Brands Of Socialism.

I really couldn't be clearer, and as far as I am concerned I have answered your questions. If you want me to associate myself with a "political party" or "movement" that has a nifty, gee-whiz website, sorry to disappoint. As I've said before, I support strict adherence to the US Constitution and all that that entails. Period. If you want to know what that entails, read the document. It is that simple. And as I've already said in previous posts, no, I do not believe that a truly free society can have socialism in any form or manifestation, or parts or features thereof. Period. This is the last time I am going to answer this question; I've already restated my position twice previously. If you do not like the answer, stop asking the question. I am an Independent, I do not vote along party lines; I support whomever I judge to best represent the principles I support. The so-called Constitution Party neither represents libertarian (small "L") ideals, nor does it support the US Constitution in my experience. It has co-opted the banner of the US Constitution to provide a place for fringe religious fanatics for whom the Reform Party is too liberal. Political parties in general, in their existing form, do little to further the cause of returning the US to rule of law, as described in the Constitution. I wonder sometimes if they are not actually supported by other parties interested in maintaining the current status quo. If I have reponded unsatisfactorily to you I can only assume it is because you do not get the response you wish to hear. Trying to brow-beat me by repeatedly saying that I have not answered your question when I clearly have will neither make me change my opinion nor render my position untenable. To sum up in case you missed it the first several times - socialism in any form and a truly "free society" are inherently incompatible. Socialism robs the individual of self-determination and is a proven path to totalitarian oppression and dependence upon the government.

 

And never let the goverment disarm us.

 

The Constitution spells out the process for amending it, as long as the process is followed it is possible to "change with the times" while strictly adhering to the document. Again, I reiterate what I have already said. As to the 20the Century, my statement was that that is when Constitutional law was modified by extra-constitutional means, if you would bother to read. Trying to judge history from a modern viewpoint is a common fallacy and consistently used to justify "overhauling" political systems as you put it. The fact that slavery was a common and accepted institution at the time this country was founded (and an institution brought here in part by Britain I might add) does not detract from the inherent value of the Constitution, and the fact that it was later amended within the constraints set forth clearly illustrates how it can be flexible and how extra-constitutional measures are unnecessary. I would argue that it was imposition of federal power on states that allowed segregation to continue for so long, from simple acceptance to outright encouragement on the part of the federal government, particularly towards the South US, stemming from the resonstruction era and continuing throughout the 20th century. The civil war was the first and most egregious assertion of federal control over the autonomous states (and anyone who says it was fought because of slavery is severely misinformed). Had the southern states not received open support for their policies from the federal government, I argue that segregation would not have lasted so long. Many of the states voluntarily de-segregated prior to the 50s and 60s. No, it was not the federal government, but the civil rights movement which brought about desegregation. The will of the people, not the interdiction of the feds accomplished this. Desegregation was well underway before the feds stepped in. As to your views of the US political system - I really couldn't care less. Not being a citizen of this nation, your opinion doesn't matter to me in the least on this subject (just as I couldn't care less about the political system in your own country).

 

Hi Rob

Hey man why come on all defensive, you have come to a political forum presumably to express your political views but when asked to explain them in anything more than simplest detail and you clam up tighter than a ducks arse.

What gives?

Are you somehow frightened that your viewpoint might not stand up to scrutiny? If so, why are you sure they are worth having?

"I support strict adherence to the US Constitution and all that that entails. Period."

But that is the very problem just what does that actually "entail"?

I’m asking you to set out how you think ‘strict adherence to the US Constitution’ would work, this is your moment to shine to wow us with your theories and ideas, but instead of enthusiasm we get reticence.
I’m honestly curious as to why?

**

I mean think about it, there are many people that call themselves Christians and say they follow the teachings of Christ, but there seems to be many different interpretations of what those words mean.

Different people might have different opinions as to the correct interpretation of what is meant by the wording of the US’s constitution. You might claim to have the correct interpretation and that others are wrong, but Catholics have long claimed that their interpretation of the word of god is correct and the Protestant’s views wrong. As is well known a lot of killing has come about due to just those differing interpretations.

**

For example

Preamble - We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Article 1, section 8, Clause 1- The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


What does the "general Welfare of the United States" mean and what is the best way to "promote" it?

Do you think that diffrent peoples political viewpoint might colour just how they actually intrepid it?

**

 

**

Sorry Rob but you seem to have missed the point.

Today I hope most US citizens think slavery abhorrent in the 18th century it was different, the point I was making was that peoples viewpoints change over time.

There would probably have been no need for an amendment outlawing slavery if the original document had been produced today, because of their views today they wouldn’t have interpreted it to allow it (as those of the 18th century did).

In other words the amendment against slavery was needed to clarify a point that would not have been needed to be clarify now. Unless that is you believe that without the amendment it is OK to have slavery which brings us to the views of Antonin Scalia. Who as I said earlier, and you have not corrected me, seems to believe that the Constitution of the US should be interpreted only in the way that it would have been by the Founding Fathers at the time they drafted it.

But that would mean people having to disregard their abhorrence of slavery view it as acceptable and allow it to happen until an amendment was made to make it wrong.

Pretty stupid yes?
We do not have 18th century views and cannot un-think modern thoughts so we are going to view things differently.


**

If I read your interpretation of history correctly you seem to be claiming that slavery would have stopped without the American Civil War and segregation would have ended quicker without the Federal governments involvement?

Interesting theory what are you using (besides opinion) to back it up?

