Socialism is legalized theft.

I often find that a common response to an question about socialism is: "Yes it's a good idea but it's impractical" Socialism is both immoral and impractical. Work towards the "public good" is oppression of a majority upon a minority. socialism is perpetrated by the majority by stealing the property of the minority.------------------
"with a gun barrel between your teeth you speak only in vowels"

In a competitive economy such as the one we have, do you recognize how your avaliable capital (obviously enough to afford amenities like a computer and internet access) drives up prices, harming those with less money?As a have, your very participation in a free market harms those who are have-nots. Therefore things like progressive taxation (and by extention, to a limited degree, socialism) are theft, but restitution for the economic damage you do to the poor.

Because without it the minority haves would be facing uprisings from the increasingly pissed off have nots every so often.....Don't belive me? Look in a history book....

quote:

---

In a competitive economy such as the one we have, do you recognize how your avaliable capital (obviously enough to afford amenities like a computer and internet access) drives up prices, harming those with less money?

---

bull. competitive economy drives down prices. that available surplus and capital we have is due to the success of capitalism.

quote:

---

Because without it the minority haves would be facing uprisings from the increasingly pissed off have nots every so often.....
Don't belive me? Look in a history book....

---

which is an invasion upon our inalienable rights as individuals. in our advanced state we should be above the initiation of force in our relationships with our fellow man.------------------
"I am Jack's broken heart."

Abandon the free market rhetoric and look at what you're saying. If what you said was true everything would cost nothing. In reality, prices for basic things are higher than they've ever been, and they keep going up.The reality is that competitive economy drives prices towards the maximum profit for sellers, because they're setting the prices. In most situations, buyers have choice, so prices trend towards the minimum profit per sale for the seller to ensure greater sales volume.Sometimes buyers have no choice because of scaricty, or because what they're selling is a basic need. This is most prominent in the case of rents. EVERYBODY needs a place to live, so it's a renter's market. There's been a housing shortage for 20 years now, in most places of the country. Renters know they can gouge prices because there's enough middle-income people to pay those prices. The poor simply can't compete.If competitive economy drives down prices, then answer this: Why have rents been at record highs for the past 5 years, even in the face of significant economic downturn? Why haven't rents responded to the economy?[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 04-24-2003]

quote:

---

Abandon the free market rhetoric and look at what you're saying. If what you said was true everything would cost nothing. In reality, prices for basic things are higher than they've ever been, and they keep going up.

---

wtf are you talking about? with competiton prices go down that is a fact. prices keep going up because of inflation.

quote:

---

Sometimes buyers have no choice because of scaricty, or because what they're selling is a basic need. This is most prominent in the case of rents. EVERYBODY needs a place to live, so it's a renter's market. There's been a housing shortage for 20 years now, in most places of the country. Renters know they can gouge prices because there's enough middle-income people to pay those prices. The poor simply can't compete.

---

no choice? no choice is a government where you HAVE to buy the government toilet paper. driving prices up is a totalitarian system that disregards the individual for the 'fatherland' or the 'public good'. no choice is communist berlin where you can only buy size 12 boots. competition drives the prices down - if you can not afford housing you are not being productive enough.you suppose that wealth is a static substance. wealth is produced. no one is forced into poverty. no one is kept from creating wealth. capitalism produces wealth due to its freedom. All INDIVIDUALS are free to do whatever they want in their rights. socialism is forced poverty. look at socialist countries. Don't see any mass surplus in those countries do you? Capitalism creates wealth, socialism destroys it. maximum profit is right. but it only exists at levels which people will buy------------------
"I am Jack's broken heart."[This message has been edited by emo star, 04-24-2003][This message has been edited by emo star, 04-24-2003]

So do prices go up, or down? You don't seem to know. It can't be both. Oh, really? Nobody works harder than the poor. Most poverty-line people are putting in 60 hours a week to be able to afford sub-standard housing. In Minneapolis at least, a one-bedroom apartment costs something like 70-80 percent of the wages of a single adult working 40 hours a week at minimum wage. That barely leaves money for food (which costs the same no matter how poor you are), much less health insurance and vehicle maintainence (try holding down a job in this country without access to a car). Face it - the poor make our stuff, serve our food, and sell us all our daily needs, and they can't even afford a place to live. And your answer is "they're not productive enough?" Puh-lease.Anyway, why don't you tell me who was more productive: Ken Lay, or the guy who put your shoes together? Ken Lay ruined the lives of thousands. But at the end of the day he still made more money in a year than you will probably ever have.Maybe if you stopped listening to Rush and starting thinking about the realities of economic life in America, you might have a clue. You might start with the book "Nickel and Dimed" by Barbara Ehrenriech. Very illuminating. This isn't entirely true. There's only so much money to go around. That's what the US Treasury keeps tabs on, right? So there's a limit to how much wealth can be produced. it's gotta come from somewhere - if you have more, somebody has less. That's ok up till the point that people have less than they need to even survive. In a civilized world, I think we can do better?I'm not saying socialism is better. Clearly it never has been. But the free market can't be trusted to supply everything people need to live at a price everyone can afford. Thus some things should be heavily regulated by the government, and progressive taxation (taxing the rich) should continue to offset the negative effects caused by the rich.

quote:

---

So do prices go up, or down? You don't seem to know. It can't be both.

