• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What we are living for

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
That's what I though too.

Name calling convinces no one.
If I called you a "commie" would that
convince you to abandon socialism?

If you answer "yes", get ready for
the onslaught.

Mine are not conspiracy theories. Seigniorage is written in Macroeconomics books. It's all aboveboard.
It's a heist aboveboard. It's something that belongs to the States and that was stolen from them.

Nobody has ever succeeded in refuting this argument.
 
Last edited:

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Basic advice all human babies never owned any will or say.

Human sex owns why any of us live today.

That realisation hence said so we should give ourselves the most enjoyable communal life whilst we live.

As it's only passing.... life.
 

Mark Charles Compton

Pineal Peruser
They have it written in their Constitution.

That's crazy to me, I had to look it up to verify the accuracy, after I read your comment. I don't think socialist or capitalist or any other economic system based 'rights' should be enshrined within the fundamental principles and precedents a society uses for guidance regarding civil matters. Suppose a 'better' system is developed, and a state's constitution prevents it from adopting the hypothetically 'better' system, the days of that state are numbered.

It should go without saying or requiring, that those who cannot help themselves should be helped by those that can, within a healthy society. If a society refuses to look after its own, perhaps it deserves to fail like it almost undoubtedly will.
:shrug:

Oh, a document says something.
It must be so!
:oops: I feel like that's the sarcastic treatment my US representatives seem to view our constitution. No respect shown for the ¹second oldest living constitution of our current civilization... if that even means anything, maybe it means it's time to retire it? I would disagree.

¹Republic of San Marino is oldest living constitution.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Suppose a 'better' system is developed, and a state's constitution prevents it from adopting the hypothetically 'better' system, the days of that state are numbered.
Constitution can be amended following prescribed procedure. India as per its Constitution is a Federal, Secular, Socialist, Democratic Republic.
 

Mark Charles Compton

Pineal Peruser
Constitution can be amended following prescribed procedure. India as per its Constitution is a Federal, Secular, Socialist, Democratic Republic.
My only concern would be the ease for exploitation. If the institution that is responsible for operating and maintaining the state's economic sector also has the privilege to write legislation or amend doctrines... Let's just say humans don't have the best track record regarding corruption within government.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
My only concern would be the ease for exploitation. If the institution that is responsible for operating and maintaining the state's economic sector also has the privilege to write legislation or amend doctrines... Let's just say humans don't have the best track record regarding corruption within government.
Who but the Central Government will do all these jobs? India has the largest number of political parties in the world. We have 8 national political parties, 54 recognized state parties and 68 unrecognized notable political parties out of the total 2796 unrecognized political parties.

We have 28 states and 8 union territories. Not all these are ruled by one party. Corruption is present in all kinds of parties, even though we are quite strict about it. The two houses of Indian government also have members from different parties. We have a very strong and active media for and against the government. The Central Government in New Delhi does not have all the rights. Yes, it overseas charges of corruption and also is responsible for writing laws, but what it does is scrutinized by our Supreme Court. We have many checks and balances. Our democracy is working perfectly for the last 75 years except for a period of two years when Mrs. Indira Gandhi declared an emergency after her election was cancelled by a court because of misuse of official machinery. In the election after that Mrs. Gandhi's party was roundly rejected. We have amended our Constitution to make that kind of situation more difficult. Basically, Indians are very democratic in their outlook.
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
It is an official document, just as much a part of that Constitution as secularism is a part of America's Constitution.
The Froggies can say what they want.
But saying so doesn't make it so.
Unless the people own the means
of production, it's not socialism.

Your argument is like claiming that
what ever is printed in the Bible is
true...simply because it's in print.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
The Froggies can say what they want.
But saying so doesn't make it so.
Unless the people own the means
of production, it's not socialism.

Your argument is like claiming that
what ever is printed in the Bible is
true...simply because it's in print.
I think that when it deals with Romance philology and etymology, I have a say, right?

Socialism from Latin socialis derived from the the word socius, which means ally.
It means that all the men and women within a country are perceived as allies and not as opponents. So cooperation is preferred instead of competition. Cooperation in all the fields of public life...which implies a universal healthcare, public (and not private) essential services and so on.

Communism from Latin communis (common) which does mean to put something in common, that is the means of productions.

They are two very different notions, etymologically and factually.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I think that when it deals with Romance philology and etymology, I have a say, right?

Socialism from Latin socialis derived from the the word socius, which means ally.
It means that all the men and women within a country are perceived as allies and not as opponents. So cooperation is preferred instead of competition. Cooperation in all the fields of public life...which implies a universal healthcare, public (and not private) essential services and so on.

Communism from Latin communis (common) which does mean to put something in common, that is the means of productions.

They are two very different notions, etymologically and factually.
Oh, boy...another socialist who believes that capitalism
doesn't have cooperation. And that cooperation means
"socialism".

Do you have internet access to an English dictionary?
Here's one...
Definition of socialism | Dictionary.com
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, capital, land, etc., by the community as a whole, usually through a centralized government.
 
Top