse.


 

T'Paul

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 75

Report this Mar. 23 2013, 10:44 pm

[quote]


Secondly, Capital "S" Socialism is a a phase in transition to Communism. We've never experienced it here.


This is incorrect. There are more Socialist aspects to our government than many realize.


Compare the ten points of the Communist Manifesto and some current American laws and regulations. Its interesting food for thought.


Socialism sounds really good, and single payer systems sound really good too, but they don't work over the long term, because there is no check to prevent waste, fraud and abuse.


 


[/quote]


Capitalism as we know it has never existed without social programs of some sort, and such predate communism altogether.


Likewise, you can find capitalist aspects in most of the Marxist-Leninist societies.


So, of course you can make some comparisons between the two. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about what socialism actually is.


Socialism, in the Leninist, Stalinist, or even Trotskyist stlyes, do not sound really good. At least not to me.


The main problem with them asit relates to this conversation is that they are one-party systems. Any time you have a one-party system there isn't enough oversight. However, that problem is shared with one-party right-wing regimes. It's not a problem exclusive to Socialism.


Moreover, there are democratic socialists who don't believe in a one-party system. There are other, emergent systems, like anarcho-syndicalism, which falls under libertarian socialism, a type of anarchism in which there is no actual Socialist phase. They have just as much oversight or more.

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this Mar. 23 2013, 10:50 pm

 


Fair enough


A friend once pointed out the similarities between the Manifesto, which uses Socialism as a stepping stone to Communism, and current American laws and policy. Interesting stuff, which is why I posted the link.


I don't mind social programs, as long as they are not the only program. There needs to be competition for there to be checks and balances in a system and for the market to work.

T'Paul

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 75

Report this Mar. 23 2013, 11:12 pm

Quote: fireproof78 @ Mar. 23 2013, 10:50 pm

>

>Fair enough

>A friend once pointed out the similarities between the Manifesto, which uses Socialism as a stepping stone to Communism, and current American laws and policy. Interesting stuff, which is why I posted the link.

>I don't mind social programs, as long as they are not the only program. There needs to be competition for there to be checks and balances in a system and for the market to work.

>


Fair enough! I like people who are willing to cooperate.


As for the link: Just go one time to an actual Socialist website and read how much more they tend to despise Democrats, America's supposed left, than do Republicans. Remember, it was Truman who started the Cold War. And how many times did Kennedy try to assassinate Castro? The day Kennedy was assassinated, in fact he launched an assassination attempt against Castro. JFK's brother was one of the most vocal McCarthyists. He put Hoffa on trial over political views. Or how about Johnson starting the war in Vietnam? Socialists despise Democrats. If you want to actually read what the Socialist groups who would like to be the vanguard parties in a revolution in the United States, have in mind, all you have to do is go to their websites, see what they write and do the critical thinking.

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Mar. 24 2013, 7:35 am

Now, I have the feeling that you will again bring up Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus, martial law and other things. Ok, that starts towards dictatorship, so you probably have a point. Like I said, I am still reading so I haven't made up my mind except to say, the Civil War was a big mess with two sides acting superior and engaging each other in destructive means to prove their point. If the South was so right, there was no need to attack Fort Sumter.


I was simply curious as what one had to do to be considered a dictator, as if violating the Constitution wasn't enough of a merit. And as I have said before, with the exception of Grover Cleveland, I don't hold the Presidents, who followed Lincoln, with any high regard. In fact, there were quite a few Presidents before Lincoln that were shotty too.


I'm going to disagree with you on Fort Sumter. Lincoln didn't need to resupply the Fort, but his insistence forced the conflict. South Carolina was defending herself against a foreign invader at that point. Had South Carolina permitted Fort Sumter to be supplied, South Carolina's State Sovereignty would've been in question and Secession would have no merit. Imagine this scenario:  China, using the United Nations compact, places a military base on American soil. The U.S. decides to leave the United Nations and deny China a military base. China insists, but the U.S., as her own sovereignty, gives warning otherwise. Is the U.S. to permit China the military base to avoid war at the cost of U.S. sovereignty? Or does the U.S. have the right to defend herself against invasion?


