Socialism: Whats wrong with it?

[GenSeneca]

The Progs (and some mods) around here claim what we're doing isn't Socialism. They also claim they don't support Socialism. They claim things like bailouts and the nationalization of industries are perfectly in line with the Constitution. Some even have the temerity to claim that America is not a Welfare State.

Fine.

For the purpose of this thread, I'll accept your premise. We're not descending into Marxism. Everything we do is completely constitutional and in line with the free market principles of Capitalism... The questions I have for you are in bold.

According to you, the General Welfare clause says government should PROVIDE (rather than simply promote) for the general welfare of all Americans.

In Soviet Russia, government provided General Welfare for all its citizens; healthcare, a place to live, a job and income, education etc.

What, if anything, is stopping America from providing its citizens with all of the same things via the General Welfare clause?

In Soviet Russia, the government operated on the Marxist principle of "To each according to his need, from each according to their ability."

What, if any, problem do you have with America operating under the same principle?

In Soviet Russia, there was a Progressive income tax, wealth tax and Death tax that effectively redistributed all wealth. (Wealth of the proles that is)

We have a Progressive tax and a Death tax that do the same thing on a different scale but we don't have a wealth tax - yet.

What, if any, opposition would you have to a full blown wealth tax? (this way billionaires and the idle rich are hit with taxes they could otherwise avoid by not having income and by not dieing)

In Soviet Russia, Public Utilities (energy, water, sewage etc.) were all owned by the state.

What, if any, opposition do you have to America nationalizing all Public Utilities?

In Fascist Germany, major Corporations were jointly owned by government, the same way the major banks, AIG, GM, Chrysler and others are jointly owned by the American government today.

What, if any, opposition do you have to the American government taking the same kind of joint ownership over the rest of Americas major corporations? (They could take over partial ownership of the profitable corporations like Wal-Mart and Microsoft)

In Soviet Russia, the state owned 100% of all corporations and business entities.

What, if any, opposition would you have to the American government taking 100% ownership of all corporations and business entities?

In both Soviet Russia and Fascist Germany, there was a one party system.

Should the Republican party disband so that the Democrats can be America's one and only party?

In both Soviet Russia and Fascist Germany, Altruism (the deliberate pursuit of the interests or welfare of others or the public interest.) was the guiding principle of their policies and programs but the public interest always infringes upon the individual rights of minorities. (Jews in Germany being the most well known)

Which is more important, the public interest or the Individual Rights of minorities?

In both Soviet Russia and Fascist Germany, citizens were limited in both their freedom of speech and their freedom of action. Here in America, we pass laws that limit free speech by declaring some speech hate speech. We pass laws that limit our freedom of action by regulating or banning products and services deemed unhealthy or not in our best interest (Prostitution, Gambling, Smoking, Banning Trans-Fats etc).

What, if any, limits should we place on the governments ability to protect us from ourselves?

In both Soviet Russia and Fascist Germany, taxes were not levied to maximize revenue to the government, they were used to punish or reward (control) the behavior of their citizens.

Should the American government have its power of taxation limited to maximizing revenue or should we continue to let the government use taxation to control our behavior, regardless of the effect it has on revenue?

Lastly... Objectivism is the philosophy that most closely mirrors my own. If you read through the philosophy, or already are familiar with it, you will gain some perspective as to why I support the positions and issues that I do and why logic is important to me. Unlike many here on the forum, I'm not here to "debate" anything or convince anyone of anything but those who are here for those purposes are easy to spot because they employ logical fallacies and emotional appeals to support their positions. Understanding why people hold their positions on issues is more important to me than understanding what their positions on issues are.

What philosophy do you ascribe to, or comes closest to your own?

 

[Bob the Builder]

GenSen, I know what you're doing, but I cannot accept the premise that ANY of what the liberals are trying to do is in line with the constitution.

When faced with a Bill before Congress to provide for subsidies for cod fishermen, James Madison had the following to say on the subject;

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America."

He also said the following;

"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

In 1794 when a Bill was presented before Congress for the relief of French refugees from San Domingo, Madison rose and said;

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

Then there's always Federalist 41 in which he clearly stated that "the general welfare" clause was neither a statement of ends nor a substantive grant of power, but of course they'll ignore that since it's contrary to their aims and ends.

Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

Yes, the liberals of today are still stooping to deliberate misconstructions in order to foist their Socialist plans on America, just as was warned against over 200 years ago, and which was specifically denied them in the Constitution, but of course, the modern liberal doesn't even bother to pay lip service to that dusty old document, they merely usurp it at their will on the one hand, while decrying any invented "unconstitutional" limitation on the other.

In 1827, when an appropriations Bill of $10,000 for the widow of a Naval officer was presented before Congress, none other than Davy Crockett rose before that body and said the following;

“Mr. Speaker: I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member on this floor knows it. We have the right as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money.”

What of the 1854 provision for the mentally ill that President Pierce vetoed, along with the following objection?

“I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity.” To approve the measure "would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded.”

No, our entire national history, from the ratification of the Constitution until that most infamous of all US Presidents, Franklin D. Roosevelt, ALL realized that there was no place in the Constitution that authorized the Congress to tax and spend for ANY social spending programs, as such was, by the 9th and 10th Amendments to the constitution, left to the states and to the people respectively.

 

[Bob the Builder]

Well, it would appear that the resident DEMOCRAPS haven't got anything, but I wouldn't expect them to.

 

[GenSeneca]

If they really are against socialism, this thread is their chance to argue against it. Their silence speaks volumes.

 

[Saxon]

The Progs (and some mods) around here claim what we're doing isn't Socialism. They also claim they don't support Socialism. They claim things like bailouts and the nationalization of industries are perfectly in line with the Constitution. Some even have the temerity to claim that America is not a Welfare State.

Fine.

For the purpose of this thread, I'll accept your premise. We're not descending into Marxism. Everything we do is completely constitutional and in line with the free market principles of Capitalism... The questions I have for you are in bold.

According to you, the General Welfare clause says government should PROVIDE (rather than simply promote) for the general welfare of all Americans.

In Soviet Russia, government provided General Welfare for all its citizens; healthcare, a place to live, a job and income, education etc.

What, if anything, is stopping America from providing its citizens with all of the same things via the General Welfare clause?

In Soviet Russia, the government operated on the Marxist principle of "To each according to his need, from each according to their ability."

What, if any, problem do you have with America operating under the same principle?

In Soviet Russia, there was a Progressive income tax, wealth tax and Death tax that effectively redistributed all wealth. (Wealth of the proles that is)

We have a Progressive tax and a Death tax that do the same thing on a different scale but we don't have a wealth tax - yet.

What, if any, opposition would you have to a full blown wealth tax? (this way billionaires and the idle rich are hit with taxes they could otherwise avoid by not having income and by not dieing)

In Soviet Russia, Public Utilities (energy, water, sewage etc.) were all owned by the state.

What, if any, opposition do you have to America nationalizing all Public Utilities?

In Fascist Germany, major Corporations were jointly owned by government, the same way the major banks, AIG, GM, Chrysler and others are jointly owned by the American government today.

What, if any, opposition do you have to the American government taking the same kind of joint ownership over the rest of Americas major corporations? (They could take over partial ownership of the profitable corporations like Wal-Mart and Microsoft)

In Soviet Russia, the state owned 100% of all corporations and business entities.

What, if any, opposition would you have to the American government taking 100% ownership of all corporations and business entities?

In both Soviet Russia and Fascist Germany, there was a one party system.

Should the Republican party disband so that the Democrats can be America's one and only party?

In both Soviet Russia and Fascist Germany, Altruism (the deliberate pursuit of the interests or welfare of others or the public interest.) was the guiding principle of their policies and programs but the public interest always infringes upon the individual rights of minorities. (Jews in Germany being the most well known)

Which is more important, the public interest or the Individual Rights of minorities?

In both Soviet Russia and Fascist Germany, citizens were limited in both their freedom of speech and their freedom of action. Here in America, we pass laws that limit free speech by declaring some speech hate speech. We pass laws that limit our freedom of action by regulating or banning products and services deemed unhealthy or not in our best interest (Prostitution, Gambling, Smoking, Banning Trans-Fats etc).

What, if any, limits should we place on the governments ability to protect us from ourselves?

In both Soviet Russia and Fascist Germany, taxes were not levied to maximize revenue to the government, they were used to punish or reward (control) the behavior of their citizens.

Should the American government have its power of taxation limited to maximizing revenue or should we continue to let the government use taxation to control our behavior, regardless of the effect it has on revenue?

