Obama is a socialist.

[ShotgunBlast]

Obviously you are passionate about the subject. That's OK, for there are subjects I am likewise passionate about.

Since we here in the US are a...what...capitalist democratic republic, can you look around you and find any problems in our society?

For instance, speaking of "private property" - is it fair (good) that as I drive down the road and look at all the trees and fields along the roadways where I live here in southern Virginia, that just about every wooded location I pass has NO TRESPASSING signs posted every 40-50 feet? Is it "good" that those who can afford to purchasece (or inherit) very, very large tracts of land can simply keep the rest of us out? I can offer a more fair alternative to private property (with regard to land) but I get the impression that you would not be the slightest bit interested.

Is it "good" that the Walmart heirs posses more wealth amongst the 6 of them than the bottom 40% of the country? (That's 6 people having more combined wealth than the bottom 124,000,000).

As to health care...I am in my mid 50's and have lived with out health insurance for the past 9 years because I simply can not afford it. If it wasn't for the fact that I am a vet, and my income has now dropped low enough that I qualify for assistance through the VA (can you say "socialized health care"?) I would still now not be able to afford treatment.

And for what it's worth, just by saying "US Postal Service", saying "Social Security", and saying "Medicare", you have not in any way pointed out your perceived faults in those organizations / programs. You have simply done what the OP did, which is assume that everyone will agree with you that those organizationszations / programs are "bad". Ask most senior citizen who are on S.S. and Medicare what they think of them.

As for the US Postal Service...I have been using them for many, many years with little complaint. You?

I think many on this forum would consider me one of the more liberal ones here, but I have to agree with the sentiment expressed already. Things like private property are good. It's one of the reasons people come to this great country. Get their little piece of earth and try to make something of it. You don't know why that person has No Trespassing signs all along their property, but I would suspect that if they didn't they'd have to deal with all kinds of people on their property (more than likely with guns looking to shoot stuff). Now if I owned acres and acres of wilderness I wouldn't have a big problem with people using it to hunt (and you don't know this person doesn't do the same thing), but I'd at least like to know who's on my property to hunt to minimize any liability.

Yes, it is good that the Walton's have a ton of money. It shows that with hard work and luck that if you're successful you get to keep the fruit of your labor. Take away the fruit and you take away the incentive to even try and then there's nothing left to redistribute to everyone.

I only use the USPS when I absolutely have to. It abhors me when I get something shipped and it doesn't come UPS or FedEx. Like everything else the government controls (healthcare, public schools), it merely provides a baseline on how something could work, but because there's no incentive to excel because those workers get paid either way the baseline is all you end up with. In my experience with UPS or FedEx I gladly pay a little bit more to get better service, accurate delivery, and accurate, up-to-date tracking. In a shipping company, that's what I'm looking for.

But hey, like you said, we can still talk about guns and that's really what I'm on this forum for.

[gfost1]

Howdy, Y'all,

Social collectivism aint a bad thing in and of itself. It is described and (dare I say) encouraged in both the Old and New Testaments.

The problems with socialism become evident once participation is no longer voluntary.

Regards,

George

[gunderwood]

The problems with socialism become evident once participation is no longer voluntary.

This is a self contradictory statement. Even capitalism has no problems with voluntary giving and sharing, in fact the Capitalists are always exposing the virtues of private charity (aka voluntary) and the socialist whom are always saying that's not enough and we must do with force what people won't do of their own inclination. However, it's the very core of socialism to use force, regardless if it's at the ballot box or with a cartridge box, to impose those things which "good for society at large." Real capitalism, not the phoney corrupt excuse of government controlled economy that we've had for generations, core principles are private property and the virtue of voluntary exchange. Socialism, along with several other "isms," is the anti-thesis of private property and free exchange since the <insert evil group here> won't do with their private property what you want them to do. Thus, we do disagree because I view theft as against both the Old and New Testaments and as evil in of itself. To claim the Bible exposes it is gross misrepresentation.

Edit: The problem with most socialists is that they've never actually studied their philosophy, rather they take it at it's nice sounding face value of doing good things.

[GeneFrenkle]

Those longer temed ones are more marxist/lennonist socialists. But, yes, they don't seem to last long.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Kreutz]

First, as Kreutz asked: what IS socialism? Here's a genrally accepted answer:
................................................................................
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
....................................................................................

This definition (to me anyway) describes actual communism, not a transitional state.

Socialist countries do have private property and production...the percentage of what is state owned and privately owned will vary by country.

When I think "socialist" I think "mixed market economy"....what we've been since (largely) FDR as others have noted.