 

**

"As to your views of the US political system - I really couldn't care less"
"I couldn't care less about the political system in your own country"

I think this could be your major drawback in the understanding of politics and it also shows a dangerous tendency toward a desire for totalitarian thought, I mean a closed mind has probably killed more people than any gun.

I mean if you start excluding ideas because of who says them or where they come from what next do you disregard any argument that doesn’t fit exactly with you own however persuasive it might be.

Their have been those that believe their race or ideology superior to others and it has lead them to try and exterminate inferior races or murder political opponents. Now I’m not saying you are a Stalin or Hitler but if you truly "couldn't care less" about other peoples views so that you are happy to dismiss them without giving them a fair hearing then you might have taken the first step in that direction.



**

 

“I am an Independent, I do not vote along party lines; I support whomever I judge to best represent the principles I support.”

Oh not another right winger claiming some type of impartiality, what is it with the US that so many blatant right wingers feel they can pass themselves off as being ‘independent’ of thought when most of those thoughts are right wing.

Ok Rob but before I fall for it can you tell us what principles you support and can you tell me just what left wing values that you do hold dear?

I mean you reject all socialist principles and ideas, right, you think them incompatible with you definition of ‘freedom’, don’t you?

 

The real question is can you name 1country at all that did not have an evil government.

Whether democray, theocracy, capitalism, communism, socialism, monarchy all governments are power hungry and will label themselves as anything to achive their goals (which is usually of course to obtain more power).

Again, socialism/communism are economic/social movements that have several times been twisted into a political force. Like forcing a round peg into a square hole.

 

Government

Perfect Government
There has only been 1 nation with a “perfect” government in history, Israel with theocracy. Theocracy is a system of government in which God himself rules personally or through chosen representatives. Theocracy is no longer a form of government today as God no longer speaks directly to us nor does he use prophets.

America, Constitutional Republic
Now, here in America we have what is known as a republic. A republic is a government in which the people rule indirectly through elected representatives. So we have what is called a “Constitutional Republic”.
America’s founding fathers firmly believed in the Biblical doctrine of man’s sin and wisely shunned democracy for that reason. Also, they had just won their independence from a tyrannical king and they also shied away from monarchy. They realized that political power is no safer in the hands of the people than it is in the hands of a single ruler. So they made a balance between the two, something with elements of autocracy and democracy… the result was a constitutional republic.

Democracy
What a democracy is, is when the people rule directly by a popular vote. Democracy is the most unstable form of government because of its tendency to go to “mob rule”, and ultimately tyranny. Its like an empty thrown… people ruling without a leader… the thrown will ALWAYS be filled with a dictator… in Germanys case, Hitler was the man among others before him. So, unless people are perfect… a democracy cannot work… and as Christians (and even non Christians know) people are not perfect, they are full of sin and wickedness.
Alexander Tyler, a great historian who all of you have doubtlessly heard of and probably studied, says this about democracy:
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy [taxing and spending] , always followed by a dictatorship. The average life of the world’s greatest civilizations has been two hundred years.”
Athens is a good example of he is talking about. Athens was a democracy that lasted for 200 years and then turned into a tyranny (dictatorship) through the exact same process… note that America has been around for only slightly longer. Thank God were are not a democracy… it does make me nervous when the liberal left insists we are a democracy though, aren’t you?

Dictatorships
The favorite way of dictators to get into power, is through socialism. Socialism is not a form of government, but a system of government control over the economy of a nation. So, socialism is always where democracies will end up… you can have a socialistic state (nation) and it still be considered a democracy. We all know that the left is for BIG government and also wishes to be called a democracy… well big government within a democracy is socialism!!! The left of this nation are moving us ever toward socialism by doing things like making government programs and regulations that put more and more into the hands of the government, not the people. Socialism is not a form of government again… it is simply a small stepping stone from democracy to communism (really a dictatorship). Communist around the world know this and prey on it. Soviet Premier Nikita S. Khrushchev said , “ We cannot expect Americas to jump from capitalism to communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans doses of socialism until they suddenly awake to find they have communism.”

 

Communism and Socalism do not equal dictatorship, they are wonderful theories on paper however can not, will not, and have not ever existed in real life unfortunately human nature prevents this. in communism and socalism its everyone working for the common good, similar to ancient societies by the celts and the native americans where trading was common and if someone had too much meat and another had too much corn they would help out each other and trade. those however were not communist or socalist societies, they still had a cheif or ruler and small groups still warred between each other. the reason human nature prevents these from working is this, one people will always want control and power, so when communism is tried it becomes a dictatorship, one person controling the masses, and two human nature also causes this say in a system with money instead of trade and joe and bob both make 40 dollars a day for polishing toad stools, no matter what they still get their 40 dollars at 3pm every day, so bob decides to slack and only polish 3 toad stools while joe polishes 50 but they still get paid the same, its human nature not the systems of government themselves that cause them to fail

 

PLEASE!!!!!



Read the works before you even pretend to know what you are talking about.

You know as much about socialist theory as i do about Intersteller travel. Nothing at all.

Socialism and communism are NOT pro big government. They are antigovernment.

PICK UP A BOOK OR AT LEAST GOOGLE SOMETHING BEFORE YOU RESPOND.

Thank you.

 

IS that why everything was run by the goverment in russia. since people are too dumb to think for them self.

 

I'll repeat myself one last time for your benefit.

The U.S.S.R. was as much an example of marxist teachings as the Catholic Church has been an example of Christ's teachings...

Please read ALL my previous posts in this thread before responding as it will keep me from repeating myself any futher.

 

both are theory but never a working model.