Lastly... Objectivism is the philosophy that most closely mirrors my own. If you read through the philosophy, or already are familiar with it, you will gain some perspective as to why I support the positions and issues that I do and why logic is important to me. Unlike many here on the forum, I'm not here to "debate" anything or convince anyone of anything but those who are here for those purposes are easy to spot because they employ logical fallacies and emotional appeals to support their positions. Understanding why people hold their positions on issues is more important to me than understanding what their positions on issues are.

What philosophy do you ascribe to, or comes closest to your own?

The Nazis did not jointly own the corporations. They merely regulated them heavily. If a corporation did not meet the needs of the State, they simply took it over, but other than that, the Nazis left them alone. You are wrong here. They did not own the banks either, nor any financial firms for that matter, other than those confiscated from the Jews.

 

[Saxon]

The Progs (and some mods) around here claim what we're doing isn't Socialism. They also claim they don't support Socialism. They claim things like bailouts and the nationalization of industries are perfectly in line with the Constitution. Some even have the temerity to claim that America is not a Welfare State.

Fine.

For the purpose of this thread, I'll accept your premise. We're not descending into Marxism. Everything we do is completely constitutional and in line with the free market principles of Capitalism... The questions I have for you are in bold.

According to you, the General Welfare clause says government should PROVIDE (rather than simply promote) for the general welfare of all Americans.

In Soviet Russia, government provided General Welfare for all its citizens; healthcare, a place to live, a job and income, education etc.

What, if anything, is stopping America from providing its citizens with all of the same things via the General Welfare clause?

In Soviet Russia, the government operated on the Marxist principle of "To each according to his need, from each according to their ability."

What, if any, problem do you have with America operating under the same principle?

In Soviet Russia, there was a Progressive income tax, wealth tax and Death tax that effectively redistributed all wealth. (Wealth of the proles that is)

We have a Progressive tax and a Death tax that do the same thing on a different scale but we don't have a wealth tax - yet.

What, if any, opposition would you have to a full blown wealth tax? (this way billionaires and the idle rich are hit with taxes they could otherwise avoid by not having income and by not dieing)

In Soviet Russia, Public Utilities (energy, water, sewage etc.) were all owned by the state.

What, if any, opposition do you have to America nationalizing all Public Utilities?

In Fascist Germany, major Corporations were jointly owned by government, the same way the major banks, AIG, GM, Chrysler and others are jointly owned by the American government today.

What, if any, opposition do you have to the American government taking the same kind of joint ownership over the rest of Americas major corporations? (They could take over partial ownership of the profitable corporations like Wal-Mart and Microsoft)

In Soviet Russia, the state owned 100% of all corporations and business entities.

What, if any, opposition would you have to the American government taking 100% ownership of all corporations and business entities?

In both Soviet Russia and Fascist Germany, there was a one party system.

Should the Republican party disband so that the Democrats can be America's one and only party?

In both Soviet Russia and Fascist Germany, Altruism (the deliberate pursuit of the interests or welfare of others or the public interest.) was the guiding principle of their policies and programs but the public interest always infringes upon the individual rights of minorities. (Jews in Germany being the most well known)

Which is more important, the public interest or the Individual Rights of minorities?

In both Soviet Russia and Fascist Germany, citizens were limited in both their freedom of speech and their freedom of action. Here in America, we pass laws that limit free speech by declaring some speech hate speech. We pass laws that limit our freedom of action by regulating or banning products and services deemed unhealthy or not in our best interest (Prostitution, Gambling, Smoking, Banning Trans-Fats etc).

What, if any, limits should we place on the governments ability to protect us from ourselves?

In both Soviet Russia and Fascist Germany, taxes were not levied to maximize revenue to the government, they were used to punish or reward (control) the behavior of their citizens.

Should the American government have its power of taxation limited to maximizing revenue or should we continue to let the government use taxation to control our behavior, regardless of the effect it has on revenue?

Lastly... Objectivism is the philosophy that most closely mirrors my own. If you read through the philosophy, or already are familiar with it, you will gain some perspective as to why I support the positions and issues that I do and why logic is important to me. Unlike many here on the forum, I'm not here to "debate" anything or convince anyone of anything but those who are here for those purposes are easy to spot because they employ logical fallacies and emotional appeals to support their positions. Understanding why people hold their positions on issues is more important to me than understanding what their positions on issues are.

What philosophy do you ascribe to, or comes closest to your own?

