Originally posted by: fredtam
I believe the politically correct term is "liberal".
That's insulting. To the communists.
Originally posted by: fredtam
I believe the politically correct term is "liberal".
Originally posted by: brigden
Funny how brainwashed you Americans are with regards to Communism. I don't think the system works in reality, but you guys think it's like the Nazi party or something.
Originally posted by: bradruth
I wonder if there will ever be a time when people stop confusing communism with authoritarian socialism.
:thumbsup:Originally posted by: CVSiN
Considering both the presidential canidates are the equevelant of voting for Beavis and Butthead... Im open for other alternitives..
Originally posted by: Cerb
:thumbsup:Originally posted by: CVSiN
Considering both the presidential canidates are the equevelant of voting for Beavis and Butthead... Im open for other alternitives..
Communist ideals don't work. Neither would full-on Libertarian ideals work (unless everyone was very well-read, and wanted to make *all* of their own decisions), but alternatives are good to have, just for the sake of change, and possibly meaningful reform.Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: bradruth
I wonder if there will ever be a time when people stop confusing communism with authoritarian socialism.
They wont because any attempt at communism will quickly become authoritarian.
Why? Because there will always be a signifigant percentage of the people of any country who will be opposed to giving up their individuality and economic freedom. To control this, and the natural human urge to do better, the government will have to become wildly oppressive.
Communism is an abject failure because it goes against the most basic aspects of human nature. Humans are not, and cannot become mindless worker bees.
Originally posted by: Cerb
Communist ideals don't work. Neither would full-on Libertarian ideals work (unless everyone was very well-read, and wanted to make *all* of their own decisions), but alternatives are good to have, just for the sake of change, and possibly meaningful reform.Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: bradruth
I wonder if there will ever be a time when people stop confusing communism with authoritarian socialism.
They wont because any attempt at communism will quickly become authoritarian.
Why? Because there will always be a signifigant percentage of the people of any country who will be opposed to giving up their individuality and economic freedom. To control this, and the natural human urge to do better, the government will have to become wildly oppressive.
Communism is an abject failure because it goes against the most basic aspects of human nature. Humans are not, and cannot become mindless worker bees.
Originally posted by: gigapet
democracy doesnt work either when corporations have more pull than the people.
so what other options are there.....corruption has found its way into every form of government.
My preferred alternative is much closer to anarchy than what China would offer, I'm afraid. See?Originally posted by: BAMAVOO
Originally posted by: Cerb
:thumbsup:Originally posted by: CVSiN
Considering both the presidential canidates are the equevelant of voting for Beavis and Butthead... Im open for other alternitives..
Then move to China.
I don't support all of them, but unless they get a majority, that means little. The biggest boon getting several into offices could have would be to start trimming the scope of many agencies and laws. The full effect of the LP's goals would devolve into anarchy. However, getting most of the way there would be a good thing.Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Cerb
Communist ideals don't work. Neither would full-on Libertarian ideals work (unless everyone was very well-read, and wanted to make *all* of their own decisions), but alternatives are good to have, just for the sake of change, and possibly meaningful reform.Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: bradruth
I wonder if there will ever be a time when people stop confusing communism with authoritarian socialism.
They wont because any attempt at communism will quickly become authoritarian.
Why? Because there will always be a signifigant percentage of the people of any country who will be opposed to giving up their individuality and economic freedom. To control this, and the natural human urge to do better, the government will have to become wildly oppressive.
Communism is an abject failure because it goes against the most basic aspects of human nature. Humans are not, and cannot become mindless worker bees.
While I do not support all of the libertarian party's ideas, ANY move in that direction would be a good one.
Originally posted by: Cerb
Q]I don't support all of them, but unless they get a majority, that means little. The biggest boon getting several into offices could have would be to start trimming the scope of many agencies and laws. The full effect of the LP's goals would devolve into anarchy. However, getting most of the way there would be a good thing.
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: gigapet
democracy doesnt work either when corporations have more pull than the people.
so what other options are there.....corruption has found its way into every form of government.
Which is why the US was founded as a Constitutional Republic with a democratically elected government.
The government was supposed to have strictly limited power. Thus seriously limiting how corruptible it would be. You see, the more the government regulates business, the more business will try to manipulate government in an effort to ensure the regulations are not so strict that they harm business.
The more the government treats business as seperate and quite unequal from individuals, the more it will be corrupted.
And it's not only business that has corrupted. Socialism has done the same. Ever since socialism was introduced to the US with The New Deal, citizens have found they can band together into powerful organizations to lobby the government for more social programs. These groups have every bit as much influence as the businesses.
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: gigapet
democracy doesnt work either when corporations have more pull than the people.
so what other options are there.....corruption has found its way into every form of government.
Which is why the US was founded as a Constitutional Republic with a democratically elected government.