Fort Sumter was Public Property, funded by the taxation of South Carolina. When South Carolina withdrew her consent and seceded, the public property devolved to State property. The Federal Government had no claim to it at that point, as South Carolina was not going to pay taxes to the Federal Government for its maintainence and the land was granted to the Federal Government on condition of being part of the Union.


I find the notion of public property ironic. In the private sector, a borrower pays the owner for use of the owner's property. But in the government sector, it is the owner (private citizen via the State) that pays the borrower (the Central Authority) for use of said property. This perverted relationship shows that Government is not a producer, but rather a parasite. 

T'Paul

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 75

Report this Mar. 24 2013, 8:47 am

As long as capital exists, government will exist, whether officially, or unofficially in form of unreachable private tyrannies. Private property, which differs from personal property, is a form of theft. Private property is inconsistant with the basic idea of natural rights. For example, I have the right to do whatever I want unless it infringes on someone else's rights, and you have the right to do what you want unless it infringes on someone else's rights. However, if I own something privately,something we all have an equal right to own, natural resources for example, that infringes on your right to own such. You can't own it if I don't let you.


That systems sets up an unnatural system of hierarchy. Perhaps someone worked hard at the start of the society, built capital through honest practices, acquired private ownership of natural resources, but as a result of that private ownership, generations down the line, for the majority of society, no matter how hard they work or how honest they are in their dealings, they can never achieve the same amount of success because the really important resources are already owned, passed down from mother and father to son or daughter, until finally success too often means landing a job doing somebody else's paperwork. That illustration is the reason why there is less social mobility now in the United States than there are in more socially democratic nations. But it should be noted that natural resources were largely not acquired through hard work and honest means in the United States.


A far more sensible arrangement is the one where you get rid of the federal and state governments, along with capital, the employer-employee relationship and all its corruption, and have direct worker ownership over the means of production in form of anarchistic cooperatives. That's what real anarchism is. That's real libertarianism.


As for the Constitution, it was designed to be changed, albeit not very easily. We can say without a doubt that what is more commonly called libertarianism in America, and its idea that the state's rights are supposed to outweigh the reach of the federal government, has been defeated several times in the courts. We can also say that no new evidence, no additional support for their case has been presented in this thread. It's all been heard before. So for the time being the "libertarian" view has been found unconstitutional. Moreover, it has shown itself to be a far more oppressive system than what we already have.


As for what a dictator is, it's someone who has total control. Usually they are installed by force, but sometimes they come to power by fairly democratic means. For example, Pinochet, a fascist dictator, was installed by coup, whereas the dictator Hitler, another fascist, came to power by referendum. Some dictators can be somewhat benevolent, as is the case with the Castro or the bank dictatorship in the United States. Albeit, when the Castros came to power, they generally improved conditions...not sure the native peoples of the United States can say the same of what we have here.


 

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Mar. 24 2013, 10:03 am

1.) On "free market" capitalism... I concur that America has not employed the system perfectly. The U.S. has been constantly plagued with central banking and its fractional reserve policies that create multiple and fallacious claims on a single deposit. This is the fault of all parties: the bankers for engaging in counterfeiting; the depositors for not holding the bankers accountable by free market standards and for petitioning government for unconstitutional favoritism; and the politicians for providing unconstitutional favoritism, that of picking winners and losers, as opposed to fulfilling their Constitutional duty of upholding contracts and punishing those, bankers and depositors alike, that engage in counterfeiting. It should be noted that the only crimes listed in the Constitution, which give the Federal Government authority to act, are Treason, Counterfeiting, and Piracy.


Newt Gingrich is not a capitalist. The system, in which Gingrich takes part and you describe, is called corporatism and is maintained by fractional reserve banking. Fractional Reserve Banking, as I stated before, is counterfeiting, a high crime under the Constitution. 