Nazi taxation policies had nothing to do with controlling their people. Their taxation was set up to pay for Germany's huge debts, nothing more. The Nazis would never screw up their plan to pay off that debt with worrying about minor things like control of their citizens, when they had far better means of doing so. Germany's debt was amongst the highest on the planet. The Nazis cared only about getting Germany out of debt, and they did. Look it up for yourself.

 

[GenSeneca]

First off... if you have a problem with Jews, then you need to meet Popeye... You guys can join (D) Rev. Wright (Obama's pastor of 20 years) and (D) Al Sharpton in discussing the finer points of Judaism.

The Nazis did not jointly own the corporations. They merely regulated them heavily. If a corporation did not meet the needs of the State, they simply took it over, but other than that, the Nazis left them alone. You are wrong here. They did not own the banks either, nor any financial firms for that matter, other than those confiscated from the Jews.

Excerpts from Joesph Goebbels diary:
"[Hitler] has it all thought out. His ideal: a mixture of collectivism and individualism. Production must remain a matter for individuals while big corporations, trusts etc., are all to be nationalized."

Heavy taxes on profits made private ownership of companies virtually impossible. While the largest companies were not taxed on profits, they were so heavily controlled that they were privately-owned in name only.

The Nazi's left crumbs for the private sector.

Nazi taxation policies had nothing to do with controlling their people. Their taxation was set up to pay for Germany's huge debts, nothing more.

You are forgetting the massive taxation that was levied against the Jews (probably because you don't see Jews as citizens) and the tariffs (taxes) levied against trade from countries that were beyond the German sphere of influence. Through taxation, the Nazi's effected a national policy of protectionism and antisemitism.

The Nazis would never screw up their plan to pay off that debt with worrying about minor things like control of their citizens, when they had far better means of doing so. Germany's debt was amongst the highest on the planet. The Nazis cared only about getting Germany out of debt, and they did. Look it up for yourself.

Lets see...

...From FY 33-34 to FY 35-36, government expenditure exceeded government income by roughly 50%...

...By FY 38-39, the last fiscal year before the war, expenditure exceeded revenue by 86% and total debt load exceeded annual revenue by 136%...

The government was spending almost twice as much as it brought in, and half of that spending was on the military. Since government expenditures were a third of the economy as a whole, this led to a very rapidly growing debt. It was an internal debt, which means that up to that point Germany was not particularly beholden to foreign creditors. That, however, carried its own problems. The government cannot borrow an infinite amount of money internally. Put another way, the government could not continue to increase its debt by approximately 15% of GDP per year indefinitely. -- The Nazi Economic Recovery 1932–1938

Nazi Germany was monetizing their debt. I seem to remember that some North American country was on the same path... Which nation was that?

 

[GenSeneca]

GenSen, I know what you're doing, but I cannot accept the premise that ANY of what the liberals are trying to do is in line with the constitution.

Hey Bob... Would you mind posting some of your sources for those excellent quotes in the ={CaLiCo}= forum? It would be much appreciated!

 

[Bob the Builder]

Hey Bob... Would you mind posting some of your sources for those excellent quotes in the ={CaLiCo}= forum? It would be much appreciated!

Most of them come from my (rather extensive) personal library, but I'll see what I can come up with for you.

 

[TheFranklinParty]

I think we need to step back for a moment and question motivation. It is nice to think that people are just misguided; that they have a skewed view of the world.

I don't believe this is about philosphical differences of opinion but instead it's about power and money. Take the Cap and Trade Bill as an example; it claims to be about saving the planet but in reality it is about power and money. Guys like Boone Pickens and Al Gore are supporting it because they have massive investments in businesses that will only flourish if the government drives markets in their direction.

 

[GenSeneca]

I think we need to step back for a moment and question motivation. It is nice to think that people are just misguided; that they have a skewed view of the world.

I don't believe this is about philosphical differences of opinion but instead it's about power and money. Take the Cap and Trade Bill as an example; it claims to be about saving the planet but in reality it is about power and money. Guys like Boone Pickens and Al Gore are supporting it because they have massive investments in businesses that will only flourish if the government drives markets in their direction.

Here's a website you should check out:

Find out how Congress was stolen from you with our step-by-step Video Presentations:
"The 12 Articles of the Caucus"

They have done a wonderful job of putting together their twelve articles and after seeing your site and reading your posts, I'm sure you will be as impressed as I was.

As to my post... I think most politicians use ideology as a smokescreen for their own personal gratification. For example... (D) Barney Frank preaches about the need for affordable housing for poor and minorities etc. and that gets the public on his side (they think he's being a good progressive).

