A war between the Socialists and those who value Liberty - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

stan the man · 12-22-2003, 06:39 AM

In the Lybia thread Seretogis said the following

Quote:

Don't get my hopes up. The most dangerous enemy that I think the US has at the moment or in the foreseeable future, is itself. A war between the Socialists and those who value Liberty is inevitible at some point down the road.

It can be found here http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...threadid=39531

Wow what a thought.

What would this war look like? Where would the battle field be? When is this war coming? Can the US have Liberty without Socialism.

Im curious to see if this thread can not only stay on topic but also if it will be civil. Some strong views will be following so try your best to be good boys and girls.

Superbelt · 12-22-2003, 07:07 AM

First some clarifications are in order.

Who are the socialists that are so feared?

Who are "those who value Liberty"?

apechild · 12-22-2003, 07:09 AM

Collectivists vs. individualists, perhaps?

geep · 12-22-2003, 07:25 AM

The war is already being fought. The battleground is in the media. The casualties are the ideals on which this country was founded. Both sides are guilty of plotting their demise. Class warfare may be inevitable. Liberty has definitions that are both social and economic. Infringing on one type has dire consequences on the other. The question is- can we or should we compromise?

stan the man · 12-22-2003, 07:36 AM

Quote:

First some clarifications are in order.

i couldn't agree wtih you more Superbelt

Here a few of my thoughts on the subject

Is bush in on it too

Introducing medicare for the old

Bailing out air lines

The continuation of welfare is a slap in the face of Liberty if we go down this road

Ustwo · 12-22-2003, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by geep
The war is already being fought. The battleground is in the media. The casualties are the ideals on which this country was founded. Both sides are guilty of plotting their demise. Class warfare may be inevitable. Liberty has definitions that are both social and economic. Infringing on one type has dire consequences on the other. The question is- can we or should we compromise?

You can't compromise with a socialist. He keeps asking for more and complains you haven't given enough. Part of me wants to do a long and indepth post on this, but a bigger part of me is getting burned out with the tpf politics.

I'll make it short and say socialism is a disease of government, that saps the creative spirit and in the long run can only end in failure and greater misery for all.

Superbelt · 12-22-2003, 07:41 AM

I still would like to get a clarification of who are the socialists in america and Who are "those who value Liberty" in this country.

Could someone point out a few groups who fall into either mold?
Seretogis maybe?

Of course, this will all be subjective, which is the whole point for me asking the question, but please go for it anyway.

stan the man · 12-22-2003, 07:43 AM

Seretogis where are you step to the mic

apechild · 12-22-2003, 07:51 AM

Who has supreme authority?

God, with the Church as his agent?
The collective, with the state as its agent?
Or the individual - the sovereign being, with only himself as his agent?

Are you a pious subject?
Are you an abiding subject?
Or are you sovereign?

Phaenx · 12-22-2003, 12:45 PM

A civil war between conservatives and liberals? That one's easy, conservatives like guns, we'd have that won in a few days. That's without military intervention though, but even then most of the U.S. military is conservative, about 25/1 I think the ratio is. So with them, liberals would be crushed almost immediately.

Between socialists and everyone? Most socialists are lefties, and there's not as many of them as there are liberals. This one is even shorter then the first.

Phaenx · 12-22-2003, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
I still would like to get a clarification of who are the socialists in america and Who are "those who value Liberty" in this country.

Could someone point out a few groups who fall into either mold?
Seretogis maybe?

Of course, this will all be subjective, which is the whole point for me asking the question, but please go for it anyway.

You don't value liberty? That's interesting =).

Sparhawk · 12-22-2003, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Phaenx
A civil war between conservatives and liberals? That one's easy, conservatives like guns, we'd have that won in a few days. That's without military intervention though, but even then most of the U.S. military is conservative, about 25/1 I think the ratio is. So with them, liberals would be crushed almost immediately.

Between socialists and everyone? Most socialists are lefties, and there's not as many of them as there are liberals. This one is even shorter then the first.

The military is apolitical by design. As for voting patterns, The military as a whole votes Republican 2-to-1, enlisted men and women vote Republican 3-to-2, while the ratio among officers is about 8-to-1.

Any hypothetical civil war, though, is going to be won by whoever is being rebelled against (and not the rebels), because they are going to be the ones with the Constitution and the US military behind them.

