Isn't this called free market capitalism? So, you claim that America has always been a corporate fascist state?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Socialist : an insult ?
- Thread starter Spear
- Start date
- Status
Isn't this called free market capitalism? So, you claim that America has always been a corporate fascist state?
Nonsequitur
New Member
Uh...yes, contrary to European beliefs, we here in the U.S. are educated in the different political beliefs. (Well, maybe not since '75) I do apologize for the late posting to your reply but I was out fishing.
As for "Can't you imagine one second that some could have a totally broken or wrong idea of what socialism / marxism is (and you know that's true, considering some don't know or make the difference) ?" Yes, I can, but only small children and those with the mental capacity not to be able to dress themselves each morning. I've known lots of people who came to this country to get away from communism. I can't say I know anyone that left here to go find 'Freedom' in a communist country. Search what? My own experiences? My own knowledge of what communsm has done to the world? No...your correct. I just pulled my opinion out of a hat. You know me to well. You win.:tongue3:
Nonsequitur
New Member
O.K. I'll buy that. But my original question still goes, how do you know if he is wrong or right about it? How do you know what his life experiences are with it?
Like I said to our French ami, I have to apologize for the late response but I was fishing.
I listen to a lot of preachers, and I never take to heart anything a man says unless I can prove it with the Word of God. But I never listen to a man talk to me about communism, without asking why if it worked so well, why do they seem to kill all their people? Comparing preachers trying to teach the Word of God and a communist trying to tell one that their system is the best sounds like a Nonsequitur to me. :laugh:
The only "communist" experiments are some communes and religious orders. There never has been a communist national government. Some Indian/Iniut (sp?) tribes might come close. The rest are socialist thus USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics). note that the USSR was republic.
Nonsequitur
New Member
Right. Let me ask you something. Do you know what the black stuff is in the bird dookie that one sometimes sees on the sidewalk?
>>1. It is a system where business interests and motives are held supreme over the interests of the public – usually leading to detrimental impacts on the public good.
>Isn't this called free market capitalism? So, you claim that America has always been a corporate fascist state?
Ever since the Supreme Court decided that a corporation was a "person" with the same constitutional rights (where applicable) as a human person.
>Isn't this called free market capitalism? So, you claim that America has always been a corporate fascist state?
Ever since the Supreme Court decided that a corporation was a "person" with the same constitutional rights (where applicable) as a human person.
Nonsequitur
New Member
You might choke on your Pepsi here...but I agree. Communism on paper works great. In reality, we get Ho Chi Mihn, Pol Pot, Stalin, Chavez, etc.
And uh, no, this is NOT call free-market capitalism. If it was 'free-market', the govt. would not be involved except to make sure that the product or service was not harming anyone.
"So, you claim that America has always been a corporate fascist state?"
Come on Bill, tell us the truth, you've been drinking tonight right? How else would you say that since, (1) I never said (typed) that, (2) my argument has to do with just the opposite of that premise, and, (3) that's a very transparent derailment technique which doesn't even have a thing to do with the OP.
I think nobody here ever said communism ever worked well anywhere as a national political way of living.
Most often, a little group takes advantage of the situation and you get things like Nomenklatura in USSR.
From a neutral point of view some part of the " concept " can be seducing, even if hardly appliable for real : no matter if you're an aeronautics engineer, a miner, working hard in the fields, everyone earns the same, the fact an engineer studies much more being compensated by the fact a miner has a much harder work.
Honestly, if i imagine that from a neutral point of view, i wonder " would it be fair ? ", i don't envy the concept, i don't know why, but that's just the way it is.
In our capitalistic world (even here in Europe, even if some could consider us socialist states
), the system is in the opposite : the market rules, offer and demand. In the basis, ethic doesn't get involved in capitalism. I think with some control, it's better than communism/marxism, that's what i believe : everyone has a minimum guaranteed, but some can, by being ingenious, working hard, and so on, become richer.
The matter, today, is the equation : the richest are always richer, the poor are poorer, and more in number, and finally, the mid class i belong to tends more to go down the scale than upward. That's my bilan of capitalism today.
Most often, a little group takes advantage of the situation and you get things like Nomenklatura in USSR.
From a neutral point of view some part of the " concept " can be seducing, even if hardly appliable for real : no matter if you're an aeronautics engineer, a miner, working hard in the fields, everyone earns the same, the fact an engineer studies much more being compensated by the fact a miner has a much harder work.
Honestly, if i imagine that from a neutral point of view, i wonder " would it be fair ? ", i don't envy the concept, i don't know why, but that's just the way it is.
In our capitalistic world (even here in Europe, even if some could consider us socialist states
), the system is in the opposite : the market rules, offer and demand. In the basis, ethic doesn't get involved in capitalism. I think with some control, it's better than communism/marxism, that's what i believe : everyone has a minimum guaranteed, but some can, by being ingenious, working hard, and so on, become richer.The matter, today, is the equation : the richest are always richer, the poor are poorer, and more in number, and finally, the mid class i belong to tends more to go down the scale than upward. That's my bilan of capitalism today.