Once he has support, he uses his Chairmanship position on the Housing board (which overseas Fanny and Freddie) to make deals that relax regulations and funnel government money to the companies he oversees.

The executives and especially the CEO's of the companies (one of whom Mr. Frank is sexually engaged with) make a huge pile of money ($90 million for Frank Reins alone).

Those companies turn around and give Mr. Frank his cut of government funds by donating massive sums of money to his campaign fund.

All of this is known, the media doesn't touch it, there were no investigations (and likely won't be), but Mr. Frank is still seen as a hero by the people who put him in office... the ones who actually follow the ideology Mr. Frank espouses.

 

[Saxon]

First off... if you have a problem with Jews, then you need to meet Popeye... You guys can join (D) Rev. Wright (Obama's pastor of 20 years) and (D) Al Sharpton in discussing the finer points of Judaism.

I sure do.

Excerpts from Joesph Goebbels diary:
"[Hitler] has it all thought out. His ideal: a mixture of collectivism and individualism. Production must remain a matter for individuals while big corporations, trusts etc., are all to be nationalized."

A mixture of collectivism and individualism. This is called 'fascism'. The German corporations were never nationalised. You DO realised that it was those very same corporations that bankrolled Hitler's rise to power yes? They bankrolled him because they knew he was a danger to their greatest threat, the communists. I would ask that you show me ONE corporation that was nationalised. Never happened.

The Nazi's left crumbs for the private sector.

The private sector were allowed to keep their profits, but they were taxed. Does this not happen in every capitalist country? WTF? There is but one difference. THe Nazis CONTROLLED how the private sector operated by ensuring their actions benefitted the State, and rightfully so. Remember, the USA's unfettered capitalism has resulted in the destruction of your country. BAnks and financial corporations went under, requiring government intervention. Ours did not. Why, as we are both capitalist. That's easy. We REGULATE our businesses. You do not. The Nazis did the same thing, with the only difference being that the Nazis cared only that said businesses exist to benefit Germany, and no one else. INteresting that you find something wrong with that.

You are forgetting the massive taxation that was levied against the Jews (probably because you don't see Jews as citizens) and the tariffs (taxes) levied against trade from countries that were beyond the German sphere of influence. Through taxation, the Nazi's effected a national policy of protectionism and antisemitism.

The massive taxation against the Jews was part of their racist policies. They had the right to do whatever they wish in a territory that was theirs. If the Jews didn't like it, they were free to leave, yet they remained. No, I don't see the Jews as citizens.
Tariffs levied against countries? You mean like the same tariffs your country levies against mine, in a FREE-TRADE atmosphere? I guess you never read the story about how we complained about these tariffs, which broke the NAFTA deal, and you basically told us to '**** off'. I loved our leader's response though. He says to Bush 'oh well, I guess you won't be needing our oil anymore'. Bush was ready to suck our PMs cock. The USA ended up agreeing to pay us $6 BILLION in returned tariffs and fines. You were OWNED by us in this occasion. Yet, you ***** when the Nazis seek to do what you have been doing for ages? ****, the Nazis HAD no free trade deal with anyone, so they were free to do as they must. They sought to protect their own economy, **** everyone else. The USA is doing that TODAY. So, quit your bull****, you hypocrite.
I see no problem with the Nazi policy of nationalism and anti-semitism. It was THEIR country, and they were free to do with it as they chose. The GERMAN people agreed with them.

Lets see...


Nazi Germany was monetizing their debt. I seem to remember that some North American country was on the same path... Which nation was that?

 

[GenSeneca]

A mixture of collectivism and individualism. This is called 'fascism'.

Here in America, they call it being "Progressive".

You DO realised that it was those very same corporations that bankrolled Hitler's rise to power yes?

Quite well aware of where his support came from and it was from many areas. The corporations thought they would be getting a sweet deal by getting in bed with government money but they quickly found out they had made a deal with the devil.

They bankrolled him because they knew he was a danger to their greatest threat, the communists. I would ask that you show me ONE corporation that was nationalised. Never happened.

The entire German railroad industry... Of course it was nationalized during the Wiemar Republic and not the Nazi's, but they did not privatize the industry.

The private sector were allowed to keep their profits, but they were taxed.

