The hidden violence of the socialistic mindset

[NoStateofMind]

We are led to believe that the reason socialists want to make a living wage, want everyone to pay into a highly manipulated healthcare system for the general welfare of all people, want equal education and other opportunities for the poorer of us, is all intended for the good of mankind. That’s truly noble. I commend your intentions like a saint. That intention however is transformed from good will among men to forced extortion from those who do not agree with your social/political program. In essence the socialist mindset starts in motion a noble prospect only to end up enforcing it by the barrel of a gun which puts the Rights of the individual at odds with your mandate.

If your intention is to help mankind then please explain how using guns (which most of your kind thinks is generally not good for society) to force your beliefs into being and demand payment under threat of imprisonment or death if he resists is consistent with this notion of good will? Disregarding their Right of free association in contract, ignoring and impeding their Right to liberty and their pursuit of it, your socialism blinds you from the ramifications of your endorsement.

The socialist mind is disconnected from its actions. It endorses with great emotion how this or that must be controlled or changed in some way but he, the socialist man, doesn’t have to make it happen personally. His patronage pays for hired men to enforce these statutes or codes with violence in the name of some greater good. Where is your greater good when your actions create violence where none existed?
How else is your greater good policy going to be implemented if not by force?

Therefore the very idea of involuntary socialized structure is based on violence and should not be accepted as a valid method of societal interaction.
I do not advocate violence to achieve some social or political goal. Why do you?

For moonbeam: SBD?

 

[IronWing]

Grow up.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Grow up.

Wait, you're in favor of violence? That's essentially what you're saying here.


If one comes out against violence toward innocent people and the response is "grow up", you're implying to be "grown" is to support violence against innocent people.

Wow.

 

[Sonikku]

We are led to believe that the reason socialists want to make a living wage, want everyone to pay into a highly manipulated healthcare system for the general welfare of all people, want equal education and other opportunities for the poorer of us, is all intended for the good of mankind. That’s truly noble. I commend your intentions like a saint. That intention however is transformed from good will among men to forced extortion from those who do not agree with your social/political program. In essence the socialist mindset starts in motion a noble prospect only to end up enforcing it by the barrel of a gun which puts the Rights of the individual at odds with your mandate.

If your intention is to help mankind then please explain how using guns (which most of your kind thinks is generally not good for society) to force your beliefs into being and demand payment under threat of imprisonment or death if he resists is consistent with this notion of good will?

I guess... do... what Germany does? :hmm:

 

[NoStateofMind]

I guess... do... what Germany does? :hmm:

That doesn't remove the gun from the room does it? If it does, please explain.

 

[IronWing]

Wait, you're in favor of violence? That's essentially what you're saying here.


If one comes out against violence toward innocent people and the response is "grow up", you're implying to be "grown" is to support violence against innocent people.

Wow.

Grow up.

 

[Moonbeam]

We are led to believe that the reason socialists want to make a living wage, want everyone to pay into a highly manipulated healthcare system for the general welfare of all people, want equal education and other opportunities for the poorer of us, is all intended for the good of mankind. That’s truly noble. I commend your intentions like a saint. That intention however is transformed from good will among men to forced extortion from those who do not agree with your social/political program. In essence the socialist mindset starts in motion a noble prospect only to end up enforcing it by the barrel of a gun which puts the Rights of the individual at odds with your mandate.

If your intention is to help mankind then please explain how using guns (which most of your kind thinks is generally not good for society) to force your beliefs into being and demand payment under threat of imprisonment or death if he resists is consistent with this notion of good will? Disregarding their Right of free association in contract, ignoring and impeding their Right to liberty and their pursuit of it, your socialism blinds you from the ramifications of your endorsement.

The socialist mind is disconnected from its actions. It endorses with great emotion how this or that must be controlled or changed in some way but he, the socialist man, doesn’t have to make it happen personally. His patronage pays for hired men to enforce these statutes or codes with violence in the name of some greater good. Where is your greater good when your actions create violence where none existed?
How else is your greater good policy going to be implemented if not by force?

Therefore the very idea of involuntary socialized structure is based on violence and should not be accepted as a valid method of societal interaction.
I do not advocate violence to achieve some social or political goal. Why do you?

For moonbeam: SBD?

It's an act of violence when you try to make Moonbeam laugh himself to death.

