Socialism

[BjornP]

Honestly, I think taxes become immoral when it's no longer to fund government but to redistribute wealth and property, and to provide services to people that are not properly the domain of government.

What socialists do is derive from the defensible proposition, that voluntary socialized institutions are ideal to solve a given problem, a new and indefensible proposition: that therefore we need forced state socialism to solve it.

If Americans just said, fuck it, let's set-up our own health insurance co-op that uses the entire national population as the basis for a single insurance pool, nobody could claim this was stealing. It would be socialism, but not state socialism. It would be voluntary rather mandated and forced.

Basing your government policy on stealing is just a matter of sowing evil seeds. You will only reap evil from that.

I'd agree with you, but only if premised by a certain set of facts on the ground. I believe that the State, that government ought to be, and be percieved as by all, the joint property of the citizens of the state. The land itself should primarily be privately owned. Capitalism mostly works. However, If I believed government owned itself, that it was only meant to own itself, be its own entity, then I'd think your proposed solution would sound ideal, too. The State is the enemy if one allows the State to see itself as owning itself, as owning its allegience, its legitimacy, to itself, if the way it sees citizens is as simply a ressource or product. If achieving that state, is completely impossible, then I'd choose your solution, too.

A few Social Democrats here have started discussing how the original Danish Social Democrat thinkers envisioned a welfare society, not so much a welfare state. The thinking was, that if the state took over too many of the duties society used to take care of without state intervention, then it could eventually be only the state binding people together. Citizens as nothing more than legal entities. Still not a favor of abolishing it, but there are signs of this trend popping up in our language. Like how the word for "care" and "caring" for the elderly and sick, "omsorg", has taken on an almost entirely bureaucratic, government-legalese meaning in the public discourse over the last 10-15 years. It's still not "Socialism", though. That the state holds alot of power can be a wrong thing, without that wrong neccesarily being "Socialist".

To me, Socialism's indefensible proposition is simply that their whole line of argument rests on the fever dreams of a German layabout who was sure capitalism would inevitably fail. It's the idea that history, "world" history even, has a set beginning, a middle and a glorious, golden, end where everything will be daisies and lollipops. And "End of History". A linear progression towards something better, History with a capital "H". It's a lazy philosophy, but perfect for the unthinking:

"Well, HOW will the world turn Socialist, and eventually Communist?"

"Oh, history will naturally progress toward Communism. It's completely scientific! I wrote a book!"

*claps delightedly*

[BjornP]

Taking someone's property without their consent is stealing.

No wall of text you can conjure up is going to change that.

And no amount of your sad need to be offended, can change the fact that you cannot disagree with me. I simply do not, in any way, shape or form, trust that you honestly believe that "Taking someone's property without their consent is stealing". You don't. You lie.

If you're honest, then you must admit that you are stealing from the American people right now.

Did every single American in your country consent to have some of his money be funneled to the funding of your college education?

It's a simple yes or no question, so Okee: Yes? No?

Don't stop there, while you're making up shit I never said, really get creative. See how far you can go.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. It's a simple fact. You take someone else's shit without their permission, you're stealing.

Look how hard bjorn is twisting around to try to get away from that.

Socialism is a state where the majority believe it is okay to steal from others. They invent justifications for their theft. Their theft isn't limited to property, but extends to individuals, which is slavery, but they come up with justifications for that too.

Oh, you never served in the US military? You aren't getting a college education paid for by the taxpayers? Huh, could have sworn I've saw some pictures of you in uniform on a donkey. Must have been stolen valor, then. Maybe the donkey served?

Taking someone else's shit without consent is also called: TAXES.

And yes, Socialists certainly DO invent justifications for taking people's property, money... lives. Which I'd personally regard as theft, slavery, murder, etc. because I'm me, and because I live where I do. None of which changes jack shit for the people living, or who lived, with and under said definitions of legal or illegal property ownership. Blabbering on about some imaginary universal definition of what's legitimate property ownership and what isn't, when it's clear that everyone in the world don't give a shit and never did, about what you - or I - feel is the best way to judge what is legitimate property ownership and what isn't (i.e. theft).

[Okeefenokee]

I wonder why he has such a problem admitting that taking someone else's property without their consent is theft.

Seems like it rubs him the wrong way.

Weird how he keeps trying to turn this into some indictment against me because I was in the army.

/shrug

[BjornP]

I wonder why he has such a problem admitting that taking someone else's property without their consent is theft.

Seems like it rubs him the wrong way.

Weird how he keeps trying to turn this into some indictment against me because I was in the army.

/shrug

Who are you talking to? Some imaginary group of cheerleaders?

Given how your definition of theft is utter nonsense, I'm not going to "admit" to your definition. Theft is the illegitimate taking of someone's property without their consent, not any taking of someone else's property without their consent. It's obvious that the reason you deliberately keep ignoring my point, is because you know I'm right. Do you consider shooting a violent home invader "murder", too, on account of "all killing is murder"? Or are you actually capable of understanding the distinction when it comes to killing, at least?

And please do stow your pathetic attempt to fake your way into a persecuted victim status, mangina. I'm not "turning you having been in the army into an indictment". I'm trying to use those facts - your military service and taxpaid college education - to prove to you that by your own definition of theft - You. Are. A. Thief. To make you understand that by your own definition of "theft", your military career, your college education? Theft.

The conclusion you should obviously reach is instead this, then: "My definition of theft is lacking something- I best correct it abit". Use your goddamn head, Okee and look at what you've written:

"Taking someone's property without their consent is theft". Again: Taxes. Who paid your wages as a soldier? Did all of them "consent", you think?

[Okeefenokee]

Told you.

Thanks for playing Bjorn.

Socialism takes over once people have found justifications to steal other people's property. When people have a proper moral code, they look at socialism and recognize it for the theft that it is.

But Bjorn here lacks that moral code, so he invented a new category where the property that is taken from others without their consent is judged as legitimate or illegitimate based on whether or not he condones the taking.

See how that works?

[BjornP]

Jesus Christ, you really need medical help, Okee. Don't you think people can actually read my posts and see the question you kept dodging?

[Okeefenokee]

They saw you invent something completely separate from what I posted, and then continually try to use it as a personal attack on me to deflect from the actual point I made.

Then you spilled the beans and admitted that you believe in legitimate theft.

[BjornP]

They saw you invent something completely separate from what I posted, and then continually try to use it as a personal attack on me to deflect from the actual point I made.

Then you spilled the beans and admitted that you believe in legitimate theft.

Oh, fuck off with your whiny fake news of having been "attacked", you pathetic, permanent wannabe-victim. I asked you a simple question, so stop being a weepy cunt and just answer it. The question was a simple question meant to make you understand that simply saying: "theft is taking something that someone doesn't want taken", is asinine. So, here it is again: If taking someone's property without consent is theft, were all the taxes that paid for your wages during your service, a result of theft, too? Simple yes or no question - stop being a fake-ass, wannabe-victim pussy and answer it.

[Fife]

Bjorn... pssst: Taxation is theft.

...and, Okee's service record is not a counter-argument. Just so you know.

#dpap

:goteam: :drunk:

[pineapplemike]

I personally don't want my hard earned taxes stolen from me at gunpoint to fund the bloated US military budget. Audit the Pentagon