The government was supposed to have strictly limited power. Thus seriously limiting how corruptible it would be. You see, the more the government regulates business, the more business will try to manipulate government in an effort to ensure the regulations are not so strict that they harm business.
The more the government treats business as seperate and quite unequal from individuals, the more it will be corrupted.
And it's not only business that has corrupted. Socialism has done the same. Ever since socialism was introduced to the US with The New Deal, citizens have found they can band together into powerful organizations to lobby the government for more social programs. These groups have every bit as much influence as the businesses.
Originally posted by: Ornery
No kidding. Commies, Socialists, Democrats... same sh|t!Originally posted by: brigden
Funny how brainwashed you Americans are with regards to Communism. I don't think the system works in reality, but you guys think it's like the Nazi party or something.
Originally posted by: gigapet
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: gigapet
democracy doesnt work either when corporations have more pull than the people.
so what other options are there.....corruption has found its way into every form of government.
Which is why the US was founded as a Constitutional Republic with a democratically elected government.
The government was supposed to have strictly limited power. Thus seriously limiting how corruptible it would be. You see, the more the government regulates business, the more business will try to manipulate government in an effort to ensure the regulations are not so strict that they harm business.
The more the government treats business as seperate and quite unequal from individuals, the more it will be corrupted.
And it's not only business that has corrupted. Socialism has done the same. Ever since socialism was introduced to the US with The New Deal, citizens have found they can band together into powerful organizations to lobby the government for more social programs. These groups have every bit as much influence as the businesses.
should the government not have stepped in regarding monopolies and child labor.....where is the line drawn and who decides?
Originally posted by: amdfanboy
Originally posted by: djheater
Originally spoken by: Winston Churchill
The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.
All point of view. I highly doubt Mr. Churchhill ever experienced adult life as a lower class factory worker.
No, but it partly that level of freedom that led to the Civil War. With all the corporations and people with blinders on today, it won't work. I'm not saying it couldn't in 50 years (I desperately hope it can, as I'd like to see things get better before I croak!), and I think change needs to be done, but the way things are now, we would be in economic turmoil (I think it would be deserved, mind you, because of the corporate control allowed by the government). I'd welcome it--but the vast majority would rather be safe and sound, with a good Christian leader, rather than leaders who actually cared about the people for more than their future votes.Originally posted by: Amused
I think you are mistaken. The Libertarian ideal is far from anarchy. Was the US in a state of anarchy in it's first 100 years?Originally posted by: Cerb
Q]I don't support all of them, but unless they get a majority, that means little. The biggest boon getting several into offices could have would be to start trimming the scope of many agencies and laws. The full effect of the LP's goals would devolve into anarchy. However, getting most of the way there would be a good thing.
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: gigapet
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: gigapet
democracy doesnt work either when corporations have more pull than the people.
so what other options are there.....corruption has found its way into every form of government.
Which is why the US was founded as a Constitutional Republic with a democratically elected government.
The government was supposed to have strictly limited power. Thus seriously limiting how corruptible it would be. You see, the more the government regulates business, the more business will try to manipulate government in an effort to ensure the regulations are not so strict that they harm business.
The more the government treats business as seperate and quite unequal from individuals, the more it will be corrupted.
And it's not only business that has corrupted. Socialism has done the same. Ever since socialism was introduced to the US with The New Deal, citizens have found they can band together into powerful organizations to lobby the government for more social programs. These groups have every bit as much influence as the businesses.
should the government not have stepped in regarding monopolies and child labor.....where is the line drawn and who decides?
There is a signifigant difference between extremely basic laws verses the miles of red tape and regulations a business faces today.
And if anything, government regulations have fostered more monopolies than it ever busted.
Originally posted by: Cerb
No, but it partly that level of freedom that led to the Civil War. With all the corporations and people with blinders on today, it won't work. I'm not saying it couldn't in 50 years (I desperately hope it can, as I'd like to see things get better before I croak!), and I think change needs to be done, but the way things are now, we would be in economic turmoil (I think it would be deserved, mind you, because of the corporate control allowed by the government). I'd welcome it--but the vast majority would rather be safe and sound, with a good Christian leader, rather than leaders who actually cared about the people for more than their future votes.Originally posted by: Amused
I think you are mistaken. The Libertarian ideal is far from anarchy. Was the US in a state of anarchy in it's first 100 years?Originally posted by: Cerb
Q]I don't support all of them, but unless they get a majority, that means little. The biggest boon getting several into offices could have would be to start trimming the scope of many agencies and laws. The full effect of the LP's goals would devolve into anarchy. However, getting most of the way there would be a good thing.
Realistically, it wouldn't work, however good it would be. You'd be taking people away from their safety nets. Moving the nation towards liberal ideals (look up liberal in a dictionary, for those of you who think mainstream Democrats are at all liberal) all but necessitates that those people with voting power become individualistic. That each person take full control of his or her life, with only enough strings attached to protect his neighbor from basic rights violations.

 
				
		