2.) The self-labeled term of "Progressive" is a narcissitic misnomer. However, I am willing to compromise on this point and offer a Constitutionally-based objective term: traitor? A bit too vague, but applicable.


Hoover runs the economy into the toilet with deregulation and further in with even more. 


Hoover deregulated the market only marginally. He still favored government intervention and encouraged Unionization, which hindered economic growth. He also expanded the Federal Reserve's ability to engage in fractional reserve banking or counterfeiting. Counterfeiting creates false indicators in the market and encourages the creation of bubbles that eventually burst. 


Wealth was never supposed to become so concentrated that the working class became absolutely disposable. 


You can thank the Federal Reserve, which is unconstitutional, for the redistribution of wealth into such a concentration. After all, that's the whole point of counterfeiting.


The progressives staved off a communist uprising through creating more evenness in society. Some of them were Democrats under Truman who started the Cold War against Socialism.


No. The progressives continued to expand government beyond its Constitutional limits, thereby creating more government to be infilitrated and increasing the likelihood that it would be infiltrated. It's analogous to a pizza and additional toppings where the pizza is government and the additional toppings are infiltrators. The smaller the pizza, the less room for additional toppings; the greater the pizza, the more room for additional toppings.  


Secondly, capital "S" Socialism is a a phase in transition to Communism. We've never experienced it here. 


That's because socialism/communism is fundamentally flawed, being based on counterfeiting and a number of other false indicators.


What you gave is a complete BS answer.


How is it a "BS" answer? The analysis is based on sound economics. And if one doesn't believe in voluntary associations, than the only alternative left is slavery. And who is devolving the conversation into immaturity with the introduction of profanity?


3.) During Lincoln's time, the Republicans were the more liberal party, as opposed to the Democrats who were then conservative. The moniker changed when Woodrow Wilson reorganized the Democratic Party to such an extent that he made the Republican Party look conservative only in comparison. 


Lincoln has no credibility. Lincoln, following in the footsteps of South American dictators, rallied against slavery only as a political ruse to gain power. Many White Northerners only wanted slavery to end because slavery monopolized jobs for blacks that whites might otherwise have access to in their place. Slavery was to be ended, not for the benefit of blacks, but for whites to displace blacks in the job market. And this was largely what happened during Reconstruction. 


As to wage labor being equatable to slavery... The Lincoln Administration engaged in fractional reserve banking (the Greenback?)... that is to say counterfeiting... which is yet another form of theft and slavery. Fractional reserve banking expands the money supply artificially and leads to higher prices of commodity goods and services.  Instead of gaining purchasing power under a gold standard, where even low wage earners may benefit, all wage earners lose purchasing power under fractional reserve banking. Lincoln was a hypocrit. 


Again, it's not nearly as compatible with the idea of natral rights as a single-payer system would be. It represents an invasion of privacy that doesn't happen in that sort of system.


A single-payer system is not compatible with natural rights even by your standards. You claimed earlier: you have a right to privacy until the job you are applying to demands a genetic screening. This happens to a greater degree when the -- central authority/the government/the single-payer system -- is granted a monopoly. Because no competition exists, potential employees don't have anywhere else to go if they don't like the employer's demands. Your descriptors of slavery become maximized under a single-payer system.  But in a free-market, where multiple employers compete against one another for employees, the employee has many different options for business standards, thereby encouraging potential employers to be as non-invasive as possible.


Also, it's in the interest of business to comply with natural rights.  Employees simultaneously play the part of consumers. If an employee doesn't consume their own product, that doesn't bode well for the business. 


6.) Oh are they? So the idea that personhood only includes white males is somehow less perverted? 


The high standards to which I refer the Founding Fathers having are in accordance with sound money, private property, and voluntary associations. It is the modern predilection for fractional reserve banking (counterfeiting) under the euphamism of Central Banking, which perpetuates theft and slavery, that I refer to as perverted.


