After reading post here for over 7 years, it would be My opinion that the left are far more ignorant to the definition of socialism than the Right. Most of the Right knows what capitalism is, and 72% favor it. Most Americans know what capitalism is, 61% favor it, saying a Vast majority of Americans favor Socialism is an narrow minded opinion, not fact. More like wishful thinking. First they are not MY numbers they are Gallup Poll numbers, I'm sure they are far more accurate than anything you could hope to provide. Perfect example btw, very scientific. Your 2 days of research are impressive, Gallup has only been doing this what 75 years? Again, if it doesn't coincide with your view it has to be wrong.How convenient.
The word "socialism" has no relevant meaning anymore. It's tainted to begin with in America, and somehow Obama became a "socialist" in the eyes of the tea party by supporting government programs that every president has, but he's a gay, nazi, marxist, kenyan anti-christ, so now what Obama supports is in fact socialism.
There isn't anything socialism can afford anymore. I can't think of one thing that is truly socialist in 2010.
Fair enough, please post the Gallup poll on the understanding of socialism by the TeaBaggers. And how is your disagreement with my views any different? Gallup polls opinions, not facts. And since most TeaBaggers seem to think lying is an honorable thing to do if it attains their goals, polls don't even judge opinion very accurately anymore. Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck have taken the Tea Party and transformed it into a political movement for the politically stupid. Nothing difficult to understand, nothing based on complicated facts, nothing to learn; all they have to do is show up at a rally with a sound byte on a placard and scream "Obama is a Socialist," or some other insult, and throw stones (metaphorically). And they can't even do that right, the signs are all too often misspelled. .
Individual I notice you’re not addressing the issue but instead trying to misdirect, no this isn’t about slavery or child labour but about an opinion that would countenance both that being that ‘life isn’t fair’ and nothing can be or should be done about it. The thing is that argument is weak even spurious and I’m sure I’m not the only one that has noticed that you’re not contending that. The problem is that this seems like the argument, the only argument, you have put up for claiming that it is supposedly ‘right’ that some children are born into advantages the didn’t earn. So specifically can you defend your argument - that life is unfair and so should remain unfair - against the criticisms levelled at it or not?
Individual I challenge your views and you accuse me of wanting to blind babies! Do you honestly think that a rational and reasonable reply? What next are you going to start chanting – ‘na na da na na you smell of pooh’ – like a child in a playground? Please try and at least act like the adult you’re pretending to be.
OK let us take the example of a child being born blind. In a society with little or no assistance such a child born into a family without the facilities to help is unlikely to fair well. In the past and in some societies today such people often end up on the streets begging. However a child born into a family in such a system with the resources (money, time and education) such a child could prosper. Now in Britain because of the National Health Service many such problems are spotted early and also because of the NHS medical help (or remedy) can usually be given. Also the family can get professional help from such things as Social Services with bringing up the child, supplying help with home improvements, access to educational material (and training for cares), mobility training and a host of other things that wouldn’t be available without government assistance. It doesn’t matter where or to whom the blind child is born in such a system they can all be given a chance to prosper. Now from what I can tell a right wing libertarian system would seem to be a lot closer to the first example than the second.
Cadcruzer, Jackflash I will begin a thread on - The view of socialism in the US Balbus It is here http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=409703&f=36
Then why bring up slavery or child labor? But since you did, do you not recognize that they are impositions of humans over other humans, and my example, born sightless might be claimed to be a disadvantage as well, but not one imposed by another human. While earning money, born into money, or inheriting money may be seen to be an advantage there is no injustice committed for which atonement is necessary. Are you proposing that anything that gives another an unfair advantage should be compensated for?
Indie Now…once more with feeling….this isn’t about slavery or child labour but about an opinion that would countenance both that being that ‘life isn’t fair’ and nothing can be or should be done about it. And again I’m sure people will notice that you still are not addressing what I said to you, to repeat - can you defend your argument - that life is unfair and so should remain unfair - against the criticisms levelled at it or not?
First I think you should recognize the fact that there are many ways in which life is not fair, some beyond any capacity to be changed and others that are changeable. Just because someone has more than another you feel that it is fair and just for government to take from one and give to another? I could almost be led to accept the concept, if we had a flat tax and a majority voted to give government power to raise the tax rate adequately to fund the costs of programs intended to make life more fair for everyone. As it is, while the highest earners do pay the majority of taxes, it is the middle class taxpayers who are affected the most negatively.
Individual I think you are missing the point – thing is that it is usually possible to change an unfair socio-political system to a fairer one (as with slavery and child labour). Do you understand; history is full of such improvements of peoples condition most of them fought for in one way or another against those that said such things as ‘that might be unfair but that’s life’ either because of apathy or opposition to the proposed change. * To recap – You agree the system is unfair You don’t seem to have any argument to support the idea that it should remain unfair. But you seem to want to make things even less fair? I mean all your ideas so far seemed aimed at increasing the power and influence of wealth. A flat tax system would always seem to vastly increase the wealth (and therefore power and influence) of the rich and would most likely end up squeezing the rest especially the middle classes. It is not about distributing advantage but about the further concentration of advantage. And the wealth qualification you’ve suggested on voting rights so that wealth would have more political power than others seems aimed at the same thing Try reading Free market = Plutocratic Tyranny http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=353336&f=36 The principle would be the same wealth, which already had power and influence because of its wealth would increase in power and corrupt any system to its own interests at the expense of other groups.
I am failing to see how you perceive the unfairness of slavery or child labor comparable to the wealth one earns or acquires honestly. Certainly, like slavery or child labor. Be more clear as to what you mean by system. I haven't claimed that anything should remain unfair, only that some things cannot be made to appear fair to everyone in totality. It would appear that way to you or those who feel that government should make the determination of what is fair. Actually the opposite. Why are you pro-equality except when it comes to taxation? Why shouldn't those who provide the greatest funding have a greater voice over how the money is spent? An opinion from the Left. Today we have a government regulated and controlled free market system and monetary system which is complex beyond the capacity of understanding by politicians. Constantly, government looks to how they can regulate in ways to accomplish the agenda of the government in power which makes it difficult for business to plan properly for the future or new businesses to be created in competition. Government is the only entity which has the power to wield control over everything. No one individual or corporation can accumulate and exercise such power, except in the case that it is also the government, like a Communist form of government.
Individual Sorry but you have already admitted that you think the system is unfair, what I’m saying is you don’t seem to have any argument against it being made fairer. A flat tax system would always seem to vastly increase the wealth (and therefore power and influence) of the rich and would most likely end up squeezing the rest especially the middle classes. It is not about distributing advantage but about the further concentration of advantage. And the wealth qualification you’ve suggested on voting rights so that wealth would have more political power than others seems aimed at the same thing. So although you deny it all your ideas do seem aimed at increasing the power and influence of wealth, can you explain why you think it wouldn’t?