Seriously, however, I you have written something I can't make heads or tails of and looks to be inchoate raving, a string of disordered regurgitated ingrains of some sort, to which I could only exhaust my tired out brain trying to figure out.

So let me instead of trying to refute these delusional meanderings let me just say I don't want violence for you. For all the world it looks to me as if your mind has already been shattered by it.

We fear what lurks in our unconscious, the repressed violence we experienced as children. If you can get yourself into therapy and allow yourself to beat yourself black and blue getting to these feelings as I have, you will feel much better. As a victim of violence I no longer side with those who victimize, but with the actual victims. You may find your notions of whatever it is that you now consider to be socialism will then change and you will have a lot less sympathy for the world we create at present out of our feelings of worthlessness and rage.

The big difference in what you and I see, in my opinion, is that while you think you know a lot and don't know anything, I just don't know anything. It's hard to feel violence for others when you don't have any thoughts that tell you you should feel that way. One can't get anybody to carry guns for NO-CAUSE. Every violent person has lots and lots of reasons they believe in for being that way. All my reasons got washed away in tears. I do know, however why you want to kick me, and that's fine by me too. I like to kick myself too.

 

[Murloc]

So you don't want the state to be able to punish people for not paying?

That's bad for business, nobody would sell anything to anyone without getting the cash immediately if there were no guarantees of payment. Are you sure you're a capitalist?



Yes, I'm totally fine with policemen enforcing the law on robbers and rapists by using whatever violence is necessary to stop them.


You rave on about socialism but you are attacking the basic concept of having rules in a society.

Even in families there are rules, kids get punished for stealing and lying. In families, the legislators and enforces are the same persons since it's not a democracy. But that's irrelevant.

 

[Strk]

Weird how the Bernie Sanders is against militarization of the police and spying on Americans. As opposed to everyone else who support it because, you know, 'Merica!

 

[flexy]

[socialists want] everyone to pay into a highly manipulated healthcare system for the general welfare of all people, want equal education and other opportunities for the poorer of us, is all intended for the good of mankind. That’s truly noble. I commend your intentions like a saint. That intention however is transformed from good will among men to forced extortion from those who do not agree with your social/political program.

You're ALREADY paying taxes, for fire brigades, cops, the military, politicians, road constructions, your $400B fighter jets, digging for WMDs in Iraq or financing the pres multi-million dollar Hawaii vacation.

You are still trapped in your silly Conservative mindset that what I call "social democracy", a system which is implemented in a number of W. Europan countries for ages already and WHICH WORKS GREAT...must be "fundamentally different" from your system which I want to call "unregulated Capitalism".

It's not.

Are you assuming that if "you get socialism", and your taxes would then more go toward social causes such as health care & education, then this is supposed to be "an entirely different system" - which in reality is just a different distribution of money. Even if taxes would be significantly increased and entirely differently redistributed, it's still the same system.

TLDR: You ARE already in "socialism", whether you want to deny it or not.

You're not free from laws, regulations, taxes, searches at the airport, requirements to show papers upon entry into the country, requirement to wear a seat belt, having your license while driving etc...obviously you are not able to see that.

YET, you're entirely fine with that, never asking how your money is actually spent RIGHT NOW....however start screaming and shouting when your money is going towards social causes...or if someone, a politican, say, would criticize that military spending is too high and more money should actually go towards education..THEN it's "socialism"?

 

[NoStateofMind]

So you don't want the state to be able to punish people for not paying?

That's bad for business, nobody would sell anything to anyone without getting the cash immediately if there were no guarantees of payment. Are you sure you're a capitalist?

I think you are conflating actual free market business with forced redistribution of wealth and calling it capitalism. They are not the same thing. One is a voluntary contract among two people and the other is extortion.

Yes, I'm totally fine with policemen enforcing the law on robbers and rapists by using whatever violence is necessary to stop them.

Yep and that makes their reaction just. Stopping violence is good and threres not many who'd argue against that. Yet that's not the case when dealing with the above mindset. The socialist man initiates the violence for his pet project against non-violent people. If you are making the claim that police are a social program I'd agree to an extent. It has a monopoly on force and abuses that legal exception to commit acts of violence 'legally' even if the offense is of a non-violent variety. Yet again another socialistic mandate that starts with good intentions but ends in violence.

You rave on about socialism but you are attacking the basic concept of having rules in a society.