I have previously gone on record as having opposed the bipartianship that led to the weaker aspects of the Constitution, most notably the political expediencies of the Fugitive Slave Clause and the contradictory permittance of slavery within a Union whose aim was to maximize liberty. The Founding Fathers should have either waited to Unionize until the North and South worked out their economic differences... or Lincoln should've let the South secede in peace, as Buchanon permitted, until the South peacefully ended slavery and would be drawn back into the Union voluntarily for the same motivations that drew them to Unionize in the first place.

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Mar. 24 2013, 10:12 am

fireproof, you seem to have indicated in prior posts that once the South officially lost that the Civil War, or more accurately the Southern War for Independence, Reconstruction begun. But from the Southern Point of View, Reconstruction was a continuation of the war fought entirely on Southern Soil. This is one of the reasons why Southerners weren't cooperative. Union officers demanded Southerners make a pledge of allegience to Lincoln just to use the Post Office. Union Officers would also kill Southerners for refusing to make a pledge of allegience to Lincoln. Similarly, Republicans coerced their way into the Legislatures of Southern States and denied representation to Democrats, despite Lincoln's pardon.


Your accusation against Jefferson Davis isn't quite fair. How could he have aided in Reconstruction when he and many others were denied both Representation and Office? More importantly, why would he have helped when much of what the Republicans were doing was illegal? 

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Mar. 24 2013, 10:47 am

As long as capital exists, government will exist, whether officially, or unofficially in form of unreachable private tyrannies. Private property, which differs from personal property, is a form of theft. Private property is inconsistant with the basic idea of natural rights. For example, I have the right to do whatever I want unless it infringes on someone else's rights, and you have the right to do what you want unless it infringes on someone else's rights. However, if I own something privately,something we all have an equal right to own, natural resources for example, that infringes on your right to own such. You can't own it if I don't let you.


Private property is a descriptor of the private sector, which encompasses resources singularly owned or owned by a voluntary cooperative. Private property is simply an outgrowth of natural rights. The cup, private property, sitting on my desk was ultimately obtained from the tradeable labor of my body. It is proof of my previous labor. The existence of private property, and by extension the outgrowth of contracts, permit proof of trade and voluntary associations that guard against theft and slavery.


You're confusing private property with  the use of first-strike force. Private property does not invoke the necessity of first-strike force against others, as the potential for trade exists. Quite the contrary, private property invokes concrete barriers among individuals who may otherwise transgress upon their fellows in a context of abstractual collective ownership where multiple claims exist upon a single resource.


That illustration is the reason why there is less social mobility now in the United States than there are in more socially democratic nations. 


If less social mobility exists in the U.S., it is because the U.S. has propped up those socially democratic nations through the redistribution of wealth (fractional reserve banking, bailouts, foreign aid, etc...) at the expense of enslaving U.S. citizens.


But it should be noted that natural resources were largely not acquired through hard work and honest means in the United States.


Little basis for that in the 19th Century. The U.S. has grown imperialistic over the 20th and 21st Centuries. But then the U.S. has the unconstitional Federal Reserve and its fractional reserve banking policies that permitted imperialist expansion.


A far more sensible arrangement is the one where you get rid of the federal and state governments, along with capital, the employer-employee relationship and all its corruption, and have direct worker ownership over the means of production in form of anarchistic cooperatives. That's what real anarchism is. That's real libertarianism.


Anarchism, at least Anarcho-Capitalism, doesn't advocate the absense of capital and private property... just government as a regulator. How would you get rid of Federal and State Governments without violence, as Libertarianism adheres to the non-aggression principle and the negating of first-strike force? 

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46303

Report this Mar. 24 2013, 11:21 am

Quote: Lone Palm @ Mar. 23 2013, 8:21 pm

>Cyprus is an example.
This reminded me of the promise of Cyprus' newly elected president, who said, "I want to be absolutely clear. Absolutely no reference to a haircut on public debt or deposits will be tolerated. Such an issue isn't even up for discussion."  Oh... and Cyprus' own Finance Minister said, "There really couldhey n't be a more stupid idea."  But that's exactly what they did do a couple of weeks later....  (well, they didn't have a discussion - they just did it.)