---

dont be dense. prices are forced down to a reasonable level even if the value of the money decreases.the poor are not producing something in sufficient quanities or well enough. stop using ken lay as an example. it's old. I do not support his methods and there are plenty of other successful businessmen who abide by the laws. He committed fraud and should be sued as well as punishment from the state. The successful are successful because they manage their capital well, losses are incurred due to poor management of capitalwealth is not always measured in bills. Land. cattle, products,you say free market. Under ideal capitalism, government would only exist to protect the individual's rights. this creates a system where each man betters himself through trade. The employer gets a labor force and the employee gets a paycheck

quote:

---

I'm not saying socialism is better. Clearly it never has been. But the free market can't be trusted to supply everything people need to live at a price everyone can afford. Thus some things should be heavily regulated by the government, and progressive taxation (taxing the rich) should continue to offset the negative effects caused by the rich.

---

heavy regulation? big government results in the loss of civil liberties. "the more laws that exist, the less justice" - Marcus Cicero. free market Can't be trusted? it was only until the industrial revolution that a family could produce enough food for the family unit. life span increased, and infant mortality rate went down during the industrial revolution.------------------
"I am Jack's broken heart."

Another point of view is that "property is theft!" It typically seems to depend on how much property one has, and to a lesser extent on one's age, as to which one espouses.

oh, so now we've gone from "poor don't produce" to "well, they produce, but not well enough." That's moving the goalposts, pal. The truth is, you rely on poverty-level workers every day, for hundreds of things you take for granted. I'd say they produce well enough for your purposes, don't they?I only brought up Ken Lay as an example that production and wealth have nothing to do with each other. it's almost axiomatic that the richest people in this country are the ones who produce the least and work the least.Sure, a person can start at the bottom and succeed. That it happens at all is indeed a testament to our free market. But they don't do it without a lot of luck, and for every self-made man you can produce I can find ten rich men who are wealthy simply because they were born into it. I think we can do better than a totally free market.

quote:

---

Another point of view is that "property is theft!" It typically seems to depend on how much property one has, and to a lesser extent on one's age, as to which one espouses.

---

ahh.. the words of anarchist joseph proudhon. the difference is that the capitalist is moral in wishing to keep his property and use it to invest. THe socialist thinks he is moral in that he wishes to steal property form the capitalist.------------------
"I felt like putting a bullet between the eyes of every Panda that wouldn't screw to save its species. I wanted to open the dump valves on oil tankers and smother all the French beaches I'd never see. I wanted to breathe smoke."

quote:

---

oh, so now we've gone from "poor don't produce" to "well, they produce, but not well enough." That's moving the goalposts, pal. The truth is, you rely on poverty-level workers every day, for hundreds of things you take for granted. I'd say they produce well enough for your purposes, don't they?

---

just clarifying. i said either not enough or not well enough. those poverty - level employees get paid don't they? the point is that it doesn' take a rocket scientist to tunnel. all you need is shovel and hard work. those people born into their status represent their parent's skill in managing capital. produce the least? a laborer does not own the company nor does he provide the machinery which he labors on. It is the capitalist who creates the job.nobody said bettering yourself was easy. many people just thinkits easier to steal with your vote than acutally working.------------------
"I felt like putting a bullet between the eyes of every Panda that wouldn't screw to save its species. I wanted to open the dump valves on oil tankers and smother all the French beaches I'd never see. I wanted to breathe smoke."[This message has been edited by emo star, 04-24-2003]

Or simply their parent's bad or good luck. Skill has less to do with it that you might think. You might consider the biographies of major business figures. Then honestly assess how large a role luck played. Go ahead, I dare you.Sure it doesn't take a rocket scientist to tunnel. But just because somebody isn't a rocket scientist, do they deserve to be homeless? Aren't we all capitalists, living in a capitalist economy? I'm not sure who you're referring to. Anyway, fine. So a capitalist created the job. Does that entitle him to make 20 times more than the wage of the job he created?