Nothing wrong with rules, its the involuntary socialistic enforcement of those rules that are detrimental to society. Not to sound like a broken record but this is repeated because I don't think you're following the distinction I'm trying to make. If a person is violent towards another, through force, fraud or theft, then they are subject to violence for their actions. On the other hand the ones who refuse to contribute to a social program should not be subject to violence simply because they do not go along with your socialized program. Violence is brought against the non-violent.

Even in families there are rules, kids get punished for stealing and lying. In families, the legislators and enforces are the same persons since it's not a democracy. But that's irrelevant.

I feel like you are presuming that I'm an anarchist and that term means 'no rules'. That'd be incorrect. 'No rulers' would be closer but it would be more accurate to claim that I am a Voluntaryist. Rules are necessary but violence is not.

 

[flexy]

His patronage pays for hired men to enforce these statutes or codes

Just absolute nonsense.

Learn the difference between despotism or a dictatorship and "socialism" or better "social democracy". Stop thinking in stereotypes. No one who wants social democracy wants a system like those corrupt systems which were in place, say, in former Eastern Europe or the Soviet Union.

 

[NoStateofMind]

You're ALREADY paying taxes, for fire brigades, cops, the military, politicians, road constructions, your $400B fighter jets, digging for WMDs in Iraq or financing the pres multi-million dollar Hawaii vacation.

You are still trapped in your silly Conservative mindset that what I call "social democracy", a system which is implemented in a number of W. Europan countries for ages already and WHICH WORKS GREAT...must be "fundamentally different" from your system which I want to call "unregulated Capitalism".

It's not.

Are you assuming that if "you get socialism", and your taxes would then more go toward social causes such as health care & education, then this is supposed to be "an entirely different system" - which in reality is just a different distribution of money. Even if taxes would be significantly increased and entirely differently redistributed, it's still the same system.

TLDR: You ARE already in "socialism", whether you want to deny it or not.

You're not free from laws, regulations, taxes, searches at the airport, requirements to show papers upon entry into the country, requirement to wear a seat belt, having your license while driving etc...obviously you are not able to see that.

YET, you're entirely fine with that, never asking how your money is actually spent RIGHT NOW....however start screaming and shouting when your money is going towards social causes...or if someone, a politican, say, would criticize that military spending is too high and more money should actually go towards education..THEN it's "socialism"?

Yes I am well aware of how pervasive socialism is here in the US. The point of this thread is to get those socialists to think through their endorsement and recognize the violence of their support. This is not a "Left vs Right" thing, it's just reality.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Just absolute nonsense.

Learn the difference between despotism or a dictatorship and "socialism" or better "social democracy". Stop thinking in stereotypes. No one who wants social democracy wants a system like those corrupt systems which were in place, say, in former Eastern Europe or the Soviet Union.

is it?

When Joe refuses to pay for your program will you leave him alone? I bet you will. Would those who you've chosen to enforce this program do the same? Or will they see it as their duty to imprison (and kill if resisted) the 'lawbreaker'?

I think you need to give this more thought.

 

[IronWing]

Yes I am well aware of how pervasive socialism is here in the US. The point of this thread is to get those socialists to think through their endorsement and recognize the violence of their support. This is not a "Left vs Right" thing, it's just reality.

I reflect on the reality of the inherent, unrelenting violence and injustice of stateless areas/times and I am quite content to accept the state as a necessary evil. States are not perfect by any means but are vastly superior to any alternative ever attempted.

 

[Newell Steamer]

OP, you are an impotent anarchist who isn't decrying socialism, but rather you wish to be one of the decision makers on who gets to live and how.

Most cry babies who wail, cry, bitch and moan over Gubnament on these forums just want to break shit and then take the helm.

Sorry, not going to happen. Because,...
#1 you suck
#2 you are posting on a forum about how government should/shouldn't function,.. making you an armchair asshate (as per #1)
#3 society is ever morphing, even as I post. You clearly do not like it (because the current government is trying to meet the needs of this ever changing creature - again, society).
#4 you and similar ilk are the true oppressors, not the government. Grown a pair and state what you mean and intend - you want to harm and oppress people, not free them

 

[MongGrel]

OP needs to stop vaping those bath salts.

 

[MovingTarget]

Its time to put down the Ayn Rand objectivist crackpipe and join the rest of us in reality. Taxation is neither theft nor extortion, particularly if it is done by a truly representative government. Having the government organize, standardize, or at the very least guide how the healthcare market works is not terrorism. Markets are entities created by man, and can thus be most effectively directed to curb their ill-effects by man through, you guessed it, government. The police, despite the worrying trends of increased militarization and us vs. them internal culture, are not terrorists. You know nothing of socialism, in any form, OP.