I said the same thing, only I pointed out they were heavily taxed... Lets see your sources, and some numbers, for all this 'profit' the private sector was raking in under the Reich. My sources tell me that private ownership was more of an honorary title than a reality because in being forced to work for the benefit of the state, rather than in the best interest of the company, corporations seldom, if ever, actually made a profit. This also resulted in many industries having to be bailed out, or subsidized, by the Deutsche Reichsbank in order to continue production.

THe Nazis CONTROLLED how the private sector operated by ensuring their actions benefitted the State, and rightfully so.

Substitute the word "state" with "public good" and that's what the "Progressives" are trying to do here in the US.

Such a system is doomed to failure since the only successful way to run a business is by operating on the profit motive and when government tells business it must operate in the best interest of others, rather than in their own best interest, the companies inevitably fail. To prevent such failure, the state often subsidizes the companies losses on the backs of taxpayers, i.e. bailouts but such policies are not sustainable.

Remember, the USA's unfettered capitalism has resulted in the destruction of your country. BAnks and financial corporations went under, requiring government intervention.

Top Gun... Is that you? Oh wait... its Saxon, he's just making the same ludicrous claims. There is no 'unfettered capitalism' in America and there hasn't been for more than 100 years. Banks and Financial institutions went under as a direct result of government meddling with the entire industry through their play things Fannie and Freddie and such activity gave birth to political corruption with players in both parties looking to keep the gravy train rolling until it eventually derailed.

Ours did not. Why, as we are both capitalist. That's easy. We REGULATE our businesses. You do not.

We had massive regulations on the industry... still do.

We had something going on that you didn't... Political Corruption:

It was known in 2002 that Fannie and Freddie (both Government Sponsored Entities) were cooking their books. The corrupt people in charge of regulation and oversight covered it up and obstructed attempts at reform.

The Nazis did the same thing, with the only difference being that the Nazis cared only that said businesses exist to benefit Germany, and no one else. INteresting that you find something wrong with that.

Why is that interesting? I sir, am a Capitalist. Business should operate based on what is in the best interest of the company, not on a principle of doing whatever is best for the state. Individuals should live according to their own rational self interest, not forced to operate on the principle of doing whatever is in the best interest of the state or for the good of the public. Whether its one individual or an entire corporation, we should all live and act in accordance with our own rational self interest and any acts of charity or altruism should be purely volitional.

The massive taxation against the Jews was part of their racist policies. They had the right to do whatever they wish in a territory that was theirs. If the Jews didn't like it, they were free to leave, yet they remained.

The pogroms and other antisemitic actions and policies of the Nazi regime destroyed any chance for most Jews to "just leave", as their entire livelihoods were destroyed and they were left penniless. Broke, and stripped of their rights, many did flee on foot, only to find their new country overtaken by hordes of invading Nazi soldiers and then rounded up by the Einsatzgruppen.

Nevertheless, the point that taxes were used to control the population, even if you don't consider the Jews to have been citizens, was entirely accurate.

Tariffs levied against countries? You mean like the same tariffs your country levies against mine, in a FREE-TRADE atmosphere?

Very much so. Only the Nazi's used their tariffs to keep industry from doing business with countries outside of their sphere of influence. Tariffs were low, and in some cases did not exist, on countries that the central planners wanted German industry to do business with. An American equivalent would be us keeping tariffs low on trade with our allies, such as Canada, but totally cost prohibitive with the rest of the world.

Once again proving my point that taxation was used to elicit specific actions and encourage or punish behavior on the part of the population.

The USA is doing that TODAY. So, quit your bull****, you hypocrite.

I don't make the policy under which we operate as a nation and applauded your PM's reaction to our fiddling with trade agreements. Additionally, I oppose all attempts at economic protectionism. If I were in charge, we would have Laissez Faire Capitalism and little, to no, such tariffs would be applied to trade. Therefore I am no hypocrite on the issue of tariffs.

I see no problem with the Nazi policy of nationalism and anti-semitism. It was THEIR country, and they were free to do with it as they chose. The GERMAN people agreed with them.

The Nazi's were a black mark on all humanity.

 

[Bunz]

The Progs (and some mods) around here claim what we're doing isn't Socialism. They also claim they don't support Socialism. They claim things like bailouts and the nationalization of industries are perfectly in line with the Constitution. Some even have the temerity to claim that America is not a Welfare State.

I think I would be included in the some MODS clause to your opening paragraph.

According to you, the General Welfare clause says government should PROVIDE (rather than simply promote) for the general welfare of all Americans.

It is still about promoting it. There is nothing saying that private enterprise is out of the game.