[dorminWS]

@Kreutz:
The reason I posted the definition was because I suspected more than a few had never really checked to see what the definition of socialism was. The fact that there may not be and may not have been any purely socialist systems doesn't change the definition of the philosophy/system. It does, in my opinion, show that socialism is not workable except as a cancer on capitalism or some other workable system (if there is one). No system is a purely capitalist state, either. Your opinion about actual states doesn't change the definition of socialism, and neither does mine.

The point here, as I see it, is that what we've seen in our system so far was first just a little bit of socialism in a limited area when the exigencies of the moment seemed to require it and the implication was that it was temporary. But the propensity of politicians to hand out something for nothing being what it is, it never went away; and then it started increasing in scope; and now we have an increasingly socialIST system. That has made a lot of folks lose sight of the ugly fact that socialISM does not admit of private property at all. Seems to me that we have now arrived at a point where our present regime would like to tell us, "we'll let you hold private property long enough to generate wealth, but THEN we'll take it". Seems to me this point occurs not too much prior to the killing of the goose that lays the golden egg. Hearken back to the story about boiling the frog. The frog is now sweating profusely and on the verge of heat stroke. Hence the current economic malaise.

[gunderwood]

@Kreutz:
The reason I posted the definition was because I suspected more than a few had never really checked to see what the definition of socialism was. The fact that there may not be and may not have been any purely socialist systems doesn't change the definition of the philosophy/system. It does, in my opinion, show that socialism is not workable except as a cancer on capitalism or some other workable system (if there is one). No system is a purely capitalist state, either. Your opinion about actual states doesn't change the definition of socialism, and neither does mine.

The point here, as I see it, is that what we've seen in our system so far was first just a little bit of socialism in a limited area when the exigencies of the moment seemed to require it and the implication was that it was temporary. But the propensity of politicians to hand out something for nothing being what it is, it never went away; and then it started increasing in scope; and now we have an increasingly socialIST system. That has made a lot of folks lose sight of the ugly fact that socialISM does not admit of private property at all. Seems to me that we have now arrived at a point where our present regime would like to tell us, "we'll let you hold private property long enough to generate wealth, but THEN we'll take it". Seems to me this point occurs not too much prior to the killing of the goose that lays the golden egg. Hearken back to the story about boiling the frog. The frog is now sweating profusely and on the verge of heat stroke. Hence the current economic malaise.

+1

Men are so inconsistent with their philosophy that creating a 100% capitalistic or socialistic state is not likely to ever happen on a large scale. Doesn't mean we can't work towards restoring property rights and voluntary exchange vice government privilege. Also, there is a difference between what the current band of socialists want to do and what they can get away with. Just because there are some property rights left in this country (mostly on small items) doesn't mean they like it that way. It's like the gun grabbers, just because they *might* grandfather your AR15 in the next AWB, doesn't mean they wouldn't take it if given the chance. Many of them admitted that the first time around.

[downzero]

And that would be the nicest thing I would say about him.

[dorminWS]

I tought the general consensus was him being anticolonialist. As for socialism, are there any truly socialist countries? Meaning, any sizable ones in terms of population. I thought it was demonstrated to not scale well.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I meant to opine that being anticolonialist does not preclude one from being a socialist. In fact, I would expect the two sentiments are pretty compatible.

[zombiekiller57]

When the Russian State News organization, Pravda say's your a socialist, your a socialist. They've called out Obama's policies as 'socialist policies' on more than one occasion.

[FiremanBob]

As Churchill said, "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

To accept the false idea that Socialism is in any way good, one has to reject the idea of inalienable natural rights as described in the Declaration of Independence. One has to embrace the Marxist notion that envy is a valid reason for taking property from the person who has earned it and giving it to someone who has not. One has to believe that the Soviet Union, Mao's China, Castro's Cuba, and Chavez's Venezuela improved the lives of the people who lived under those regimes and . One has to believe that in Orwell's "1984", Winston Smith is the evil character, and O'Neill the hero. One has to believe that the government is the head of society and every individual who is not a member of the ruling political class is subservient to it. One has to believe that it is moral to force someone to work for another without compensation, and compel that work by force if the worker does not submit. (Watch this last one play out under Obamacare.)

Socialism is poison to humanity as a whole and to every individual human, and there is no way to compromise with it. As Ayn Rand once said, if you take a glass of milk and mix it with an equal amount of poison, you're still dead.

[WRW]

FiremanBob,
Thanks for the Churchill quote. It exemplified perfectly the sentiments of the pro-socialist poster in this thread.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]