 

[Murloc]

You are forced to pay for police in any country in the world. It's not voluntary. There is no sensible alternative to that really unless you're an hermit living with no services, in which case you don't have to pay any tax at all if you live in a place without property tax.

The police cannot ignore two gangs fighting each other simply because they chose not to participate in the law enforcement program, while still being subject to laws (becase as you stated, the problem is not the existence of rules, but having to pay taxes).

The consequences of this unenforcement inevitably extend to those who are paying contributors.

It's no surprise that you are not allowed to opt out of everything then, when forcing participation actually benefits society as a whole.

This is not socialist since taxes exist since a looong time before socialism was even invented.
The shaman saying everybody has to donate food to him to perform rituals otherwise a great calamity will hit the tribe and the chief deciding that it has to be done creates a levy already, you can't refuse to participate in the sacrifices if you want to stay within that society (a proto-state if you will).

You are hating on a completely natural thing and calling it socialism. Socialism didn't exist until the last century.

Hell, it's even in the bible: http://biblehub.com/genesis/47-24.htm

Social democracy is just having more or bigger social programs than the US do, in addition to all the negative things they want like giving public employees more protection than the private ones in exchange of votes.

 

[biostud]

The thing is that people through democratic elections keep voting for parties that want to keep the "social state". That is between 80-90% of grown population that vote. So the system has far more democratic backing that a country were less than 50% of the grown ups can't be bothered to vote, since all they see are politicians and the %1'ers getting even more power than before.

 

[Pohemi]

I feel like you are presuming that I'm an anarchist and that term means 'no rules'. That'd be incorrect. 'No rulers' would be closer but it would be more accurate to claim that I am a Voluntaryist. Rules are necessary but violence is not.

That tells me you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. "Anarchists"
believe in a self-governing people, not a complete lack of rules. Obviously you don't understand "Socialism" either.

 

[Indus]

The very idea of involuntary socialized structure is based on violence and should not be accepted as a valid method of societal interaction.

I do not advocate violence to achieve some social or political goal. Why do you?

Did you seriously just post that? Is your IQ so low you cannot actually think so you assume stuff and post this jibberish?

The facts are we live in the United States of Violence and as far as everyone with a brain knows, it's been a Right of Center country not a socialist one - in fact far from that at least in the last 35 years.

Therefore the question should be, "As beautifully proven by the last 35 years of capitalism and the freedom to own guns, why have we come to blame everything else for our problems (socialism for example) except the very thing that causes violence?"

And maybe this thread should be retitled, "The hidden violence of the CAPITALISTIC mindset" - Just sell guns to everyone, oh never mind if they're a rapist, or they're a home invader, or they're a drug dealer. No problem, just show me the money and it's yours! God bless America and our 2nd amendment rights!

You want me to give up my guns to stop violence? You're a socialist! FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!

 

[flexy]

The funny thing is that social democracy (which is the 'socialism' we are talking about) is not some untested illusion or some newager's fantasy, it's tested and proven and works in a number of countries excellently.

It's the more surprising people making-up shit like this when they think "socialism".

And by the way, the example with "taking away guns"...someone seems to imply that "socialism" automatically would imply taking away essential rights. It doesn't, not in the slightest.

Cheap, really low and cheap fear mongering based on ignorance...

 

[NoStateofMind]

That tells me you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. "Anarchists"
believe in a self-governing people, not a complete lack of rules. Obviously you don't understand "Socialism" either.

I was responding to someone else who

"presumed I was an anarchist and that that term means someone who believes in 'no rules' then that'd be incorrect. 'No rulers' would be closer but it would be more accurate to claim that I am a Voluntaryist. Rules are necessary but violence is not."

Does that help you understand what I meant? Good. Glad I could help

 

[NoStateofMind]

I reflect on the reality of the inherent, unrelenting violence and injustice of stateless areas/times and I am quite content to accept the state as a necessary evil. States are not perfect by any means but are vastly superior to any alternative ever attempted.

I reflect on the reality of the inherent, unrelenting violence and injustice of all states areas/times and I am not content with the state as a necessary evil. States are evil institutions and are vastly superior in robbing and killing than any alternative ever created.