In Soviet Russia, government provided General Welfare for all its citizens; healthcare, a place to live, a job and income, education etc.

What, if anything, is stopping America from providing its citizens with all of the same things via the General Welfare clause?

Well the various lobby groups that support our continued broken system first off. But also, I dont think the average American, even the most liberal want to provide the level of governance that you compare to the modern US government.

In Soviet Russia, the government operated on the Marxist principle of "To each according to his need, from each according to their ability."

What, if any, problem do you have with America operating under the same principle?

Well in some cases I am alright with that.
I cant expect someone with a physical disability to produce as much as me. But I wouldnt want them to have less quality of life than me.

In Soviet Russia, there was a Progressive income tax, wealth tax and Death tax that effectively redistributed all wealth. (Wealth of the proles that is)

We have a Progressive tax and a Death tax that do the same thing on a different scale but we don't have a wealth tax - yet.

What, if any, opposition would you have to a full blown wealth tax? (this way billionaires and the idle rich are hit with taxes they could otherwise avoid by not having income and by not dieing)

Well, a wealth tax, I am not sure at this point. But I think we need to tax the income from the probably hundreds of thousands if not millions of people living off of trust funds. Those people came through the wealth the inheritance, not through thier own work.

In Soviet Russia, Public Utilities (energy, water, sewage etc.) were all owned by the state.

What, if any, opposition do you have to America nationalizing all Public Utilities?

Well firstly, in reality I see this moving in the opposite direction. There are many public ulitilities being purchased by private enterprise, much more than the other way. The end goal should be the benefit of the consumer whoever the owner is.

In Fascist Germany, major Corporations were jointly owned by government, the same way the major banks, AIG, GM, Chrysler and others are jointly owned by the American government today.

What, if any, opposition do you have to the American government taking the same kind of joint ownership over the rest of Americas major corporations? (They could take over partial ownership of the profitable corporations like Wal-Mart and Microsoft)

I am not thrilled by it. But putting money and efforts into the various "bailout" companies to help them through tough times will prevent a considerable amount of hardship on a number of other industries therefore, making the problem much worse.

In Soviet Russia, the state owned 100% of all corporations and business entities.

What, if any, opposition would you have to the American government taking 100% ownership of all corporations and business entities?

I have no interest in overtaking any corporations or other businesses where it is unnecessary.

In both Soviet Russia and Fascist Germany, there was a one party system.

Should the Republican party disband so that the Democrats can be America's one and only party?

This is a stretch in reality.
Although personally, I have advocated for a "NO PARTY" system. I dont see why the two competing parties have the power and control they do. They are much more powerful than any politician and that is bothersome to me.

In both Soviet Russia and Fascist Germany, Altruism (the deliberate pursuit of the interests or welfare of others or the public interest.) was the guiding principle of their policies and programs but the public interest always infringes upon the individual rights of minorities. (Jews in Germany being the most well known)

I dont think realistically comparing the modern America to facist Germany or the Soviet Union are quite fair.

Which is more important, the public interest or the Individual Rights of minorities?[/quote]
Both, which is something we can have. This is not a one or the other issue.
While I support wholeheartedly the notion of one to create thier own wealth and be successful, I also support helping those at the bottom who struggle, largely because thier efforts result in the wealth of the owner state. Meaning that for example the Waltons, enjoy unimaginable wealth, whereas those who are actually there to create that wealth are left out. To the point where they cannot realistically afford to support a family.

In both Soviet Russia and Fascist Germany, citizens were limited in both their freedom of speech and their freedom of action. Here in America, we pass laws that limit free speech by declaring some speech hate speech. We pass laws that limit our freedom of action by regulating or banning products and services deemed unhealthy or not in our best interest (Prostitution, Gambling, Smoking, Banning Trans-Fats etc).

What, if any, limits should we place on the governments ability to protect us from ourselves?

Well ultimately I cannot support private industry pushing a product that is harmful to the consumer.

In both Soviet Russia and Fascist Germany, taxes were not levied to maximize revenue to the government, they were used to punish or reward (control) the behavior of their citizens.

Should the American government have its power of taxation limited to maximizing revenue or should we continue to let the government use taxation to control our behavior, regardless of the effect it has on revenue?

Ultimately I support maximing the revenue as you describe. Meaning that I dont like the various sin taxes, and have a major problem with the various drug laws that work to imprison a number a non-violent people because of this.