Superbelt · 12-22-2003, 03:47 PM

In liberals v conservatives, it isn't that easy. I'm a liberal and I loves my guns.

filtherton · 12-22-2003, 08:00 PM

I think if it comes down to a war between liberals and conservatives it would prove nothing except that neither of the two groups has any respect for the principals on which our country is based.

I agree with sparhawk, any civil war would probably be a repeat of the first in that the rebelling faction would be put down.

Also, anyone who lacks the intellect to see that someone who doesn't agree with them ideologically can also value liberty seems to be showing a lack of understanding of the privelidges of liberty i.e. i can have a socialist perspective and still value liberty. Don't forget, a socialist wrote the pledge of allegiance.

geep · 12-23-2003, 08:09 AM

The problem here that's not being dealt with is the fact that some facts of life are "either or" decisions, no compromise can preserve the ideals of either side (a "black or white" answer, if you will). To compromise liberty is to not have liberty at all. "Give me liberty or give me death" although, your death is preferable if you try to take away my liberty.

2wolves · 12-23-2003, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by geep
The problem here that's not being dealt with is the fact that some facts of life are "either or" decisions, no compromise can preserve the ideals of either side (a "black or white" answer, if you will). To compromise liberty is to not have liberty at all. "Give me liberty or give me death" although, your death is preferable if you try to take away my liberty.

Then there is the Ben Franklin quote about freedom or security..... lots of Americans (left & right) are only too willing to give up freedom to keep those evil doers away. Those with the most to lose often are wont to put the screws to the hoi poloi becuse they got theirs jack.

2Wolves

Macheath · 12-23-2003, 11:37 AM

But what does this "war between Socialists and those who value Liberty" actually mean if you strip it of all its rhetoric. I would think it means a conflict between the individual and the community; between libertarianism and collectivism.

How can this war have a "winner"? Hasn't this necessary tension between the group and the individual been part of the human experience since the first two cavemen teamed up and went hunting together? Socialists as we commonly define them see the state as being this apotheosis of collectivism, but not all collectivists are statists. Look at the Kibbutzim of Israel, they're a co-operative - not individual enterprise, yet they don't reflect statist authoritarianism. Religion can be authoritarian too yet it (especially in the case of Catholicism) was historically able to challenge the power of the nation state.

Capitalist entrepreneurs see the necessity for a state apparatus to uphold property rights. Right wing Libertarians see the necessity for a state military infrastructure but have ideas about the rubbery flexible definition of self defence and foreign military adventures that seem more suited to liberal Wilsonian idealism than their own professed ideology.

Why in the early years of the 21st century would we all pick up guns and kill each other over these ideological vagaries and this tension between the individual and their society that has always existed?

almostaugust · 12-23-2003, 08:31 PM

The number one thing people have to do is stop thinking in black and white, as so much of the media and politicians try to perpetuate. Intergral to this is the use of language. If we start labeling people as 'nazis' and 'communists' then we are losing the battle.

james t kirk · 12-24-2003, 11:34 AM

This is a very stupid thread and notion.

How sad that people even contemplate such stupidity.

No wonder the aliens have never made first contact.

Endymon32 · 12-24-2003, 02:10 PM

Looks like the socialists are loosing in CHina. The government just ended its restrictions on private property. Looks like CHina is slowly evolving from its left,socialist nation without the US even firing a shot.
Another failing socialist nation reaching for capitalism to bail it out.
I wonder why there are any people that still clutch to socialist ideas at all?

Zeld2.0 · 12-24-2003, 02:24 PM

Endymon that has to be the stupidest thing to even remark. Unless you're from China, ahve lived there for the last ten years, then that statement has no credibility.

p.s. - they still control the economy and they are making more money than we are now with their blended system tho they're still behind elsewhere

lurkette · 12-24-2003, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by james t kirk
This is a very stupid thread and notion.

How sad that people even contemplate such stupidity.

No wonder the aliens have never made first contact.

Thank you! This is such a biased premise to begin with, and I'm not even going to rise to the bait.

Besides, this has already been done to death in the "culture war" debate. It won't be about guns, it'll be about legislation (mostly at the local level - see Kansas, e.g.) and hegemony. Besides, I think the marjority of Americans are pretty libertarian to begin with (or would be if they really knew what "libertarian" meant) with two small but VERY vocal and very determined wing-nut factions on either end (the "government should provide everything" faction and the "we're a Christian nation" faction, NEITHER of which have much to say about liberty). Don't be fooled into believing this "either-or" crap. It's defeatist and does absolutely nothing to strengthen our country.

Zeld2.0 · 12-24-2003, 02:34 PM

i agree w/ lurkette

and please don't beat the socialism is communism debate to death

Endymon32 · 12-24-2003, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zeld2.0
Endymon that has to be the stupidest thing to even remark. Unless you're from China, ahve lived there for the last ten years, then that statement has no credibility.

p.s. - they still control the economy and they are making more money than we are now with their blended system tho they're still behind elsewhere

We will see. If you dont see a pro capitalism movement in China then I dont know what to tell you. China is moving towards Capitalism in inches. Its slow and glacial. Sorry you dont agree with me, but the proof is out there if you wish to study the evidence.

Zeld2.0 · 12-26-2003, 04:41 PM

Have you been in China recently? Have you happened to live there? Its obvious they have hints at doign so but its not meant to be a full capitalism a'la the US. Its meant to boost their economy and to give them an edge over us, while keeping their other programs. Don't believe me? Go to China now. Its prospered / grown a hell of a lot from ten years ago, but fact is, stats cannot tell the other side.

P.S. Communism does not equal socialism.

Endymon32 · 12-26-2003, 05:02 PM

It has grown because they are adopting Captialist ideas and methods. To not recognise this is just plain wrong.

nirol · 12-27-2003, 01:02 PM

The war has already been fought, We lost.
The war is fought in Congress, where the people's representatives have been giving away the money of future generations. The war was lost at the ballot box, once people discovered that they could vote themselves secure, or even wealthy from the public trough.

Endymon32 · 12-27-2003, 01:44 PM

I agree that congress should not be able to vote themselves a raise.

Strange Famous · 12-27-2003, 03:29 PM

socialism is impossible without freedom. Socialism is really nothing more than true and complete freedom, a society where men and women dominate and control the economic system, whereas capitalism is the opposite of course.

Endymon32 · 12-27-2003, 04:07 PM

Nope, socialism is the government, by the acutal use of force or threat of the use of force, making the people pay for other people's lives.
Socialism is being punished for successs so that you can pay for other's failures.

And Socialism doesnt work.

Strange Famous · 12-27-2003, 04:27 PM

far simpler

socialism means each person gives to society what they are able to, and takes what they need to.

You must not confuse Stalin or Mao with a true socialist society.

Endymon32 · 12-27-2003, 04:29 PM

So socialists only give what they are able, not what they are compelled to by threat of imprisonment? You are wrong again. Norwegiens go to jail if they don't pay their taxes. So once again, you are incorrect.

I await your automatic responce that Norway is not a true socialist nation. I even know what lies you are goint to use as your answer.

debaser · 12-27-2003, 04:32 PM

Strange Famous, I have three words for you:

Free Rider Problem

I suggest you pick up a copy of Mancur Olsons book, and have a good read...

Endymon32 · 12-27-2003, 04:35 PM

Why read that book? It doesnt jive with the conclusions Strange Famous already made before he started arguing.

Strange Famous · 12-27-2003, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Endymon32
So socialists only give what they are able, not what they are compelled to by threat of imprisonment? You are wrong again. Norwegiens go to jail if they don't pay their taxes. So once again, you are incorrect.

I await your automatic responce that Norway is not a true socialist nation. I even know what lies you are goint to use as your answer.

How interesteing that you think Norway is a socialist state!

I am not sure anyone else is aware of that!

And making people pay taxes is making sure that they DO give what they are able to, but that isnt really the same thing as socialism.

As I have said, several times, there has not ever been an existing socialist or communist nation state. Some states have called themselves socialist, but they are not what I, or Marx, or history, will call socialists.

Strange Famous · 12-27-2003, 04:44 PM

I understand the concept of the "free rider".

The mistake you are making is to imagine people as they are made to behave in a capitalist world in the new world after the revolution.

People will not WANT to free ride or not contribute to a society and an economy they are an equal stakeholder in, they will want to give all they can, and take all they need, to make THEIR society greater.

People may be "free riders" today becase their labour is exploited and alienated, reduced to a mechanical process, and that they are alienated from the value added by their labour.

In a communist world this will not be the case, and TRUE human nature, which is compassionate, social, and creative, will be allowed to flourish.

Endymon32 · 12-27-2003, 04:45 PM

So why are you championing a nation that can not possible exist?

And you can call them what you want, but history named many communist and socialist states.

Here is a desciption of Norway's Governemnt
The Norwegian economy is a prosperous bastion of welfare capitalism, featuring a combination of free market activity and government intervention. The government controls key areas, such as the vital petroleum sector (through large-scale state enterprises). The country is richly endowed with natural resources - petroleum, hydropower, fish, forests, and minerals - and is highly dependent on its oil production and international oil prices; in 1999, oil and gas accounted for 35% of exports. Only Saudi Arabia and Russia export more oil than Norway. Norway opted to stay out of the EU during a referendum in November 1994. The government has moved ahead with privatization. With arguably the highest quality of life worldwide, Norwegians still worry about that time in the next two decades when the oil and gas begin to run out. Accordingly, Norway has been saving its oil-boosted budget surpluses in a Government Petroleum Fund, which is invested abroad and now is valued at more than $43 billion. GDP growth was a lackluster 1% in 2002 and 2003 against the background of a faltering European economy.

Welfare Capitalism and government intervention. Isnt that Socialism?

debaser · 12-27-2003, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Strange Famous

As I have said, several times, there has not ever been an existing socialist or communist nation state. Some states have called themselves socialist, but they are not what I, or Marx, or history, will call socialists.

Nor will there ever be. Marx was a fantastic economist, but he was also a utopian, and his vision is laced with the same fundamental flaw as every utopian, from More to Swift to Bacon. He fails to deal with the human condition of greed.

debaser · 12-27-2003, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Strange Famous

In a communist world this will not be the case, and TRUE human nature, which is compassionate, social, and creative, will be allowed to flourish.

This was not the state of man prior to the advent of capitalism...

Endymon32 · 12-27-2003, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Strange Famous
I understand the concept of the "free rider".

The mistake you are making is to imagine people as they are made to behave in a capitalist world in the new world after the revolution. ]

You are making the mistake in thinking that people will want to revolt.

Quote:

[People will not WANT to free ride or not contribute to a society and an economy they are an equal stakeholder in, they will want to give all they can, and take all they need, to make THEIR society greater.]

You are assuming that greed and laziness will some how be wiped out. Do you have any evidence to proove that communism eradicates laziness, innefficientcy or greed?

Quote:

[People may be "free riders" today becase their labour is exploited and alienated, reduced to a mechanical process, and that they are alienated from the value added by their labour. ]

You have one iota of proof to back up this wild claim? I eagerly await it.

Quote:

[In a communist world this will not be the case, and TRUE human nature, which is compassionate, social, and creative, will be allowed to flourish.

Again, wild claim, no proof, and accourding to you, there was no true communist or socialist nation so you can not provide any proof to back up this wild claim. Are you saying that there WAS a true socialist nation so you can provide proof? But you say there was no Communist or socialist nation, so we are back to no proof.
And each time a new Communist or socialist nation fails, guys like you will only yell that they werent truely communist. Its odd that they never yell that during the onset of that government, only when it fails.....

Communism is based on everyone working together and sharing, when we live in a word where no two people can agree on anything of importance. Its a fantasy. And No communist nation was successful, or even a particulally great place to live. And they each cost millions of lives for their failure. 125million to be exact, in just this century.

12-22-2003, 07:09 AM	#3 (permalink)
apechild Crazy Location: Vermont	Collectivists vs. individualists, perhaps? __________________ Skwerl. Its wuts fer dinner.

12-22-2003, 07:43 AM	#8 (permalink)
stan the man Insane	Seretogis where are you step to the mic __________________ long live the hud

12-22-2003, 07:51 AM	#9 (permalink)
apechild Crazy Location: Vermont	Who has supreme authority? God, with the Church as his agent? The collective, with the state as its agent? Or the individual - the sovereign being, with only himself as his agent? Are you a pious subject? Are you an abiding subject? Or are you sovereign? __________________ Skwerl. Its wuts fer dinner.

12-22-2003, 12:45 PM	#10 (permalink)
Phaenx The Northern Ward Location: Columbus, Ohio	A civil war between conservatives and liberals? That one's easy, conservatives like guns, we'd have that won in a few days. That's without military intervention though, but even then most of the U.S. military is conservative, about 25/1 I think the ratio is. So with them, liberals would be crushed almost immediately. Between socialists and everyone? Most socialists are lefties, and there's not as many of them as there are liberals. This one is even shorter then the first. __________________ "I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy

12-23-2003, 08:31 PM	#18 (permalink)
almostaugust Junkie Location: Oz	The number one thing people have to do is stop thinking in black and white, as so much of the media and politicians try to perpetuate. Intergral to this is the use of language. If we start labeling people as 'nazis' and 'communists' then we are losing the battle. __________________ 'And it's been a long December and there's reason to believe Maybe this year will be better than the last I can't remember all the times I tried to tell my myself To hold on to these moments as they pass'

12-22-2003, 07:07 AM	#2 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	First some clarifications are in order. Who are the socialists that are so feared? Who are "those who value Liberty"?

12-22-2003, 07:25 AM	#4 (permalink)
geep Insane Location: Imprisoned in Ecotopia	The war is already being fought. The battleground is in the media. The casualties are the ideals on which this country was founded. Both sides are guilty of plotting their demise. Class warfare may be inevitable. Liberty has definitions that are both social and economic. Infringing on one type has dire consequences on the other. The question is- can we or should we compromise?

12-22-2003, 07:41 AM	#7 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	I still would like to get a clarification of who are the socialists in america and Who are "those who value Liberty" in this country. Could someone point out a few groups who fall into either mold? Seretogis maybe? Of course, this will all be subjective, which is the whole point for me asking the question, but please go for it anyway.

12-22-2003, 03:47 PM	#13 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	In liberals v conservatives, it isn't that easy. I'm a liberal and I loves my guns.

12-22-2003, 08:00 PM	#14 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	I think if it comes down to a war between liberals and conservatives it would prove nothing except that neither of the two groups has any respect for the principals on which our country is based. I agree with sparhawk, any civil war would probably be a repeat of the first in that the rebelling faction would be put down. Also, anyone who lacks the intellect to see that someone who doesn't agree with them ideologically can also value liberty seems to be showing a lack of understanding of the privelidges of liberty i.e. i can have a socialist perspective and still value liberty. Don't forget, a socialist wrote the pledge of allegiance.

12-23-2003, 08:09 AM	#15 (permalink)
geep Insane Location: Imprisoned in Ecotopia	The problem here that's not being dealt with is the fact that some facts of life are "either or" decisions, no compromise can preserve the ideals of either side (a "black or white" answer, if you will). To compromise liberty is to not have liberty at all. "Give me liberty or give me death" although, your death is preferable if you try to take away my liberty.

12-23-2003, 11:37 AM	#17 (permalink)
Macheath Junkie Location: Sydney, Australia	But what does this "war between Socialists and those who value Liberty" actually mean if you strip it of all its rhetoric. I would think it means a conflict between the individual and the community; between libertarianism and collectivism. How can this war have a "winner"? Hasn't this necessary tension between the group and the individual been part of the human experience since the first two cavemen teamed up and went hunting together? Socialists as we commonly define them see the state as being this apotheosis of collectivism, but not all collectivists are statists. Look at the Kibbutzim of Israel, they're a co-operative - not individual enterprise, yet they don't reflect statist authoritarianism. Religion can be authoritarian too yet it (especially in the case of Catholicism) was historically able to challenge the power of the nation state. Capitalist entrepreneurs see the necessity for a state apparatus to uphold property rights. Right wing Libertarians see the necessity for a state military infrastructure but have ideas about the rubbery flexible definition of self defence and foreign military adventures that seem more suited to liberal Wilsonian idealism than their own professed ideology. Why in the early years of the 21st century would we all pick up guns and kill each other over these ideological vagaries and this tension between the individual and their society that has always existed?

12-24-2003, 11:34 AM	#19 (permalink)
james t kirk Junkie Location: Toronto	This is a very stupid thread and notion. How sad that people even contemplate such stupidity. No wonder the aliens have never made first contact.

12-24-2003, 02:10 PM	#20 (permalink)
Endymon32 Banned	Looks like the socialists are loosing in CHina. The government just ended its restrictions on private property. Looks like CHina is slowly evolving from its left,socialist nation without the US even firing a shot. Another failing socialist nation reaching for capitalism to bail it out. I wonder why there are any people that still clutch to socialist ideas at all?

12-24-2003, 02:24 PM	#21 (permalink)
Zeld2.0 Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate Location: Los Angeles	Endymon that has to be the stupidest thing to even remark. Unless you're from China, ahve lived there for the last ten years, then that statement has no credibility. p.s. - they still control the economy and they are making more money than we are now with their blended system tho they're still behind elsewhere

12-24-2003, 02:34 PM	#23 (permalink)
Zeld2.0 Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate Location: Los Angeles	i agree w/ lurkette and please don't beat the socialism is communism debate to death

12-26-2003, 04:41 PM	#25 (permalink)
Zeld2.0 Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate Location: Los Angeles	Have you been in China recently? Have you happened to live there? Its obvious they have hints at doign so but its not meant to be a full capitalism a'la the US. Its meant to boost their economy and to give them an edge over us, while keeping their other programs. Don't believe me? Go to China now. Its prospered / grown a hell of a lot from ten years ago, but fact is, stats cannot tell the other side. P.S. Communism does not equal socialism.

12-26-2003, 05:02 PM	#26 (permalink)
Endymon32 Banned	It has grown because they are adopting Captialist ideas and methods. To not recognise this is just plain wrong.

12-27-2003, 01:02 PM	#27 (permalink)
nirol Crazy Location: South East US	The war has already been fought, We lost. The war is fought in Congress, where the people's representatives have been giving away the money of future generations. The war was lost at the ballot box, once people discovered that they could vote themselves secure, or even wealthy from the public trough. __________________ 'Tis better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than open one's mouth and remove all doubt. Samuel Johnson (1709 - 1784)

12-27-2003, 01:44 PM	#28 (permalink)
Endymon32 Banned	I agree that congress should not be able to vote themselves a raise.

12-27-2003, 03:29 PM	#29 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	socialism is impossible without freedom. Socialism is really nothing more than true and complete freedom, a society where men and women dominate and control the economic system, whereas capitalism is the opposite of course. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

12-27-2003, 04:07 PM	#30 (permalink)
Endymon32 Banned	Nope, socialism is the government, by the acutal use of force or threat of the use of force, making the people pay for other people's lives. Socialism is being punished for successs so that you can pay for other's failures. And Socialism doesnt work.

12-27-2003, 04:27 PM	#31 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	far simpler socialism means each person gives to society what they are able to, and takes what they need to. You must not confuse Stalin or Mao with a true socialist society. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

12-27-2003, 04:29 PM	#32 (permalink)
Endymon32 Banned	So socialists only give what they are able, not what they are compelled to by threat of imprisonment? You are wrong again. Norwegiens go to jail if they don't pay their taxes. So once again, you are incorrect. I await your automatic responce that Norway is not a true socialist nation. I even know what lies you are goint to use as your answer.

12-27-2003, 04:32 PM	#33 (permalink)
debaser Sir, I have a plan... Location: 38S NC20943324	Strange Famous, I have three words for you: Free Rider Problem I suggest you pick up a copy of Mancur Olsons book, and have a good read... __________________ Fortunato became immured to the sound of the trowel after a while.

12-27-2003, 04:35 PM	#34 (permalink)
Endymon32 Banned	Why read that book? It doesnt jive with the conclusions Strange Famous already made before he started arguing.

12-27-2003, 04:44 PM	#36 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	I understand the concept of the "free rider". The mistake you are making is to imagine people as they are made to behave in a capitalist world in the new world after the revolution. People will not WANT to free ride or not contribute to a society and an economy they are an equal stakeholder in, they will want to give all they can, and take all they need, to make THEIR society greater. People may be "free riders" today becase their labour is exploited and alienated, reduced to a mechanical process, and that they are alienated from the value added by their labour. In a communist world this will not be the case, and TRUE human nature, which is compassionate, social, and creative, will be allowed to flourish. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

12-27-2003, 04:45 PM	#37 (permalink)
Endymon32 Banned	So why are you championing a nation that can not possible exist? And you can call them what you want, but history named many communist and socialist states. Here is a desciption of Norway's Governemnt The Norwegian economy is a prosperous bastion of welfare capitalism, featuring a combination of free market activity and government intervention. The government controls key areas, such as the vital petroleum sector (through large-scale state enterprises). The country is richly endowed with natural resources - petroleum, hydropower, fish, forests, and minerals - and is highly dependent on its oil production and international oil prices; in 1999, oil and gas accounted for 35% of exports. Only Saudi Arabia and Russia export more oil than Norway. Norway opted to stay out of the EU during a referendum in November 1994. The government has moved ahead with privatization. With arguably the highest quality of life worldwide, Norwegians still worry about that time in the next two decades when the oil and gas begin to run out. Accordingly, Norway has been saving its oil-boosted budget surpluses in a Government Petroleum Fund, which is invested abroad and now is valued at more than $43 billion. GDP growth was a lackluster 1% in 2002 and 2003 against the background of a faltering European economy. Welfare Capitalism and government intervention. Isnt that Socialism?