Socialism

[BjornP]

It's entirely the American right's fault. When you get a couple of generations of right-wing retards calling everything from unions and welfare states, to just raising taxes "Socialist", it's completely natural that younger generations grow up to think that if the spectrum of Socialism really goes from capitalist sponsored welfare state to Soviet style totalitarianism, they think they picked the nice Socialism.

What neither the right wing retards or the left wing retards seem to understand is that the majority of those Americans who today call themselves "Socialist", aren't. They are "Socialist" in the same way all of us here "really"(according to some) are racist, nazi, cisgender homophobes...

No. It's the fault of parents that didn't teach their children that stealing is wrong. They grow up to be adults that don't think stealing is wrong. Then you get a society that believes it is okay to take according to need with no regard for ownership.

Given how historically Communist countries have dealt with thieves, I doubt that particular counter-argument will resonate amongst either Socialists or wannabe Socialists. And anyway, like the welfare state, the notion of raising taxes to help the most needy of one's fellow citizens, isn't Socialist.

[Zlaxer]

It's entirely the American right's fault. When you get a couple of generations of right-wing retards calling everything from unions and welfare states, to just raising taxes "Socialist", it's completely natural that younger generations grow up to think that if the spectrum of Socialism really goes from capitalist sponsored welfare state to Soviet style totalitarianism, they think they picked the nice Socialism.

What neither the right wing retards or the left wing retards seem to understand is that the majority of those Americans who today call themselves "Socialist", aren't. They are "Socialist" in the same way all of us here "really"(according to some) are racist, nazi, cisgender homophobes...

No. It's the fault of parents that didn't teach their children that stealing is wrong. They grow up to be adults that don't think stealing is wrong. Then you get a society that believes it is okay to take according to need with no regard for ownership.

Given how historically Communist countries have dealt with thieves, I doubt that particular counter-argument will resonate amongst either Socialists or wannabe Socialists. And anyway, like the welfare state, the notion of raising taxes to help the most needy of one's fellow citizens, isn't Socialist.

Bad logic Bjorn; and you know it - taking by force is taking is taking by force- wether government sanctioned or not. Commies only punish the kind your refering to because they didnt authorize it....or get a cut of it.

[Okeefenokee]

Little difference between stealing and sanctioned stealing.

[Okeefenokee]

Bjorn is showing it off right here too.

It's okay to steal your money and keep it for us if we vote on it.

[BjornP]

Bjorn is showing it off right here too.

It's okay to steal your money and keep it for us if we vote on it.

You mean like steal money from citizens to let them pay for a military they don't want to pay for? Theft like that? You make an inherently self-contradictory statement. It can never be "ok to steal", because the definition of stealing is always the "not-okay" taking of property. And are you going to claim you're getting educated at the taxpayer's expense is a result of "theft", too?

It's a fact that there is no such thing as a universal definition of "theft", simply because there is not one, single, universal definition of when someone has the right to own property. This was true before Communism, before Capitalism, it's true now, and will be true forever. Theft simply refers to "illegitimate taking of property". People with guns, or the people who control the people with guns, tell the people that "this is now theft" and that is now theft. Concept's easy enough. Wether or not you like, agree with, sympathize or not with how any regime, or democratic government for that matter, defines theft (or murder, or whatever) legally... doesn't change anything about the actual, tangible reality in the here and now.

Bad logic Bjorn; and you know it - taking by force is taking is taking by force- wether government sanctioned or not. Commies only punish the kind your refering to because they didnt authorize it....or get a cut of it.

Sense of justice is not about logic, so you may be right? Something definitively wrong by taking by force if people don't want to fork their property over? Not to my head. Not to yours, either, if you think two seconds about it. If Hillary Clinton was a legally proven tax evader, would you not support LEO's seizing her properties by force? Laws are simply about what sort of society legislators want. If they want to abolish all private property, those who insist on securing what until then had been their property, will be "stealing".

As for the Commies, the Soviets didn't totally abolish private property.. "only" for the means of production, but given how Russia's always worked - and especially under Stalin - plenty of "thieves" were probably just people caught thinking for themselves.

[Okeefenokee]

Taking someone's property without their consent is stealing.

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

[Speaker to Animals]

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.

[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?

[Okeefenokee]

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.

[Speaker to Animals]

In the words of our very own HM: if you can afford to fight against the redistribution of your wealth and property, then you can obviously afford paying up your fair share.