Lastly... Objectivism is the philosophy that most closely mirrors my own. If you read through the philosophy, or already are familiar with it, you will gain some perspective as to why I support the positions and issues that I do and why logic is important to me. Unlike many here on the forum, I'm not here to "debate" anything or convince anyone of anything but those who are here for those purposes are easy to spot because they employ logical fallacies and emotional appeals to support their positions. Understanding why people hold their positions on issues is more important to me than understanding what their positions on issues are.

What philosophy do you ascribe to, or comes closest to your own?

In all seriousness, I am a pragmatist. I search out the most realstic and effective solution to a problem that exists. I am not a hard line idealist who thinks that thier political leanings along can solve an issue. I think this is evidenced by my vocal support of the 2nd amendment. As well as other issues as resource development(with the notable exception of Pebble Mine)

 

[Bob the Builder]

It is still about promoting it. There is nothing saying that private enterprise is out of the game.

There's nothing in there about the government being IN the game, and in fact the writings of the Father of the Constitution (and most of the other founders) make it clear that the government was to have NO part in anything that was not specifically listed in the Constitution.

In Soviet Russia, government provided General Welfare for all its citizens; healthcare, a place to live, a job and income, education etc.

And we all know how well that worked out.

Well in some cases I am alright with that.

Why would you even consider it when the entire concept has been discredited in every country that it's been attempted?

I cant expect someone with a physical disability to produce as much as me. But I wouldnt want them to have less quality of life than me.

What makes you think that they can't produce more than you?

Well, a wealth tax, I am not sure at this point. But I think we need to tax the income from the probably hundreds of thousands if not millions of people living off of trust funds. Those people came through the wealth the inheritance, not through thier own work.

Nothing like quoting from the NAZI PARTY PLATFORM to enhance your credibility on social issues.

I am not thrilled by it. But putting money and efforts into the various "bailout" companies to help them through tough times will prevent a considerable amount of hardship on a number of other industries therefore, making the problem much worse.

That's what Chapter 11 Bankruptcy laws are for. It's not the place of the government to spend taxpayers money to bail out private business.

In Soviet Russia, the state owned 100% of all corporations and business entities.

Which is exactly where Obama wants us to be.

I have no interest in overtaking any corporations or other businesses where it is unnecessary.

Define "necessary", while you're at it, define "constitutional" and show us where it allows the government to be involved in the first place.

I dont think realistically comparing the modern America to facist Germany or the Soviet Union are quite fair.

They didn't start off as bad as they eventually got, but they started somewhere, and we're seeing the parallels.

Both, which is something we can have. This is not a one or the other issue.
While I support wholeheartedly the notion of one to create thier own wealth and be successful, I also support helping those at the bottom who struggle, largely because thier efforts result in the wealth of the owner state. Meaning that for example the Waltons, enjoy unimaginable wealth, whereas those who are actually there to create that wealth are left out. To the point where they cannot realistically afford to support a family.

Wal-Mart again? So all the work, and money that Sam Walton plowed into a company that he built, and all the work, and money that his family plowed into expanding the company should be cut out of the rewards of their work in favor of people who haven't put in nearly the work or money? The people who created the wealth are the WALTONS! The people who work for Wal-Mart, or any other company for that matter, asked for the job, agreed to the hours and wages to perform that job, and at the end of their shift they go home. They're not putting in 80-100 hours a week, or plowing their own money back into the business, creating more jobs for more people, so your entire argument is BOGUS.

Well ultimately I cannot support private industry pushing a product that is harmful to the consumer.

Don't you believe in LIBERTY? It's their CHOICE if they choose to use alcohol, tobacco, or eat transfats, and who are you to tell them they can't, or to impose a "sin tax" on those products? How would you feel if the tables were reversed?

Ultimately I support maximing the revenue as you describe. Meaning that I dont like the various sin taxes, and have a major problem with the various drug laws that work to imprison a number a non-violent people because of this.

I support following the constitution. That means restricting the federal government to it's original bounds, and leaving everything else to the people or the states respectively.

In all seriousness, I am a pragmatist. I search out the most realstic and effective solution to a problem that exists. I am not a hard line idealist who thinks that thier political leanings along can solve an issue. I think this is evidenced by my vocal support of the 2nd amendment. As well as other issues as resource development(with the notable exception of Pebble Mine)

I have no doubt, but the biggest flaw I see in your perspective is that the government is the one that created the problems to begin with, and now you're looking to them to fix those same said problems!