Au contraire: what we are now experiencing is, in some ways, the pinnacle of untrammelled free-market capitalism - where the free market acquires such power that it controls the government and forces it to do its bidding; thus government becomes 'involved' as you put it but at the behest of the Market. The most glaring example of this in recent months has been the taxpayer-funded bank bail outs on both side of the Pond: the Market demanded that the government help it out with the very real threat of global economic meltdown if it failed to do so, and the governments of the developed world danced to its tune at our expense. In many ways, for all the talk of 'nationalised' or even 'socialised' banks (which is laughable anyway - you see what happens when government tries to get the banks to turn the bonus tap off!), this represents the antithesis of communism: everyone is being ripped off for the benefit of the privileged rich few...
Like I said, Poncho has hit closest to the nail out of all of us...
'm honored Jim ! You prepare the tea, i'll bring the cakes and the chocolates. To all, i'm speaking from the heart. I don't encourage laziness, or force anyone to share. But our world is more and more individualist, and i consider myself a progressist (and not a polical leftist), by willing to do so that everyone can have a minimum. Of course, everyone must make an effort, in terms or integration if he comes from a foreign country, learn the language, meet people from his new nation, find a job and so on ... everyone must try hard to find some work, and learn new competences if necessary. There are so many topics about that. I'm straight in one thing : we must give people the possibility to learn the langage, to find the job, ... if these possibilities clearly exist, and people don't follow, then they've got NO excuse, and i won't support them. Let's start by giving and sharing, we'll at least know we've done the right thing. A shelter and enough to eat everyday, that would be normal, no ?
I'm glad you like Jim, He's a good fellow (for the most part). But, the rest of your post qualifies for the bed wetting liberal award of the year. It would be nice if everyone had a shelter and enough to eat everyday but for those who won't work, who won't contribute, who won't achieve, and expect everyone else to take care of them, don't give them anything. Entitlements, welfare, etc. do nothing but to perpetuate poverty and lead to the eventual downfall of a nation as more and more people begin to think just like you do (ie. "I deserve three squares, a place to live, and cable t.v. to boot. And, the man who has more channels than I do is evil."). Everyone is not entitled to three squares a day nor a roof over his or her head. . Everyone is not entitled to a free this and a free that. Only a bed wetting liberal advocate taking from the achievers and those who work hard and giving it to those who don't and won't. Ok, let's all hold hands and break into singing John Lennon's song. "Imagine there's no......"
I'm glad you like Jim, He's a good fellow (for the most part). But, the rest of your post qualifies for the bed wetting liberal award of the year. It would be nice if everyone had a shelter and enough to eat everyday but for those who won't work, who won't contribute, who won't achieve, and expect everyone else to take care of them, don't give them anything. Entitlements, welfare, etc. do nothing but to perpetuate poverty and lead to the eventual downfall of a nation as more and more people begin to think just like you do (ie. "I deserve three squares, a place to live, and cable t.v. to boot. And, the man who has more channels than I do is evil."). Everyone is not entitled to three squares a day nor a roof over his or her head. . Everyone is not entitled to a free this and a free that. Only a bed wetting liberal advocate taking from the achievers and those who work hard and giving it to those who don't and won't. Ok, let's all hold hands and break into singing John Lennon's song. "Imagine there's no......"
You assume that 'don't'='won't'; what about 'don't'='can't'? What then - just stuff 'em? Doesn't sound very Christian to me...
[ETA - interesting that Tom and Tim's results demonstrate that you can be right-wing and authoritarian. Ho hum...]
[ETA - interesting that Tom and Tim's results demonstrate that you can be right-wing and authoritarian. Ho hum...]
Last edited by a moderator:
Matt, if you want to give a portion of your income to support those with an entitlement mentality then by all means do so. It should be your free choice. But, it is wrong for the government to forcibly take a portion of one's income to support those who won't and don't work by personal choice. BTW, I didn't say anything about "can't." That's a whole different issue. But, many who say that "can't" can. They just won't.
Last edited by a moderator:
Would you support the government taking a pacifist's income forcibly from him to pay for national defence?
Well, now that you've accepted the principle of taxation ie: forcibly removing some of an individual's wealth and income to pay for, in some cases, things which s/he believes strongly to be undeserving causes, on what basis do you say that your opinion as to what constitutes an 'undeserving cause' should be given greater pre-eminence by the government than that of the pacifist?
No, this is apples and apples: the pacifist is forced to part with his money by the government to pay for a cause to which he strenuously objects; so are you. Why is your opinion more important than his? You support the government in their denial of his conscience; why therefore should others not do the same to you?
Robert Snow
New Member
You won't get an answer, or at least an honest answer from Sagie, if he answered you honestly he would show his inconsistency.
Earth to Billwald: just beacuse someone uses "republic" in their official country name...does not mean they actually are.
Try and use some accurate information, hmm?
- Status