I don't believe in perfect worlds.
So I advocate against our government
having such power.
-
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!
Biden Wants All Banks To Report Transactions To IRS
- Thread starter esmith
- Start date
So I advocate against our government
having such power.
That's cuz you're so much farther left than the rest of us.
My extremism is different from the right-v-left perspective.
It really began in the 1800s in the states.
The fed got involved in the early 1900s with opiates.
Since then, it was just escalation by both Dems & Pubs.
The only major political party to oppose the war on drugs
was the Libertarian Party....just us loonies.
Capitalism is cooperation to compete. People form their own
economic associations...employee, employer, contractor, etc.
Socialism is state coercion to cooperate....no free economic
associations. One must only work for "the people", which has
historically always been centralized government. This can get
very ugly...purges & famines being rife in socialist regimes.
Socialists seem to never understand the necessity of cooperation
in capitalism. They decry loathed competition, ignoring workers,
suppliers, employers, businesses cooperating in vast networks of
people making the economy function. Yet all compete to advance
in jobs & the markets.
Socialists resemble creationists....they don't see value & efficiency
of stochastic processes (capitalism or evolution). Their perspective
is a central plan by a benevolent master, be it government or God.
Capitalists see the system of economics emerging from the apparent
chaos of individual interactions.
I regret this being rather TLTR, even after paring away much.
Last edited:
Fair enough. You and I likely agree on that point. Insofar as I think the government is innately corrupt. So I don’t think this makes much difference
Guess I’m not very trusting
The left vs. right political spectrum may be imperfect, but to associate "left" with being "pro-wealthy" seems way off the mark. There are Democrats who are pro-wealthy, but I wouldn't consider them to be "left."
Many liberals and progressives favored looking at it as a medical issue, not a criminal issue.
A logical consequence of capitalism, as it was practiced during the industrial revolution, was a rise in malignant nationalism. Nations were competing with each other for economic and strategic advantage, just as businesses compete with each other. Distracting the masses with patriotic myths about the greatness of their nation was also helpful to capitalist interests. It worked especially well in countries that had colonial empires, as the capitalists could exploit the wealth of the colonies, and still have enough left over to keep the home folks happy (or at least adequately satisfied enough that they weren't going to rise up or revolt).
Trust should not be given freely.
You & they....all on the left.
Just different degrees.
Not that many, ie, not enuf to sway their party.
Moreover, the real progressives were Libertarian....a powerless
& largely useless bunch of malcontents, idealists, & dreamers.
Show your logic.
In particular, how it applies to capitalism in that other
systems don't also result in "malignant nationalism"
(which we see in N Korea, for example).
Myths of greatness are even more outrageous in socialist
countries like N Korea & China, with god-like venreation
of leaders.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
It pays more anyways. No fees and charges set up to steal people's money away from them.Time to start stuffing money into the old mattress I suppose.
I suppose the government is assuming that you are going to try and hide their money from them.
And it's not a crime (yet) to keep cash.
However, if you're caught with a lot of it, government can
just take & keep it until you prove to their satisfaction that
it's your legally obtained money. Of course, this takes time,
lawyers, accountants, & money to accomplish. This is an
especial problem if you're transporting it....cops can take
it, & their department gets to keep it for themselves.
Such financial disclosure regulation is also accompanied
with new unanticipated laws. For example....
https://www.money-education.com/res...ng-cash-transactions-under-10-000-is-criminal
The feds have swooped in to take all the money from small
businesses that make numerous cash deposits. All they need
to justify it is to claim "structuring".
What new criminal laws is Biden sneaking into this?
I guess we just have different perspectives on this. I think when compared to European politicians, U.S. politicians perceived to be "left" in America might be considered "center" or "right" in Europe.
That's been my main point. The center of the Democratic Party has been more right-wing, pro-capitalist, pro-drug war, pro-interventionist, pro-globalism/free trade - not really that much different from Republicans. The only real difference between the two is that the Republicans are the domain of the religious right - and Democrats have taken positions in opposition to the religious right
Well, as I've said before, capitalism justifies itself on the principle of competition and social Darwinism. Those who win the competition get the spoils of wealth and power, while those who lose the competition get to shine their shoes. That's the basis of the competition and the implied justification for the massive disparities between rich and poor in this country. We're told that the wealthy classes are simply "better" than the "drones" (which is a word you've used to describe working people) who simply aren't good enough and depend on the kindness of others to earn their few crusts of stale bread.
Nationalism is similar in that it is also based upon and justified by principles of competition and social Darwinism. As one German nationalist philosopher put it, "the weak and cowardly perish, and perish justly." It's the idea that only the strong shall survive, and nationalist competition between nations reached a head by 1914, when Austrian nationalism clashed with Serbian nationalism, which snowballed into a World War. World War II had basically the same roots, although it was nationalism on steroids.
Socialism came about as a counter to both capitalism and nationalism.
North Korea and China are more nationalistic than anything else. Socialism, as envisioned by Marx and many early socialists was intended to be more international in its scope; eg. "Workers of the world - unite!" That many of them gravitated towards nationalism was unfortunate, but understandable considering the colossal forces they were up against.
To envision something isn't to make that something real.
Socialism has a big problem with how it typically plays out.
Believers think that corruption of money, markets, wealth,
& competition are eliminated, so it will be a worker's paradise
that achieves all their social & economic goals.
Instead, there is still money, just much less of it.
There is still power to be fought over.
There are no real elections to be corrupted, but this lack is
an even greater problem cuz the people have no real voice
in the single political party.
Wealth still accrues to the politically powerful, eg, the dachas
of Soviet mucky mucks.
Markets become "black".
Economic competition is replaced with stagnation.
Perhaps. Little sad that I can’t bring myself to trust an institution supposedly set up to protect its citizens
Institutions take on a life of their own.
As we see with politicians, they bend government's
machinery to serve their own personal interests.
True
I never denied that they had their share of problems, but what you keep ignoring in these screeds against socialism is that both the Soviet Union and China greatly improved over what they were before. In the USSR, the literacy rate improved, there was greater access to education and healthcare, higher education expanded and was made tuition-free, improvements in infrastructure, industry, science, technology. They even surpassed the U.S. in some technologies, not to mention beating us into space.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Ohh.. like they did with Kent Hovind.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
And all those cool military parades.
I don't ignore it. I deem it irrelevant.
The issue is which system offers the best results.
If the USSR is your most successful example of socialism,
than it's a failure relative to better examples of capitalist
countries, eg, Denmark, USA, Canuckistan, Australiastan,
New Zealand, Switzerland.
This is not to say those countries are without problems.
(Going there before you do.) I prefer them simply because
they're better than the best socialist countries....but that's
only if one wants both social & economic liberty. Not all
do...some want security, ideological correctness, no
private property, & no wealthy people. To them, USSR
is a fine place.
What happened to him?