 


What's sad is that some people around here have made fun of me because I have been warning that countries in the EU would begin confiscating money from the people because of socialistic problems caused by the government.  How many more countries will this happen in?  How soon will it happen in the USA (yes, there are already people demanding this!)

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46303

Report this Mar. 24 2013, 11:28 am

Quote: Lone Palm @ Mar. 23 2013, 8:21 pm

>You know, you have a right to privacy until the job you are applying to demands a genetic screening, all because they have to pay a private insurer for your health insurance. 

>Don't forget those "heroic Progressives"... they petitioned for government regulations that create burdens for the private insurer, who must then pass those burdens (genetic screening) onto the insured. 
I'll add onto this a little - remember that medical insurance being provided as part of the compensation package became quite popular because the government put a limit on how much money an employee could earn.  If the value of the employee's contributions exceeded their paycheck, how could the employer compensate the employee?  It was by adding other things, like medical insurance.


 


But now with Obamacare, people have less rights.  Even now, due to Obamacare, employees are being forced to provide private information that they didn't have to previously.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46303

Report this Mar. 24 2013, 11:31 am

Quote: fireproof78 @ Mar. 23 2013, 10:12 pm

>I dictator is basically someone who acts, unopposed or not enough opposition, to force their way, usually against the will of the people that are governed or to their destruction.
Like Obama using Executive Orders because Congress won't pass the legislation he demands?

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46303

Report this Mar. 24 2013, 11:35 am

Quote: fireproof78 @ Mar. 23 2013, 10:20 pm

>

>Secondly, Capital "S" Socialism is a a phase in transition to Communism. We've never experienced it here.

>This is incorrect. There are more Socialist aspects to our government than many realize.

>Compare the ten points of the Communist Manifesto and some current American laws and regulations. Its interesting food for thought.

>Socialism sounds really good, and single payer systems sound really good too, but they don't work over the long term, because there is no check to prevent waste, fraud and abuse.

>

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46303

Report this Mar. 24 2013, 11:40 am

Quote: fireproof78 @ Mar. 23 2013, 10:50 pm

>A friend once pointed out the similarities between the Manifesto, which uses Socialism as a stepping stone to Communism, and current American laws and policy. Interesting stuff, which is why I posted the link.
Which is now being taught in some schools.  They equate capitalism on the bottom and evolves (better) towards socialism and then communism.  The graphic as part of the lesson I saw even shows communism as the pinnacle to be strived for.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46303

Report this Mar. 24 2013, 11:42 am

Quote: T'Paul @ Mar. 23 2013, 11:12 pm

Quote: fireproof78 @ Mar. 23 2013, 10:50 pm

>

>

>Fair enough

>A friend once pointed out the similarities between the Manifesto, which uses Socialism as a stepping stone to Communism, and current American laws and policy. Interesting stuff, which is why I posted the link.

>I don't mind social programs, as long as they are not the only program. There needs to be competition for there to be checks and balances in a system and for the market to work.

>

Fair enough! I like people who are willing to cooperate.

As for the link: Just go one time to an actual Socialist website and read how much more they tend to despise Democrats, America's supposed left, than do Republicans. Remember, it was Truman who started the Cold War. And how many times did Kennedy try to assassinate Castro? The day Kennedy was assassinated, in fact he launched an assassination attempt against Castro. JFK's brother was one of the most vocal McCarthyists. He put Hoffa on trial over political views. Or how about Johnson starting the war in Vietnam? Socialists despise Democrats. If you want to actually read what the Socialist groups who would like to be the vanguard parties in a revolution in the United States, have in mind, all you have to do is go to their websites, see what they write and do the critical thinking.

If socialists hate democrats, then why do the socialist groups push democrat candidates?  Take a look at the Communist Party USA - officially endorsed Obama both elections.  And as I shared a few months ago, I was called by the local socialist party just before the election and the lady tried to tell me why I should vote for Obama.

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum