As some fellow hubbers will know, I am involved in writing hubs for a Socialism 101 series.
There are a few issues raised by the conservatives where I do not fully understand what they are saying. Before I address these in a hub or hubs I really would like clarity on what exactly the conservative case is.
One argument seems to be that what America needs is unrestrained laissez faire capitalism. A variant of that accepts there should be some restrictions on capitalism but that the current position is skewed too far against capitalism.
Intertwined with the above is an argument that there should be no income tax because federal income tax is constitutionaaly improper. In consequence much of US Governmet spending is illegal either because it is constitutionally improper or because Federal income tax should not fund it because income taxes are illegal. There is also an argument based on the Constitution that says that all currency should be in gold or silver, not paper or electronic.
I am also confused by the argument that individual States are sovereign, even though some of them were created by the Federal Government. Although states are supposedly sovereign they cannot choose to leave the USA?
One Conservative hubber says that tyrannical socialists have been running the country since Alexander Hamilton. There seems to be a lobby that the US Government has not obeyed the Constitution for a long time and therefore all or much of what it does is illegal.
Is there a Conservative hubber who can put all this together into one coherent statement of case that I can then address in my hub(s)? I do not want folk saying I have misrepresented the Conservative case. If in fact there are two or three mutually exclusive conservative positions, stating those would be helpful.
Many thanks colleagues.
The answers to all your questions can be found in the constitution. The bulk of the problems with todays government have come from an expansion of central authority as a result of the legal findings mis-interpreting the commerce clause... and an attempt to assume powers based on the general welfare statements. Basically progressiveism is the art of redefining the constitution to impose socialism upon Americans while keeping a straight face.
No, it's the art of lying. Period.
Let me quote Madison to you...
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”
I think you find this contradicts every "liberal" or "progressive" argument on the matter.
Really, all you have to do is read it. It is one of the clearest, easiest to understand documents in the world.
Charles, you're not going to like my answer. I have published a number of hubs that relate the Constitution, it's philosophical base, the intentions of the writers, and so on.
But, take any liberal here, like Ralph Deeds, lovemychris, and many others, will tell you that it means precisely the opposite of what I say, that it means that our federal government is empowered to do anything it wants to do, with it's self restraint as its only limitation, except it's prohibited form doing things conservatives want it to do.
Somewhere along the line, if you're going to determine what's true, you have to study for yourself, and determine who is lying and who is telling the truth.
First, you seem to not quite understand what capitalism is, nor what laissez faire capitalism is, either. In other words, if you intend to write definitions for other ideologies, you're going to have to do a whale of a lot of studying them yourself, and be guided solely by reason and logic, and not that of a socialist, either, becasue it's not reason and not logic. Not to be insulting, but you do not add 2 plus 2 the way I do, in terms of facts.
In terms of the income tax, the income tax was authorized by amendment, but originally, our constitution forbade the federal government from taxing ANY individual or entity. It was done for extremely important purposes and that amendment weakened our liberty immensely, by allowing the federal government to intervene in business and the daily lives of individuals, something the founders DESPERATELY wanted to prevent, so as to defend the liberty of the individual.
To understand the matter of how we have states and a federal government requires a history lesson. The british set up what eventually became 13 different colonies, meaning they were distinct, bordered administrative regions. When we left the empire, these 13 retained the boundaries that already existed, for the most part, and became governments of their own. During the flux period, as the remnants of colonial rule were transformed into independent governance, the 13 became the functional equivalent of their own nation, except that they claimed and displayed a common bond of geography, culture, and economy.
The colonies set up the Continental Congress, under which much of the ward for independence was fought, but it lacked any teeth to do much, and was soon replaced with the Confederation government, which wasn't much better, it too lacking proper design and implementation. During this period, the states had their own governments, military, laws, etc. Again, for most intents and purposes, they were all nations in their own rights, except that through both the Continental and Confederate period, they wished to be united in a manner that respected both the states and individuals.
And thus, our Constitution was born. To form a "more perfect union", than had been achieved under the deficient and malformed attempts previously. Those were adhoc at best and formed under wartime conditions, without great deliberation or discussion.
And so representatives were chosen among the states, who sent people to the Congress (except Rhode Island, who refused) and then created the Federal Government, gave it very specific and limited duties and powers, all detailed and agreed to by the states. The States FORMED the federal government. It was a functional extension of themselves, as they delegated to it powers they otherwise could claim for themselves.
All the states, including eventually Rhode Island, did by vote, ratify the Constitution and agree to the contracted details it contains. To obtain the votes of specific states, even more specificity and stronger guarantees of limitation of federal power was demanded and thus, the first 10 amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, which contained language that even more stridently declared the limits of the federal government's powers and what it could and could not do.
There's about 38 to 40 specific items the congress is allowed to tax to raise money to spend upon. Certain duties, such as foreign policy and military defense and regulation of navigation and navigable waters, for instance, were also delegated. Also, the ability to regulate trade between the states, and to ensure it is uniform.
Myriad items our federal government is currently doing, do not conform in ANY fashion to the constitution. FDR packed the courts with activists, who were willing to say anything to advance a progressive agenda, ignoring the law (just as Obama and Democrats still do and have done, ever since) and the Constitution, and conducting a massive power and money grab over the nation, and repressing the states and the people.
Our SCOTUS (supreme court) is far too timid to address even minor issues of constitutionality, being the target of endless campaigns of venom since the days after FDR meant to intimidate them into ignoring the law. Basically, our federal government is operating totally lawlessly and out of control, but politicians and courts write sham opinions not even a child is fooled by, to continue to ignore the elephant in the room, meaning the blatant violation of our Constitution.
The word conservative can refer to several political and economic beliefs and mixtures of those beliefs, some so extreme that "radical" might be a better description than conservative. The extreme libertarians exemplified by Ron and Rand Paul fall in this category as does most of the propaganda put out by the CATO institute.
Another useful distinction is between economic and social conservatives (anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, anti-sex education, except for abstinence training, and advocates of teaching creationism in public school science classes. Social conservatism originates in some of the fundamentalist protestant Christian churches. Economic conservatives and libertarians tend not to support social conservative ideas, but social conservatives, contrary to their own interests, tend to support economic conservatism.
The notion of individual state sovereignty is a far-out extreme view. This issue was settled long ago by the U.S. Supreme Court (and the Civil War). I'm not aware of any national politician of either party who supports this extreme position. Of course there is no shortage of arguments over the Constitutionality of certain federal regulations such as the Obama administration's health care reform bill.
The traditional conservatives who are cautious about government spending and welfare programs, such as Senator Lugar of Indiana Senator Bennett of Utah, and Senators Collins and Snowe are being chased out of office by Tea Partiers and radical conservatives financed by very right wing individuals (Kochs) and groups (NRA) other extreme anti-tax, anti-regulation groups. This is unfortunate, because many of these men and women are rational and willing to work across the aisle in the public interest. Also, they tend to accept more moderate interpretations of the Constitution, amendments and supreme court decisions than what I call the radical conservatives. They are strong believers that a certain amount of federal regulation is required in order to make sure that free market capitalism delivers honestly on its promise of efficient allocation of resources and economic progress shared widely among the populace.
I just noticed that you asked for a conservative to comment. I am a liberal or progressive, the term for liberal currently in vogue, not a liberal. Let the hubbers who call themselves conservatives crawl out of the woodwork and attempt to set me straight! As the saying goes, "All an artist can do is paint the best canvas he can, hang it between the trees and let the monkeys come round and criticize!"
There is nothing whatsoever radical about true american history, nor the Constitution, nor following it. Every statement I have made, is directly and quotably supported by such ignorant duffers as Thomas Jefferson, Adams, etc, who, you know, were around and you know, like, argued the Constitution, and like, WROTE IT, and like, thought they understood what they wrote. You know, like, can you dig it, in "Valley" or do you only understand some other dialect of modern english?
So, if you call me "radical", you're calling THEM "radical". If I have to be radical, I'll chose their side, the one history has proven to be both good and correct, and not yours, which has proven to be globally destructive.
James asked for facts, I give facts, you hide behind stupid nonsense like "courts settled this and "a war settled this". Nonsense, the Constitution DID NOT CHANGE. Nor what it means, nor the laws Congress and the federal government are required to live by... which fortunately, exclude the nonsense you desperately want.
The US Constitution is NOT radical in the slightest. It is mainstream America. And I can win EVERY arguement with you, just by quoting it, and prove you wrong on every point. Spout your nonsense to people who are ignorant and will fall for it. Don't try it with me.
Oh, I'm quaking in my boots!
Hey apart from the fact that the constitution does change, there are 26 amendments to it, the basic, original preamble contains socialist elements.
Oh, I love it, so devoid of argument, he can only come up with petty insults!
No, I'm feeling generous and thought to spare you the loss in debate. Ignorance is excuseable. You have no compelling reason to know and understand the Constitution. But Ralph has no excuse, because he lives here.
I have no idea why you'd wish to argue it, but you can if you wish. I'd just suggest you not until or unless you decide to spend a few months learning.
Or, to compete with you, several months unlearning!
Tis true. I had to unlearn a lot when I went from being a liberal to a conservative. Dedication to truth, and being uncompromisingly honest with myself resulted in me having to give up a lot of erroneous nonsense.
Yeah, I used to be a political liberal. Used to believe in redistribution, and all that crap. But I grew up.
But I'm not a liberal, hate them, they are so wishy washy, no convictions and trying to be everything to every man!
Liberal, socialist, progressive, i don't care what you want to call yourself. Still the same problem.
What disagreeing with you is the problem!
I've got news for you, I actually know some right wingers, they're good men and basically sound, you don't even come up to their knees, you are narrow minded and bigoted, and so convinced of your rightness that it' almost scary, if it wasn't so funny.
LOL, "narrow minded, bigoted"?
Personal insults from you really do prove the facts of the matter, don't they?
BTW, let's just be clear... Your judgement has been, well, you demonstrated you ahve none, when you cited as authority about capitalism... 'marxists.org'.
So, pronounced judgements from you... concerning my value, worth, and character? If they're negative? I generally would consider it to be an insult, if they were not.
Tell you the truth, I didn't even notice the source that I was quoting, it was just one amongst many and in agreement with all the others. I could have picked wikipedia but that tends to be derided, although it is in agreement.
Instead I found you another as you can't find one yourself.
My comment wasn't directed to you particularly, but if the shoe fits....implementing the positions you and others have taken would require radical changes in the laws and institutions which have long been accepted as useful and necessary in this country.
Reading the Constitution isn't sufficient. You must also read the Supreme Court decisions interpreting the document in light of changing conditions.
They have long since proven destructive and are running us in violent downward trajectory for national disaster, which will result in global economic upheaval.
i'm sorry it might create radical changes too large for your mind to accept, but in real life, normal humans can accept them with little more than a nod and a realization after brief explanation that what would be put in place would be vastly superior for all.
The Constitution, Ralph, DOES NOT DELEGATE ITS MEANING TO THE SUPREME COURT.
It stands solely on its black and white, printed word.
It means what it means, and the only thing that matters IS WHAT IT SAYS. THAT IS WHAT IT MEANS.
Saying that SCOTUS can redefine the Constitution is a lie. It cannot. It says what it says. Reliance on SCOTUS rather than intelligence and reason is mightly stupid, Ralph.
I'm not a lawyer, but many years ago I had a course in Constitutional law taught by one of the top authorities in the field. Based on my recollection and what I've observed since, the Supreme Court has the final say on the meaning and application of the Constitution. As we know, the Court isn't infallible, but sooner or later it usually gets around to rectifying its mistakes. The Constitution as originally written was an amazing document but was far from perfect. As you know, it has been amended 27 times, and most of the amendments have been interpreted many times by the Supreme Court in rulings on cases brought to it by citizens and entities exercising their rights under the document.
Correction... The supreme court is the highest court in the land.
The Constitution, other than the amendments, has not changed.
It means exactly what it said when it was written, and NO fiction by the court changes that. Sorry. It is not flexible, it is not "living" and it is not variable.
The ultimate authority, Ralph, is NOT with SCOTUS, it is with the people. And the TEA Party, among others, is quite set on setting things right.
The damage done to our nation by ignoring the Constitution, and implementing all those things you're so fond of... Is and was caused by those things.
That statement is an excellent example of the ignorant and toxic crap the Tea Party is spreading across the land.
Yup, all that toxic crap i learned from the founders, the Constitution, and history.
After you spewed your nonsense, I quoted Jefferson to you. If you do not respect him, then you respect nothing, especially not the truth, and are unworthy of any hearing, any respect, or consideration, for you are without integrity.
Ralph, watch the video I linked elsehwere on C-SPAN.
Thomas Woods DESTROYS all those fatuous arguments with, well, better reasoning and logic. Period. I do not need a law professor to tell me what the Constitution reads. It's simple and straightforward.
Thomas Jefferson: "..the Federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scarecrow), working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one. When all government... in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated. (1821)"
"The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislative and executive also in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch."
"The concentrating [of powers] in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one."
"With respect to our state and federal governments, I do not thing their relations correctly understood by foreigners. They generally suppose the former subordinate to the latter. But this is not the case. They are co-ordinate departments of one simple and integral whole. To the state governments are reserved all legislation administration, in affairs which concern their own citizens only; and to the federal government is given whatever concerns foreigners and citizens of other states; these functions alone being made federal. The one is the domestic, the other the foreign branch of the same government - neither having control over the other, but within its own department. from Thomas Jefferson’s letter to Major John Cartwright,"
"If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, and give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; And the sixteen being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they do now, on oatmeal and potatoes, have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account; But be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains around the necks of our fellow sufferers; And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for a second, that second for a third, and so on 'til the bulk of society is reduced to mere automatons of misery, to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering...and the forehorse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression."
I know your narrative of political conquest over the will of the people, and over the laws of the nation requier you to lie and slander me... But, if I am to be radical... I will be a radical with this man, and stand so proudly, knowing that I stood with ones greater than any of you.
If I'm not mistaken the Constitution itself provides for the Court's checks and balances role empowering it to rule on Constitutional issues. It has ever been so. Just curious, what's your understanding of the proper role of the Supreme Court? Thomas Woods is a radical nullificationist. He believes that the states have the right to refuse to enforce what they believe to be an unconstitutional federal law. This radical concept which would overturn 300 years of our country's government and legal history is not widely accepted by legal scholars, to put it mildly.
Yeah, radical like Jefferson and the other founders. Keep talking. Your hole is so deep you'll never get out. Can't refute, you shout "radical" at every turn.
BTW, it's not a theory, it's reality, and has been done repeatedly. Recently, too.
Ralph, if Woods is so dumb, you should be able to refute his logic.
So, watch the video and do it. I know you can't, not you, and not any liberal, can find the slightest rational or logical traction against truth.
Keep flailing. Keep pretending that professors can overcome plain english, keep demonstrating you are so desperate to void the Constitution, for your own radical reasons, that you will spout ANY stupid argument, no matter how insane, to justify trying to overturn the plain, undeniable truth of the Constitution.
The Constitution does not grant the court the power to rewrite it.
It makes it the highest level of appeal in the judiciary system. That doesn't make it able to change the meaning. Anyone relying on the court also realizes he stands on quicksand, waiting to rely on a body that once ruled black men property, as their infallible guide to reason and truth.
BTW, Ralph, there is actually NO valid argument in support of Obamacare.
If you'd care to try, we'll just show the world why you should never be listened to.
Eventually the U.S. Supreme Court will rule on the constitutionality of the entire act or parts of it. You're entitled to your opinion.
No matter what SCOTUS says, it's is unconstitutional. Even a child can see that.
Don't you just love the mind of the liberal?
"Dictatorships are evil! But it's ok to have 9 people tell us how to read English!"
(PS: Conservatives make equally foolish arguments)
Psst, that's what we have constitutional amendments for. Last time I checked, true dictatorships usually lack them.
What, pray tell, are "conservative foolish arguments"?
Ralph. Read someone who really IS an authority and can best you in a debate, so soundly you'd wonder why you bothered...
http://www.tomwoods.com/learn-about-sta … ification/
And watch a presentation.
And don't bother blabbing your pitiful nonsense trying to defend yourself. Just understand you're wholesale wrong. I mean, you've chosen to be, and that's that, don't insult our intelligence and your intellect with nonsense. Just cling to what you want to think.
Short and sweet, socialism through out the world has back fired, Unions for example want pay based on time served, Capitalism wants pay for merit,and accomplishment! Common sense tells us who prevails! Capitalism is a bi product of individualism! When you are left alone to gather food, housing, and education through a system such as ours you can easily take care of yourself and have life abundant! When you are allowed to collective bargain through unions, or organizations you lose that desire to have ambition, work ethic, or fend for yourself through creative thinking! You become a mindless zombie following whoever stands on a podium and screams the system is unfair! Great men like Henry Ford clear up to the college brat who created FaceBook are the backbones of America! .........by the way if you believe states cannot leave the union........keep watching the signs!
Thank you ladylove. Succinct, but points me in the right direction. I am sure some of the right must have written hubs on these issues that I can study or would be willing to write a hub "The Case of the Conservatives Truly Stated" with enough detail that I can get to grips with what your case truly is.
To take some of your statements, twist them out of context and have a good laugh is not my style as you will know by now. I do want one or more of you to state your case so I can state the socialist case about the same issues. There is no point me taking an issue, writing about it, and then you all pile in to say that I have been working from a misstatement of your position. That is a waste of everyone's time.
I believe myself to be an honest enquirer after truth. Its amazing how much trouble I get into for asking questions! Almost as much trouble as I get into for stating what seems to me to be the truth.
I try not to characterise my opponents as "liars" because that creates heat rather than light. For instance people who say the world is flat or round sincerely believe what they say, so it would be wrong to call them "liars". "Mistaken" is more polite than "deluded". I must admit that since I learned the world is pear shaped it has all made a lot more sense.
weholdthesetruths, if there has been an Amendment to the Constitution passed in the appropriate manner, why do you refuse to accept it?
Given that there are changes in technology, and changes in perceptions in society on issues such as slavery, colour, gender, sexual orientation, and the land mass of the Federal USA grew enormously, a Constitution has to move with the times. Even if the founding fathers were a convention of saints, they could not have predicted how society and technology would evolve. That is why they had the wisdom to make provision for Amendment to the Constitution.
I am still in enquiry mode rather than arguing, and I am trying to explore your position. I will be reading your hubs. - Could you email me please on firstname.lastname@example.org with the hubs you suggest I read and the order in which I should read them? I appreciate that is some work, but would be enormously helpful to me. I assume the liberals you mention will have commented on the hubs so I will learn what they say too.
I somehow doubt that a hub by a socialist will cause sweetness and light to break out between the conservatives and the liberals. That would be too ambitious! My objective is to set out the socialist case and let the chips fall where they will.
If other colleagues on the right or liberals or socialists want to chip in or email me with suggested hubs I would be most grateful.
I never said I "don't accept" amendments. they are law. Period. If it were up to me, I would be heading a campaign to repeal the federal income tax amendment.
But all that aside, what point is worrying about what the law is, when the current administration doesn't care in the slightest, and just does whatever it wants to do, even so far as ignoring the courts?
I'm very much looking forward to these Socialism 101 hubs. I look forward to reading them!
weholdthesetruths - I should also thank you for the effort you have already made, honestly and frankly setting out the difficulties I face instead of letting me stumble. Thank you.
Wormdo - So am I. I will have to write many of the articles myself, but I will be very generous in cross linking not only to socialists but also to non-socialists who have written hubs I think socialists would wish to read.
Did you ask for an explanation or did you ask to be condescended to??
The conservative "case" can be summed up thusly:
Only conservatives have or are capable of understanding the facts. The rest of us are illogical idiots.
That's why we're conservatives, Mighty Mom. I can defend everything I say about what should and should not be done, directly from the Constitution, and have a coherent and very logical rationale behind it all. You have emotion. Which will I trust? It won't be emotion.
"Is there a Conservative hubber who can put all this together into one coherent statement"
You'll be waiting for a looooooooooooong time lol
Ralph and weholdthesetruths have both been enormously helpful. I bet it is a long time since you have both been thanked in the same breath!
Mighty Mom - I would rather be condescended to so I do not miss any nuance, than have people assume I am more intelligent and knowledgeable than I am. Not being an American or in America there are some things that you all take for granted that simply have never occurred to me. I know you drive on the wrong side of the road and your policemen carry guns, but there are many other differences I am sure.
I am so grateful to all of you for making the time to help me work on a project with which many of you disagree. The First Amendment is alive and well.
Charles, what ane interesting thread this is. I am new to hubpages. I just discovered it today. Any way, I have a link to the IRS website that covers their stand on the idea of not having to pay income tax.
They go into great detail about different cases and the legal judgements about them. I'm not endorsing or objecting to them, just putting out information.
Are there people on HP who advocate that you don't have to pay income tax? I ask them because you brought it up as if it were an issue. I've never seen any, and I've never seen anyone win in tax court.
Then again, the law doesn't matter. The IRS has its own courts and judges and they generally just do whatever benefits the IRS, law be damned.
I posted the IRS link because in his original post, Charles references people thinking they don't have to pay income tax.
I think that was a mistake Charles made, in that something I had written caused him to think I considered the income tax to be unconstitutional today.
You may not consider the income tax unconstitutional but others do.
I know they exist. I also know Wesley Snipes spent jail time for listening to at least one of them.
but, I don't think it is an issue here, or in any of our discussions, just like this isn't about UFO's or orgone energy.
The income tax IS constitutional. Somehow it got attached to the document.
There are some great arguments for showing that it was never ratified properly.
I haven't done enough research, but I am hesitant that where there's smoke there's fire.
Ladylove said it best. I'll add…There are four fundamental problems with socialism (that I can see) that has NEVER been overcome: (1) Socialism demands the guarantee of resources (e.g. food, housing, medical care, etc.). NATURALLY, with these resources guaranteed to the people, there is going to be a guaranteed expansion of the population. Theoretically under a socialist system then, there is no amount of people the socialist system cannot provide for and guarantee resources - into infinity. USSR, Cuba, China & N. Korea showed this to be a fallacy - the bodies in need will eventually overwhelm the system. Axiom: There should be no guarantees in life! (2) Inefficiencies and corruption breed within the bureaucratic entities … where, over time, the cost of running these gov’t bureaucracies will eventually exceed the true value of whatever service is being provided. (3) Socialism robs the people (particularly the males) of their vigor. No need to work for self -sufficiency when there is always a gov’t guarantee there to be gifted to you. (4) The inability of socialist to grasp the most simple of economic principles, that gov’t cannot provide services that exceeds the ability of the tax base to support, means every feel good agenda conceivable to the mind of a liberal will be legislated into law (forced on the people), and the tax base's wealth will eventually be exhausted.
BTW, I think socialism can and does work well in hunting & gathering and agrarian based (subsistence farming) societies. However it’s simply a fact that it has failed every time in an occupational ranking society (ie. Where the majority of people live in urban centers).
Capitalism is the ONLY economic system for an occupational ranking economic structure - IMO.
America can go a very long way in returning to a sound and feasible economic base by simply excising every piece of legislation (including all companion laws) produced under the presidency of the buffoon LBJ - IMO.
Actually, they didn't practice socialism in the USSR, they practised State Capitalism which is about as far away from socialism as you can get.
No, genuine and factual. If you disagree, prove me wrong.
Capitalism is the freedom to own property and use it to benefit yourself.
How is state ownership, control, and direction "capitalism"?
They owned all the property and used it to benefit themselves, in their case they even owned the basic means of production, the people!
In every other respect they were no different from any big corporation, they were in it for the money.
LOL, making up any sort of vapid convenient daffynition is not the way to be thought of as honest.
What are you scared of? That you might actually be a lot closer to your demons than I am?
By the way, it's not a made up definition, go check.
In fact I'll save you the effort;-
The term “State Capitalism” is frequently used in two different ways: first, as an economic form in which the state performs the role of the capitalist employer, exploiting the workers in the interest of the state. The federal mail system or a state-owned railway are examples of this kind of state capitalism. In Russia, this form of state capitalism predominates in industry : the work is planned, financed and managed by the state; the directors of industry are appointed by the state and profits are considered the income of the state. Second, we find that a condition is defined as state capitalism (or state socialism) under which capitalist enterprises are controlled by the state. This definition is misleading, however, as there still exists under these conditions capitalism in the form of private ownership, although the owner of an enterprise is no longer the sole master, his power being restricted so long as some sort of social insurance system for the workers is accepted.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/panneko … orship.htm
Capitalism is the ACTIONS OF FREE PEOPLE who possess the right to own and use what they own.
Sheesh, how do you talk to someone who cites something from the marxists.org? Seriously, if you believe anything from a site of pure propaganda, it might be by accident. If you cite it, you have a serious mental problem.
"Capitalism is the ACTIONS OF FREE PEOPLE who possess the right to own and use what they own."
Try telling that to somebody on a minimum wage, working in sh1tty conditions and kept firmly under the thumb and who do not own a thing beyond the clothes they stand up in!
Try this one then http://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/sgabri … efined.htm
--When an economic system uses legislative law to force the redistribution of wealth among its people, that is socialism.
--When a political system guarantees housing, that is socialism
--When a gov’t guarantees food to it’s populace, that is socialism
--When a gov’t seeks to limit the amount of wealth an individual can make or keep, that is socialism
--When a gov’t seeks to create egalitarianism…that is socialism.
--When a gov’t advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole, that is socialism.
All of the above were associated with the former USSR.
I may be putting this fairly simply however; Capitalism is being able to run a buisness in the private sector without the government telling you how to do it.
That's as far as my knowledge on the subject goes.
Let me help you out. It's the ability of a free person to own property, and to use that property to benefit yourself. That's it. If it's nothing other than owning an axe, and using it to make firewood to sell to those who need it, that is capitalism.
BTW, it assumes YOU OWN YOURSELF.
If you are not free to benefit yourself, you then are owned, and the only people owned... are slaves.
Wrong, it's the ability to own an axe, to charge somebody else to use it for you and to take the firewood that they have cut and to sell it, paying them a part of the proceeds and keeping the bulk of it for yourself.
In every dishonest word you speak, you bury your honor ever so much deeper, and clothe yourself in tyrannical nonsense.
It is rather tedious trying to debate with somebody who can only resort to insults you know!
You don't rent out your axe any more than the factory owner rents out his lathe.
Do you actually KNOW anything about machine shops?
Yes. I worked in one.
Do you know anything about machine shops?
Nobody in that shop owned the machine they operated.
the person who bought the machine owned it, and then he paid others to operate it for him. And those people were like "what? this dimwit is going to pay me $3.00/hour just to use this machine! what a sucker! I don't even need an education to do this!"
Erm, where did he get the money to buy the machine he owned?
Why! from the people who operate the machine for him.
OK, bang on about borrowing money at his risk etc, but he wouldn't be able to borrow that money without his workforce.
So? They gave him labor, he gave them money, they both agreed on the terms. You have no point.
We are in a mood today aren't we?
Do you really believe that?
A man comes up to you in the street and holding a gun to your head says your money or your life. You give him your money.
According to you no crime has been committed because both parties were in agreement!
NO, that is a crime according to what he said.
voluntary is not the same as "having a gun pointed to your head".
The only times that I make a decision while the other party has a weapon nearby is when I'm dealing with the government.
But is it really so different when the employer tells you that this it what he'll pay, these are the hours you'll work, take it or leave it?
Of course you can all ways leave it but when that man has the only work available then you can leave it and starve.
Yes, it is different.
If you don't like it, then you can:
1) work somewhere else
2) start your own business
3) decide to be homeless
4) any number of other options.
5) go home and smoke a joint.
IF you have someone pointing a gun to your head... then... You have only 2 options.
1) do what he says.
If your lot in life is so pathetic that you'll choose to work in a shit job for shit pay, then... well, APPARENTLY it's better than NOT working that job. Otherwise you'd have said "no".
You see, yes, ou can rent your axe out. But that's only profitable, if you can control the production of axes. In a capitalist society, you will do that once, then your former customer, will be making axes and you'll be out of business.
I said you fail to understand the nature of freedom. you demonstrate it constantly.
The unregulated banksters are benefiting themselves and with their tricks and traps making slaves of the rest of us.
more fatuous blather, eh Deeds? Can't overcome the Constitution with your flailing silliness, so now you try to raise a smokescreen of hate towards "banksters"?
Like the kid with his hand in the cookie jar when mom rounds the corner... "Sissy hit me!"
@John Holden: You said "Try telling that to somebody on a minimum wage, working in sh1tty conditions and kept firmly under the thumb and who do not own a thing beyond the clothes they stand up in!"
Nobody is "kept under the thumb" except people who either live in planned economies, or socialist states.
I quote to you Patrick Henry... "Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!"
It cannot be explained to you, because your mind is too narrow and brainwashed, but, it is vastly more to be preferred to be poor and free, than to sell one's liberty for false promises from lying politicians.
No politician can provide for you even so much as a breadcrumb, except they stole it from someone who worked honestly to make it. To accept the stolen, is to be the thief, and thus, such schemes of redistribution reduce all to the role of thief, slave, and tyrant.
No, I'm not brainwashed, you must be if you can quote that and not see that it is a peon to socialism.
Forget selling ones liberty to a politician but remember selling ones liberty to a capitalist.
Please note: John has jumped the shark. You know, the point where performances have become so contrived and so artificial, that they are not even a caricature of themselves.
John, your lack of integrity is so complete I no longer find any reason to speak to you, since you neither respect truth, nor reality, and instead, just blather on, painfully insulting your audience's intelligence over and over and over. Spout your nonsense to other potheads at your convention of losers.
I have no more to say to you.
Artificial! You mean that everybody works for politicians?
I can honestly say that I have never debated with less integrity than you, nor with less respect for truth than you either.
It's been rather amusing watching you jump through hoops trying to defend the indefensible.
If you trade your liberty to the government, it's at the point of a gun.
If you trade your liberty to a capitalist, it's at the point of a voluntary pen.
I thik this Socialist agenda idea is a fairly new one to the world. From what I remember of my Ancient Studies, the Ancient Civilizations were Capitalist. If you make money, you can hire someone to work for you, then you pay them. They will then go and buy something that someone else made. People will network.
If you made an awesome ax and you're the number one dude in the village that people can depend upon to get a good ax - they don't really care how much it is as long as it gets the job done. Savvy?
for a socialist society, all ya gotta do is look at the Sweat shops of America before the Unions - that is when Unions were good and stand up, not the sh!tty Unions we have in our modern day - children worked long hours, adults worked long hours. The pay sucked as did the work suroundings. The difference between then and now is that people understood that this wasn't a good thing, that they had to get someone to help protect the workers. That's what a union was supposed to do in the first place. Now, they're greedy and I don't see much use in them.
True Freedom is in the ability to govern yourself.
No, the capitalist system is the newbie, didn't really kick in till the 18th century.
Sure, if you made a good axe you would have people flocking to you to buy axes, but they would be axes that were made in the family, not some big anonymous factory.
What you earned from making the axes would remain in the family and not go to enrich some shareholder, who perhaps didn't even live in the same country as you did.
Just go away, if all you can do is spout idiotic blather.
I thought you'd stopped speaking to me
What is idiotic blather?
Ah, thank you for that clarification but what I was actually aiming at was what I had written that he thought idiotic blather
LOL, good terminology. Saying that capitalism wasn't invented until the 18th century, and that capitalism is based on enriching shareholders is nonsense, and he well knows that. he's one of the "freedom is slavery" twits, who do nothing but twist language and redefine words at any convenient moment to make every sentence into a lie.
No, freedom is freedom. There is no freedom being in hock to somebody and making them wealthy whilst you struggle.
I didn't actually say that capitalism was based on enriching shareholders, that is just an effect of it.
I think you are the one constantly redefining words to twist the world to fit your warped image of it.
"The initial usage of the term capitalism in its modern sense has been attributed to Louis Blanc in 1850 and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in 1861. Marx and Engels referred to the capitalistic system (kapitalistisches System) and to the capitalist mode of production (kapitalistische Produktionsform) in Das Kapital (1867). The use of the word "capitalism" in reference to an economic system appears twice in Volume I of Das Kapital, p. 124 (German edition), and in Theories of Surplus Value, tome II, p. 493 (German edition). Marx did not extensively use the form capitalism, but instead those of capitalist and capitalist mode of production, which appear more than 2600 times in the trilogy Das Kapital."
Capitalism is described and praised in the Bible. It was not INVENTED in the 1800's.
Show me then.
I remember when he throws the money lenders out of the temple, I missed the bit where he invited them back in.
here ya go - if you can handle it.
No, I can't really handle nearly an hour of somebodies interpretation, just give me the passages in the bible where it says exploitation is good. Where it says greed rules.
ain't my fault you don't don't want to watch the video. I provided the argument that you asked for.
Here's the Capitalist argument in the bible that you likely completely skipped.
(Once again, before I post this, You agreed not to watch the video, which provides a much stronger argument. Watch from 24:00 for a while and you'll see a few arguments).
"Thou Shalt Not Steal"
That's pretty Capitalistic! -- it shows a respect of property rights.
Is that the best you can do!
Really Evan, I expected more from you.
By the way, that isn't exclusively capitalist thinking.
I did provide more for you - you just chose not to watch it.
Socialism does imply no property. It claims we all own everything.
AKA -no property.
But I'm not looking for arguments, I'm looking for proof.
Taking account of your comment about cooperatives being capitalistic, I think you are confusing capitalism with a monetary based system.
I know this.
But isn't that what a Blacksmith is supposed to be about, making stuff for people to buy so that they had the tools to make a living? I don't think that the tools made had to only be for the family, I think that sometimes they sold tools to the community.
Other farmers may not have had the tools to make what they needed, so they'd trade/buy from someone who did, who was able to keep the money.
No, I'm sorry if I mislead you, it's three in the morning here!
Of course the tools weren't made for use within the family but the organisation would be a family concern, ie staffed by family members and perhaps an apprentice or two.
They would be producing for the market.
Johnnypenn, this is off topic, really, here.. but please let me explain..
The voluntary uniting of employees to leverage against an employer, is only valid if the employer ALSO has the same leverage... he can fire them all. Otherwise, this is the state taking sides in a matter it should not.
The 1800's present an interesting view of technological change, and a cultural change from subsistence living, to one of commerce. Capitalism thrived long before this, however, and the sweatshops were a manifestation of something far more, shall we say, ominous, than any invented fault of capitalism.
What did people want from the sweatshop owner? Employment. Why? Money. Why did they remain there, instead of leaving? Because the supply of labor vastly exceeded the number of people needed to provide the limited materials provided by... industrialism.
These enterprises invariably were owned by either small collectives of wealthy individuals, or by one, very, very wealthy individual, while nobody else seemed to have any wealth, and what they worked for was mere subsistence.
There were two reasons for this: One, the supply of land was artificially limited, and therefore the supply of natural resources was limited. By the 1800's, the east coast was densely populated, while the west was wide open. Sweatshops didn't exist to any significant degree in the west, as you could benefit more from simply staking a claim and living subsistence life, making your own way, than from the low value manual labor of commodity production.
The other reason, was that the actual supply of CURRENCY (not wealth, currency) was limited to the amount of gold purchased by the government and then matched by printed currency.
These two violations of true free enterprise are what created the sweatshops in the first place... The shortage of currency, created by government itself, and second, the shortage of land, same matter, while at the same time, the land came to be taxed, thereby requiring one to participate in paid labor, rather than subsistence.
Labor unions were simply a response to an artificial situation, created by what is probably accidental interference in free enterprise (capitalism) by authority.
the taxation of land, is to blame for more suffering and economic distress, than any other thing, period.
Thank you for explaining that to me. That makes a lot more sense now.
I've always been under the impression that sweat shops were created so that product could be made and sold but at a low cost to the owner of the sweat shop and that's why the workers got paid so little. I've also thought that the worker had to stay because they didn't have anywhere else to go, so it is as you say.
In a free economy, the medium of trade cannot be limited artificially, nor can the mechanism of production. Many of these sweatshops produced low value commodity products, stuff that just would not sell for higher prices than they got - and yet, considering inflation, the prices were extremely high, compared to today's currency and value.
Just think this timeline: 1700... people who come to the colonies can simply stake claim, build a primitive residence by themselves, and raise what currency was needed to obtain those tools or items they could not provide for themselves. Blacksmiths, tinkers, and others such tradesmen were the skilled labor of the day, and often did these as "side" enterprises, while still owning a small farm or enough land to have a large garden, along with other "needs" preservation, etc.
1800, the era of the advent of faster transportation, industiralism, meaning the mechanization of industry, to produce more with less labor, decreasing the cost of tools and creating large amounts of commodity products, like cloth, leather, milled wood, metal devices, and so on and so forth.
Densely populated areas begin to see those with accumulated wealth build cheap housing for those who labor for money... But cannot afford land. This creates an explosion in the production of commodities and building, and a vast increase in the velocity of currency trading.
At the same time, a settler in Oregon Territory purchased items from a trader 1 to 4 times a year, producing the rest of needs on his own, and conducting enterprises on the side which bring in more cash that required for the purchase of his necessities.
In any larger city, the land is beyond the reach of all but the money'd, so they must live in rent situation, meaning the only means of having a roof over your head, was to sell your labor for that cash. Thus, huge competition for jobs, and yet any attempts to accumulate wealth result in either paying taxes, or paying rent to someone who pays taxes.
Today, in no state in our union, can anyone live subsistence on land without primarily seeking to earn currency. Taxes alone prohibit it, not to mention, you cannot build your own home, transport yourself, nor anything else, without paying taxes to the state or buying approved products mandated by the state.
Liberal political activists seek to take MORE from those they have, and instead of making it possible to bootstrap yourself, simply subsidize the process, making the climb out steeper and harder - making it impossible to accumulate any capital, while at the same time, providing subsidy to make remaining at the bottom more comfortable.
Hey Johnny - welcome to logic! Glad to have you!
Indeed: in MANY sweatshops, the individuals are paid upwards of FIVE TIMES THE NATIONAL AVERAGE. But, when we translate that into the cost of living in the US, it seems disgusting.
Girl in Ethiopia (or whatever) : Holy shit! I got paid 5 times what everyone else made!!!
Guy in America : "that's only $2!! that can't even buy you a burger in the US"
Ethiopian : "... i don't... i don't live in the US... ... what the hell are you talking about?"
Then we come in there and take away their sweatshop, and the girl has to resort to prostitution.
Just ask Wendy Diaz how her life changed after her sweatshop closed down.
(not Diaz's quote, this is quoting the article)
"The denunciation of child labor assumes people in Honduras have the option of keeping their children fed and idle for 18 years. But this is fantasy. As Wendy Diaz herself said, she worked long hours to provide food and clothing for her two younger brothers, who might otherwise have starved.
Late in the day, she even urged the U.S. not to cut off trade, for fear the factories would have to shut down and her friends would be forced into prostitution. But the damage was already done: frightened by the U.S. media campaign, the factory started laying off workers under 16 and stopped hiring employees. "
It is not always outside forces that cause a man to work for subsistence. Most people are simply not "go-getters." Most people are satisfied to do as little as possible to get by.
Socialist ideologues appeal to the lazy man, the man who shakes his fist at the sky instead of putting his hand to the plow.
But not exclusively to the lazy man, a lot of busy men take to socialism as well.
I've worked with right wingers who've devoted their time to doing as little as possible.
Generalisations aren't good, they do nothing but irritate the socks off people they're applied to, who don't actually qualify for the insult.
PAST TYPOLOGY COUNTERPART: Partisan Poor
10% OF GENERAL POPULATION
10% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
PARTY ID: 84% Democrat; 16% Independent/No Preference, 0% Republican (99% Dem/Lean Dem)
BASIC DESCRIPTION: Least financially secure of all the groups, these voters are very anti-business, and strong supporters of government efforts to help the needy. Minorities account for a significant proportion of this group; nearly a third (32%) are black, roughly the same proportion as among Conservative Democrats. Levels of disapproval of George W. Bush job performance (91%) and candidate choice in 2004 (82% for Kerry) are comparable to those among Liberals.
DEFINING VALUES: Most likely to be skeptical of an individual's ability to succeed without impediments and most anti-business. Strong belief that government should do more to help the poor, yet most are disenchanted with government. Strongly supportive of organized labor (71% have a favorable view of labor unions).
Key Beliefs: General Population Disadvantaged Democrats
Hard work and determination are no guarantee of success for most people 28% 79%
Poor people have hard lives because government benefits don't go far enough to help them live decently 52% 80%
Most elected officials don't care what people like me think 63% 87%
Business corporations make too much profit 54% 76%
We should pay less attention to problems overseas and concentrate on problems here at home 49% 72%
WHO THEY ARE: Low average incomes (32% below $20,000 in household income); most (77%) often can't make ends meet. Six-in-ten are female. Three-in-ten (32%) are black and 14% are Hispanic. Not very well educated, 67% have at most a high-school degree. Nearly half (47%) are parents of children living at home.
LIFESTYLE NOTES: Nearly a quarter (23%) report someone in their household is a member of a labor union, and 58% report that they or someone in the home has been unemployed in the past year both far larger proportions than in any other group. Only 27% have a gun in the home.
2004 ELECTION: 2% Bush, 82% Kerry
MEDIA USE: Largest viewership of CNN as main news source among all groups (31%). Only group in which a majority (53%) reads newspapers.
This is no surprise at all. It's the core Democrat constituency... Uneducated, poor, ignorant, and dependent, with an entitlement and dependency mindset that makes it impossible for them to be anything else BUT that.
Believing that your situation is what it is, because someone else makes too much money, and that the government isn't doing enough for you... Makes it impossible for you to do what must be done to exit your situation. As long as you don't recognize that your fate is to be driven by your own decisions and actions, you cannot ever change it.
But what's the point of a thing on disadvantaged democrats?
We were talking about socialists.
Too right! Pathetic mind set.
Think of all the poor immigrants who make their way to this country and happen to get lucky and make a better life while right here with every freedom people sit and wait for manna from their godlet politicians.
Peggy Joseph speaking with NBC 6 about how she won’t have to fill her gas tank once Obama is elected.
did you just say: "Lazy people like socialism, but so do lazy right wingers. Thus your argument is wrong"?
You agreed with her, and then said she was wrong?
What? I said that some lazy people are socialists and some lazy people are not socialists.
No where did I agree.
Governing oneself may work for a hermit in the woods, but rules are required in our urban interdependent society.
Especially the one that says I get your paycheck. I love that one. Hand it over.
Tell me, you work in a factory and make $1000 widgets a day.
How much will you be paid before tax?
What a weird question.
I honestly don't understand what your argument is.
Are you saying that "because you help make a widget that is sold to another person for $1000, YOU should MAKE $1000"?
Because that would be ludicrous:
Restaurant cook: "I made the pizza, I should get all the money"
Employer: "Did you make the building? Did you buy the land? Did you ship the food here so that we could actually use it? Did you buy the knives? did you advertise for the restaurant? did you appropriate all the money that needed to be spent in a way that ensured long-term stability?"
Employer: "then shut up".
My argument is that it is weird to complain about taxes being paid when no complaint is made about deductions made from earnings.
You hear barsteward government took $$$$s off me to pay for things that benefit me, you never hear barsteward boss took $$$$s off me to pay for his life style, a life style that I can never even aspire to and don't benefit from in any way, never!
If you're too stupid to figure out how to be the restaurant owner, then stop complaining. You got the best gig you can get, then.
What are you on about?
We weren't discussing restaurant ownership!
Do try and keep up.
you'er the one who's not keeping up, foo.
OWNERSHIP, you moron. OWNERSHIP.
I OWN MY PAYCHECK.
THE RESTAURANT OWNER OWNS HIS MONEY.
The busines owner is not stealing to make money on your work. HE owns it. My paycheck, however, is MINE, and the government taking, to give to someone else... IS STEALING.
That's right, you SOLD HIM YOUR WORK for the paycheck. dooooohhhhhh.
Rules don't have to be created by a monopoly, nor enforced at the point of a gun.
The debate, I believe, is the difference between socialism and capitalism. With ideologies of the difference in socialism, progressive liberal and conservative ideas.
You said ‘’There are a few issues raised by the conservatives where I do not fully understand what they are saying‘’.
Governments : the way the country governs the people and the rights of the people. In this hub only 2 will be debated as to the differences in each, let’s just say the rights and freedoms of the people.
Socialist not to confuse any understanding of what you believe, you will describe.
Democratic Republic basically consisted of many different ideologies because of the freedoms that the United States Constitution gives to each citizen as the foundation of our government.
The differences in the ideologies is what makes the world go around. The debate will never cease because each ideology is in conflict with each other either morally or idealistic. To say which is right and which is wrong will never end the debate.
Reading and writing of hub comments one develops a sense of how the debate can sometimes become belligerent from one debater to the other. In America one has the right, freedom of speech, to speak ones MIND.
To be continued
Thank you all for the contributions to date. Its lovely to see old Malthus trotted out again. When the Communist Chinese government brought in a one child per family policy, and still enforces it today the conservative Right condemn them. Now socialist governments are also condemned for not having policies to curb population growth. Under capitalism people starve to death randomly - which may be better than a planned eugenics policy which is also a violation of human freedom. An interesting hub on this question in due course - thank you for raising the question.
I am biting my tongue because I am not on this hub wanting to argue with the conservative right, I am trying to be sure that I fully understand their argument or arguments.
Thank you weholdthesetruths for the clarification I requested.
All contributions to the discussion gratefully received.Try not to get too hot with each other because it frightens people from contributing.
In capitalist societies, nobody starves.
Check your statistics. USSR, starved millions.
USA, nobody starves. We're dying of overnutrition, even the poor.
Go around the world, and in every capitalist country ( must be REAL capitalism, not the crap John spews), nobody starves.
Thanks for writing a sincere forum post instead of just being a jerk. That was awesome of you.
My Hat's Off to you, exposing my bald head.
Here's the argument.
1) Everything can be found by actually reading the constitution. No: I don't mean this in a mean way. I literally mean sitting down and actually reading the document from start to finish. I will honestly admit that I had NEVER done this until about 3 years ago.
Don't rely on "Supreme Court interpretations" of the Constitution. The job of the Supreme Court is NOT to interpret and legislate!!! The USSC has been unconstitutional for the majority of its history. If you read Article 3, it should be clear that they only have the JUDICIAL powers, NOT legislative powers.
George Orwell showed us the dangers of relying on other people's interpretations of important documents in Animal Farm and 1984. "Some animals are more equal than others" became the motto. Joseph Goebbels also highlighted the importance of relying on your own reading: "If you repeat a lie enough times, it becomes fact" (this might not have actually been Goebbels, I just looked it up on Wikiquote and it's yelling at me...)
Article 2, section 1:
"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."
2) States vs. Federal: The issue of states rights is an important one. It's NOT just about slavery. Just because the South had slaves and they also wanted states rights, states rights does NOT mean "slavery".
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
It's a bit hard to read, but if you actually wrap your head around it, it's literally saying that the FEDERAL government can only have the powers granted to it by the Constitution. Any other powers are then granted to the states. BUT! If a power is DENIED a state, then it is a "power of the people"; i.e., the market.
Article 1 Section 8 describes legislative powers granted to the FEDERAL government's congress. A1 S10 is a list of powers DENIED to the states.
Going further with the state's rights issue: Secession. Secession is a power that is NOT DENIED to the states. They DO have the right to secede. Virginia almost seceded after John Adams' "Alien and Sedition Acts", and New England almost seceded when Jefferson was president.
How could secession be illegal? After all, each state seceded from Great Britain just a decade or two earlier!!
3) Income tax: The income tax is LEGAL. Although I wish it weren't, the FEDERAL government DOES have the power to collect income taxes.
Never confuse "Constitutional" with "moral", or "unconstitutional" with "immoral". The words have almost become synonymous in today's media.
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
BUT! I would like to remind everyone that the original income tax (before it WAS legal -- Lincoln imposed an income tax, but the 16th amendment was passed in 1913). The first income tax on the US's soil was around 1% and it was only implemented on less than 10% of the population (the wealthiest).
Because this power was never DENIED to the states, the states DO have the power to collect income taxes, and they always have.
4) Gold and silver -- most of the hubbers on here know that I'm a gold-bug. But let me assure you that I'm not the first person in history to point out the importance of gold.
"No State shall... coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;"
This merely tells us that STATES can NOT make their own money (coins or paper), nor can they ACCEPT anything BUT gold or silver COINS.
But what about the FEDERAL government?
"The Congress shall have the power to... To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;"
So, Congress can COIN money. I don't know about you, but I've never seen paper coined.
Congress can't make paper money, neither can states........ but the 10th amendment allows people to create it and use it as money on a non-government-related basis -- if they wish. Coupons and the sort kind of fit this description.
5) bailouts and the other non-capitalist measures -- There is NO MENTION of bailing out private entities ANYWHERE in the constitution. Nor is there ANY mention of EDUCATION, health care, or NUMEROUS other issues that plague our society's government today.
They are all unconstitutional, and they are all socialist in nature (it can't be "Free-market" if the government is involved).
There is something that you may have realized already - for Americans "capitalism" has truly become a religion of sorts. The brainwashing started here in the 1940's - immediately after the Second World War and briefly subsided after the fall of the Soviet Union in the late 80's. The Tea Party Movement has brought this derision back with both barrels of their gun pointed at liberals. As a middle-aged adult, I can look back to my school days and "re-construct" the subtle and not-so-subtle indoctrination against any socio-political system other than capitalism. Ask the average American to say out loud the words "socialism," "communism," and there is a decidedly uneasy feeling that comes across them.
Our variety of capitalism "works" like a chocolate fountain you might find at a wedding reception. As long there is a flow of capital/chocolate spilling over from the top and running back down into the trough, the pump keeps circulating the goodies. When the pump becomes "clogged," the chocolate gets stuck at the top and the lower levels dry-up. I guess the bottom line is this: the chocolate always manages to stay at the top regardless of the situation.
capitalism hasn't existed in america since the times of lincoln.
We've socialist since FDR.
You are wrong, capitalism is NOT a religion. Freedom is our creed, and capitalism is freedom in action, where the individual has the freedom to direct his own future and create his own means of earning a living.
it is socialism which is the false religion. It is touted as the cure for all evils, and it is believed in by those who have never seen any evidence it does anything good. Ie, no socialist state exists that has created the situation promised by those implementing it.
John has OCD about working for someone else, yet in America, half the population works for himself, or in a company of only a few people. The stagnation of his economy is precisely due to the socialist nature, which creates behemoth companies, and bars entry to new competitors.
Taxation has created the situation where the acculation of capital is almost impossible, thus, those who exist, are never competed against by better and more efficient enterprises. It is the very actions of socialists that create the situations they scream blood heck about the most.
I'm afraid that yet again you are wrong, I do not have OCD about working for other people and the stagnation of our economy is not due to our socialist nature, well not according to those who profess to know. It is due to the banks refusing to lend money to small businesses.
When allowed to we have a pretty good balance of socialism/capitalistism. We pay no more in taxes than you do but we get healthcare and welfare, toll free roads and lots of stuff that costs you money.
Taxation is no obstacle to the accumulation of capital, like you, our highest paid workers are excused more than nominal taxes.
Once again, you are blinded by your prejudices.
Taxation is no obstacle to the accumulation of capital, like you, our highest paid workers are excused more than nominal taxes.
Imagine, a parrot that has learned to type, and so just spews words. I cannot imagine a mental process that can believe this.
Someone told you this, you accept it as good as gold, yet it is stupid beyond all comprehension.
If you really believe that the likes of Bill Gates or Donald Trump pay income tax at 40% then I'm sorry for you.
They don't, they can afford to pay accountants to minimise the tax they pay, they can afford to move their money off shore to low tax havens.
off topic, irrelevant.
taxation prevents the accumulation of capital.
Because it contradicts and proves you wrong?
Show me how taxation prevents the accumulation of capital the.
100 -20 = 80
It's just simple math.
As much as I like Weholdthesetruths' efforts, I must point out that "the government taking money and then spending" in-and-of-itself is NOT how wealth is destroyed.
The reason why government fails at supplying goods and services to its populace is simply that it has perverted incentives.
1) The government gets its money by theft: instead of selling services to raise revenue, it simply writes down "give us more money", and then it sends police to your house if you don't pay.
2) The government doesn't have a real incentive to meet consumer demand: Instead of making goods that PEOPLE want, it merely provides services that it thinks that they want. If they fail, they don't really lose their OWN money, they can just claim that they needed more money.
3) Buying what you want through government is blunt: If you want a blue tie with red stripes, you could probably find one in the market. If you want a politician who is against abortions, pro-gay rights, and also who thinks that X is better than Y... then you're going to have to make some compromises. A single vote is a very blunt money. Dollars are much more nimble.
There are more reasons, but these are three big reasons why governments fail to provide things as well as the private sector.
I pretty much agree... The point is taking and spending never CREATES wealth, government never creates wealth. But taking, in and of itself, inhibits private sector investment in productivity, and thus, destroys wealth.
But I must insist that the reason why government can't create wealth (on net, when compared to a pure private system) is because it lacks proper incentives.
Wealth CAN be generated through trade - it's just that the government a) isn't trading (it's taking), and b) isn't risking its own livelihood in order to provide what consumers want.
LOL, so true. The Obamacare narrative:
"The government doesn't have, and cannot get, enough money from the public, to buy the health services for everyone that they want. So we'll do the next best thing. We'll force everyone to buy an insurance policy... A policy where WE deteremine what WE want you to buy... and then tell the company how much it can charge. The deficit between what you pay, and what the insurance company gets from you... Is how we rob the insurance companies to death."
"socialized services are not the public buying what they need, at the best deal they can find. It's the government forcing the public to buy, from the provider with no incentive to be efficient, all the sevices the goverment wants you to buy."
Your comment about government lacking incentive to be efficient is so painfully true. My brother was a financial number cruncher for the Corps of Engineers for long enough to get a full retirement. The stupidity of government providing goods and services is not lost on him, nor me. Everyone is incentivized to WASTE, therefore to justify larger budget numbers...
We once had a telecoms system owned by the government, it made obscene levels of profit. So much so that had it been held in public ownership we probably wouldn't have half te debt we have now.
Well, plenty of capital has been accumulated in the past 25 years or so. The rich have gotten immensely richer, the poor poorer and the middle class is a vanishing species.
No, because of under-taxation of the rich and corporations and because good paying manufacturing jobs have been outsourced to China where workers are paid $90 a month to work in unsafe, unhygienic, polluting plants.
? The rich have become richer because of over-taxation or the poor have become poor because of over-taxation. I think what you mean is that the rich have been under-taxed and become richer and the poor have been over-taxed by our regressive tax system and have become poorer. Low income people pay a higher percentage because of sales taxes, SS tax, gasoline tax, property tax, etc.
I don't think I buy this "the poor are poorer" argument.
I look around, and I see poor people with some homeless with relatively nice clothing, relatively well fed, and relatively clean.
I mean, I know it isn't a good life - don't get me wrong - but they seem to be doing MUCH better than they were maybe 20-30 years ago.
I think they're just "poorer" when compared to the rich. Sure, the rich are richer, but I must insist that the poor seem to be, at least, a bit richer than they used to be.
The story of the "man with the golden radio voice" illustrated this. He was a man with a substance abuse problem, who was homeless - yet was still able to live for 3-4 years without anything but charity. That's a better condition for the homeless than it was a few decades ago.
Many of those rich people you are arguing against got their money directly from the government that both Wehold and I are arguing against.
I think that Deeds, Wehold, and I have quite a bit in common. It's just that Ralph has yet to see the perverse incentives created by government that lead to the rich getting richer without their earning the money ("Too big to fail"; "trickle down economics"; "Inflation of the money supply, with the rich getting the money first"; etc).
If I could just get Ralph to agree that things like bailouts are evil, then perhaps we could get him to see that many other forms of government spending are evil.
Fat chance. I'm from Michigan where the "bailouts" of GM and Chrysler saved more than a million jobs, including employees, dealers, suppliers etc. Soon the government will get all of it's money back from GM if all goes well. BTW, what kind of a foreign car do you drive, Evan?
But 80 still equals more than 0 and if you spend 70 then accumulation happens.
If more is made than is spent then capital accumulates, simple.
Ok - then I'll come to your house, call myself "the government" put a gun to your head, take 99.9% of your money.
Then I'll say "you should be glad that I didn't take the other 0.1%. Now you can save 0.05% of your money and be happy!"
It's just a foolish argument, John.
But no taxation system takes all your money, in fact the more you earn the less it takes leaving plenty for the guy to accumulate.
I'm afraid that it is your argument that is foolish.
Taxation might reduce the amount of money that you accumulate, it doesn't prevent you from accumulating.
Someone tell me how to return to the message I inserted? I am new to forum, thanks
Probably true. Warren Buffett who advocates higher taxes on the rich has said that his secretary is in a higher tax bracket than he is.
So you're saying that taxes cause wealthy people to hide their money from the tax-man and instead, hammer the middle and underclass.
Something like that. Income disparity is fine but it's now is reaching the point that it's destroying the faith of many people in our democratic free enterprise system.
No one forces Warren Buffet to pay lower taxes. If he was so concerned with not paying his "fair share" (what ever that means) he could pay it by taking no deductions or by writing out a giant check each year for the amount he thinks is "fair" (what ever that means).
Instead he advocates for greater government control over others by saying something so silly as, "I'm not paying enough taxes, implying that others are not paying enough and they should pay what he things is "fair" (what ever that means.)
This is one of the differences between liberal and conservative. The liberal seeks to compel everyone, except himself, to life in a way that facilitates his vision for society regardless of what that means to life, liberty or property.
Hogwash! And you can decline to accept your Social Security checks and Medicare coverage.
Ralph hurry, we have time, let's grab our spacesuits
Sure you can. But you can't opt out of paying for it.
Liberals never write larger checks than the IRS demands. But complains when someone who has had massive amounts confiscated from him, accepts the pittance promised back.
Argument by invective. How powerful. "Hogwash," how compelling. I will have to amend my views based on the strength of your argument.
Probably true. Warren Buffett who advocates higher taxes on the rich has said that his secretary is in a higher tax bracket than he is. - there is a true statement
I really am impressed by the quantity and quality of the contributions, with much less backbiting and snarling than we often see. Well done all of you.
Is there any dimension of the conservative argument that I have missed completely?
In my country I have seen right wing idealogues argue that heroin should be made legal because it is the responsibility of the individual to look after himself and the nanny state should not interfere.
It has also been argued that compulsory state education was brought in to suit the needs of industry and commerce. Could the same argument be made in respect of healthcare?
It would have been thought impossible back in the 1770s that the state should provide free education or free healthcare and so not even the radicals demanded it. Given the wealth and needs of the USA today should these be written in to the Constitution?
Progressives like Barack Obama certainly think so.
No, they should not be included.
incentives of government don't work well to provide services to people.
If you don't own the money that you're spending, what do you care if your customers are happy? Just steal some more money from your population.
Many libertarians support legalization of all drugs. They are a minority. However, a high percentage of the U.S. population supports legalization of marijuana for recreational use, and an even higher number support legalization of medical marijuana.
In the 1930s we had prohibition of alcohol despite the large number of people who didn't support it. The result was that people kept drinking untaxed alcohol obtained through organized crime and moonshine stills. Finally, it was recognized that prohibition was a failure and had some serious side effects--growth of organized crime, lost taxes and so forth. We are in a similar situation today wrt marijuana. Many people use the drug illegally, quality control leaves much to be desired and the prohibition leads to crime. I don't think a similar consensus favoring legalization exists for heroin, cocaine or methamphetamines.
whoa whoa whoa.
Crack and Meth probably wouldn't EXIST if drugs had been legal all this time.
Weed and cocaine are plants that grow like weeds. they pretty much would be growing in your backyard!!
Why would you bother mixing Cocaine with baking soda to "cheapen" it, when it's practically free?
Why bother risking blowing up your house making meth when you could just go outside and eat some grass that gets you high?
The entire "i like weed, but not ecstasy: thus drugs should be illegal" argument is COMPLETE nonsense. These drugs were created almost entirely to find a cheap alternative to getting high. Why were the prices so high? Because gov't outlawed them
This is a CLASSIC example of government legislating morality, and then making things 8 million times worse.
Are drugs good? No. But making them illegal makes things worse.
You know why half of Mexico's government is being murdered? It's because WE outlaw weed and coke.
I didn't take a position one way or the other on legalizing drugs other than marijuana. I merely said that I think the public support for legalizing heroin, meth and cocaine is much less than for legalizing marijuana.
Absolutely not. Nobody, absolutely NOBODY has a right to ANYTHING provided by another person. The only physical thing you have a right to, is air to breath. The only economic situation you have a right to, is what you were born with... Nothing.
You were born with nothing, and all you have to do to achieve having nothing, is to do nothing. Thus "nothing" cannot be "cured", except by your own efforts.
"If you're too stupid to figure out how to be the restaurant owner, then stop complaining." Have to agree with you here to some extent. Have said this before. Knew a bait shop where the owner died and gave the business to his employees. Took them about four months to go out of business. They each left the work to the others. and nobody ever showed up. They didn't have the mind-set to be owners.
I think too many people fail to realize that if a restaurant owner is too greedy to pay to keep quality people, his enterprise will fail, and he'll be.. well, not very well off. Raw greed in any service business pretty much gaurantees failure... and that's true of almost any other type of business, as well, except unionized government employees, apparently.
In your example, each had a minority interest, and wanted the others to keep it going, to give him his free pittance.
What they got was "free", and it served them just that. It wasn't a "mindset to be an owner", it was they didn't invest thier life in it, and since it came "free" gave it all the value that deserved, or at least all the value "free" implies to the uneducated mind.
That is just really a sad story. Hard to believe that at least 1 of the 4 didn't have the initiative to take the bull by the horns and make a success out of it. They say that less than 1 of 10 is suited to being in business for themselves. I have my doubts about that being true, but for your story, apparently, at least 4 of those 4 were not.
What John Holden can't grasp:
I worked for 13 years for my last employer. In the end, I was miserable, cranky, and depressed, because I was unsuited to his management style of wanting robots to churn out products.
So, I left, took the pittance of my savings, and invested it in an enterprise. I learned for myself, the technology, the business, the service needed, and then proceeded to start selling the services to those who needed it. In the middle of my life, I invested every dime I had, and then took 6 years of free labor, not earning a dime, to reinvest every nickel of "profit" into expanding the micro-enterprise.
I could use an employee. But I can't hire anyone. Why? Becasue people like John believe that I owe this "employee" more than I get. Even though I have now invested 11 years of my life, and many 24 hour long workdays, and all my savings, and lived literally, in a shack, so as to afford to have a roof and food, if I hire someone, according to John, I owe him comfort, prosperity, health care I can't afford for myself, and security and lots of money - things I don't have for myself.
So, people like John have written all these into law. But employers aren't stupid. They don't hire people who can't earn for them all the goodies that the John's of this world think they should have. So, in the real world, the demands of the John's of this world, lock anyone who is not capable of doing work that is worth what the cost of hiring him is. Thus, we get structured, inherent unemployment. With each rise in taxes and mandates, that increases, and the willingness to hire people to do marginally profitable things decreases.
As the willingness to hire people to do marginal things decreases, the overall productivity of the nation falls, and with that, the production of wealth decreases. And the nation becomes poorer.
But the "Johns" in their OCD, can only see one thing, their hatred and animosity toward those who aren't giving away what they have, for no purpose. Thus, every post from John is about hating the employer and businessman,believing they're robbing the world.
If it wasn't for them, John, you would be cold, starving, and naked. They produce every needed thing, and in the ebb and flow of economics, and human decisionmaking, they fail and lose everything, at an 8 out of 10 ratio. Their employees get paid, until they go broke, and then they lose everything and have to start over. Most do. Most wealthy people lose everything 3 times before they finally succeed. John should be applauding those who have the raw guts and determination which have been the backbone of his economy, and providing all the things, so he isn't sitting in the dirt, cold, starving, and naked.
Yet, he wants to punish, to mandate, to control for his pleasure and vengeance, all those who dare risk it all. My first venture failed. It went broke. This is my 2nd. I don't think there's enough years of my life left for a 3rd. So, John, when you come here and promote your hostility to my success, and instead, shout about how people like ME are abusing people like YOU, do not wonder for an instant why my response is hostile and angry. You are threatening my future, for no other reason, than your own false, untrue, and defamatory beliefs which are pure fiction.
Consider everything John says and wants, to be a direct attack, and roadblock, on my success - which is to hope to earn a living from providing a very valuable and needed service. I've been more than patient, but this nonsense has long exceeded MY supply of patience with his ignorance and hostility.
Shut up, John. YOu're a fool.
Another neat and argument winning conclusion.
Not half the fool that you are, well I hope that you're a fool, the alternative is much worse.
Why don't you do what ever other conservative, micro-business owner I know does - pay your help under the table, pay him or her as if they were a subcontractor - that's how you get around the minimum wage issue and the tax issue. You can always find some poor sucker desperate enough to work for slave wages - hey, that's the American way! Of course that "free market" concept you deify might make it tough to find someone to work what you are willing to pay.
PS - I am a liberal and manage a small business. I am not one of the "lumpen proletariat" - just a college educated white guy who has been ridden hard and put away wet by your American dream.
What you come up with after the dust settles is one group hostile to government and taxes who benefits greatly from the infrastructure which is the result of government programs be it education, transportation, energy, clean water, communication, security, etc. The conservative wants all the goodies that come with society, but he balks at paying his share.
That's 100 percent fiction. just pointless ad hominem to try to divert from a real discussion.
I balk at wasteful government spending, and I don't expect to receive the benefits.
The reason why your incorrect statement persists to this day is simply that WE DON'T HAVE AN OPTION.
If i were to start...
*coining my own money: JAIL
*Building my own highway infrastructure: Be outbid by the government monopoly.
*my own doctor's union: jail.
And the list could go on.
Sure they "benefit" from those things.
But those who claim that the people are "benefiting" are mis-informed.
Sure, they SEE schools, they SEE roads, Police, Fire Depts. and countless other things.
But they fail to see what COULD be. All of these "benefits" were paid for through theft, and thus were malinvestments. The people weren't able to choose how to spend their money in the way they think is the best.
Thus wealth is destroyed - but it LOOKS like they are gaining.
They're gaining 10 when they could be gaining 15.
A few years back, I had a discussion with someone... I had found current analysis of how much you paid SS and then how much you'd get back if you invested it, vs how much you get back vs how much you'd accumulate if you saved and invested it.
The numbers are shocking, SS is horrendous in terms of return... Yet, the guy I was talking to didn't care. He finally said "I don't care if it wastes 10 percent of my paycheck, I'd rather have the government do it, so that it's equal for everyone."
You can't fix stupid... Which why you can't fix Ralph or John. They have created a new compass in them which says "government is best" and no matter what the facts are, they will always choose government over good, better, or even astounding.
It's a religion, and the closed minded stupidity that pours out of them constantly is all the evidence you need to know it's hopeless.
I don't always say that government is best and don't always choose government over all else. Some of what government does, it does better than private enterprise can do, other things it can't do as well.
I do however advocate a system that suits all and not the chosen few as you do.
From where I stand it is not Ralph and I suffering from close minded stupidity, it is you! You insist that if something is good for you then it is good for everybody, no acceptance that we are all different but all worthwhile.
You are blind to reality when reality clashes with your belief but in your defence all you can come up with is that the other person is stupid!
No "facts" no evidence, just "you are stupid".
"It's a religion,"
It really is. In order to believe that government is the best way to operate things, you have to believe that humans are inherently evil but not the people who get elected.
It makes no sense.
Capitalism, however, makes a lot of sense: all humans are evil, but they all want to survive. Thus they all kiss each others' asses so that they can get the others' money.
Why do you have to believe that humans are evil for government to work?
"Because we need to end evil monopolies, and protect the small man, and save the children, and fix the problems, and give freedom"
For each one of those proposed ideas, there has to be someone that is evil.
In order for the government to do what 95% of the world thinks it should do, you need to think that humans are evil.
Reading and writing of hub comments one develops a sense of how the debate can sometimes become belligerent from one debater to the other. In America one has the right, freedom of speech, to speak ones MIND.
YOUR HUB IS ABOUT SOCIALISM AND CONSERVATICVE DIFFERENCES IN THE TWO IDEALS?
I asked a high ranking official in state government, ‘’do you know the difference between a liberal ‘’democrat’’ and a conservative ‘’ republican ‘’ . He couldn’t think fast enough , so he said ‘’ what is the difference.
Both parties want to help the poor. The difference is ,the Democrat wants to help the poor with someone else’s money. Maybe a little like socialism. The Republican will help the poor with his own money. the conservative Republican will choose who he will help while the liberal Democrat ( with someone else’s money )will choose where the money goes and how it is used. By the way he was a Democrat. he said '' let me think about that''. Sometime later, we met, he still didn't have a response. I guess the question was above his pay scale.
Without employers there would not be employees. If that was true, can you imagine what this world would be like?
The animosity towards big business from some in the Huber world only shows their inability to understand economics. Bashing $ millions of profits made by employers on $ multi millions of investment can be deceiving. The profits in healthcare and the industrial world are approximately 2% to maybe 6% depending on the services provided by the company. Profit is what’s left after all the costs of labor, materials and overhead are expended. PROFIT ,the RESULT of hard work and effort is good for the people who haven’t had to provide any effort to make a profit. Now ,the people ‘’ Uncle Sam’ steps up to pick up his 35% or whatever of the profit for the people ( taxpayers).
Let’s not forget that Uncle Sam is a good guy, he wants also to help the poor too.
The ranks of the POOR have greatly increased since 2007 up to today.
It was reported by the department of labor. on 3/4/11 that unemployment is down to 8.9% .There are 13.5 million workers out of work and unemployment benefits can be had for 2 years. Those numbers were arrived at with Obama’s fuzzy math calculations
THE CONSERVATIVES and LIBERALS are now debating the US Government budget for 2011. Somewhere in the mist of the debate socialism may be unveiled.
Wake up America and seek the truth on what is going on in Washington.
The truth is, that Washington is lost in a fog of self deceit and arrogance. Government is spending 180 percent of it's income, and is in debt beyond all measure of reason. Yet, they act as if a billion here and a billion there is something to talk about.
I'm sorry, sensible people look a them and want to bust their skulls in, trying to wake them up. We don't need 10 or 50 or 100 billion budget cuts. We need TRILLION DOLLAR BUDGET CUTS.
And we need wholesale reform of taxes, elimination of of 80 percent of federal agencies, and to fully scrap everything from OSHA to IRS to EPA, and so on and restart with a mechanism that prevents growth of the agencies, or at least prevents them from ever implementing rules on the nation. Let the states do it.
The super rich get richer and more powerful with every passing year in absolute terms and relative to everyone else.
How do they do this? They pursue their interests ruthlessly with total conviction that they deserve all that wealth and power
Unfortunately, the average person has a lower opinion of themselves and is easily deceived into thinking that, somehow, the wealthy know what is best for the country and its inhabitants.
Did the recent stupidity of Wall Street and the mess we are now paying for change any of this? Of course not.
Right wing media (owned in large part by the wealthy) and its hopeless dupes who repeat any nonsense they hear on Fox and hate radio make sure political and economic power remains firmly in the hands of the plutocrats.
Thank you all for your input. When I sit down to write my hub or hubs on this, I first have to try to set out the conservative argument(s). They seem to boil down to:
(1) The government is spending much more than it raises in taxation. It is borrowing huge amounts of money, but not for capital spending - just to keep up with spending committments. This is already weakening government credit, raising interest rates not just for the government but also for the rest of us. The rising interest rates increase the cost of past government borrowing and current and future government borrowing, exacerbating the financial crisis the government is in, and which is impacting on us all.
(2) The only practical ways to deal with imbalance of this nature is to cut government expenditure drastically. Raising taxes significantly is not an option because (1) it is politically unpopular and (2) it is likely to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs as people are deincentivised and have even greater incentive to avoid/evade taxes.
(3)The world super power is always going to have a huge military budget, and so even if it is possible to reduce Defence spend, the savings will not be significant in relation to the annual budget deficit and National Debt. Cuts have to be made in other areas, which realistically means Welfare of all descriptions.
(4) Cuts in Welfare of all descriptions will impact hugely on the poor of course. People who are not poor may also be affected and they will have to look after themselves.
(5) One of the difficulties in the economy is the inflexibility of the labour force and the very high expectations they have of employer benefits. The cost of employing a US worker these days is so high that outsourcing to the far east or upgrading the technology involved are both very attractive.
(6) The crash cannot be far off, whereupon all the poor will suffer hugely and the rest of us will also suffer. It is better to avert the crash now by cutting government spending hugely as stated above, and getting the poor to understand that there is now no unearned income. And that wages and conditions in the jobs they may get will be significantly reduced from current expectations.
(7) Trade Unions are essentially reactive, seeking to protect the terms and conditions of existing employees. They have forced jobs abroad. While it is understandable that trade unions will react to these cuts there frankly is nothing the unions can do that will not make matters worse.
(8) Part of the problem is that the US Government has taken on responsibilities that are not appropriate for Federal Government. Either Government should not be involved at all, or state governments should take on these responsibilities in place of - not in addition to - Federal activity.
(9) Some conservatives say the governments have been unwise and some say governments have been unconstitutional.
(10) This problem goes back a long way, a very long way, or even right back to Washington's administration. But the problem has built up to the point whare something must be done.
Have I missed anything important in the Conservative case?
I guess I should let the conservatives speak for themselves. However, a fairly large number of conservatives are represented by Protestant Evangelicals and other so-called social conservatives or family values conservatives and second amendment conservatives (gun ownership rights). There may be a fair amount of overlap between the two groups. The social conservatives 1. oppose abortion: 1. Oppose comprehensive sex education in public schools, except for "abstinence training;" 3. Support teaching creationism or intelligent design in science classes along side of or in place of evolution; 4. Oppose gay rights and affirmative action for minorities; 5. Oppose a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants; and 6. Doubt scientific evidence of global warming. I'm sure I've missed a few. (These may be beyond the scope of your project which amy be focused on philosophical and economic differences between capitalism and socialism. Nevertheless, the ideas of this group may be more important than differences over government regulation, ownership, social insurance and so forth.)
[Sorry for butting into your thread that was designed for conservatives.]
That's a fair distillation of the common gripes/bitches Charles...
Your mentioning the "social" conservatives as a distinct strand from the Constitutional conservatives and the fiscal conservatives is very helpful. There are degrees of overlap between the groups depending upon the issue. I have not worked out yet how to deal with these strands.
I also have to deal with the laissez faire contingent. While obviously I do not agree with them they have arguments in their favour, contrasting the dead hand of any socialist committee with capitalism's rugged individuals who start up businesses in their dad's garage and succeed wildly.
Although I have never met a "creationist" socialist it is perfectly possible to say God created the Earth and God wants us to be socialists. I have never read that evolutionism is a necessary part of socialism. I have known Darwinian socialists who are in favour of eugenics - with themselves as examples of what humanity should be. Just because most of us personally scoff at creationism does not mean that there is anything in socialism that says creationism is impossible.
Again on sex, I was only abstinent as a teenager because I couldn't find anyone to play. While most socialists are reasonably liberal on sexual issues, being liberal on sexual issues is not a touchstone of socialism. There are God driven socialists who are distinctly illiberal on sex outside marriage.
I have to be careful not to dress up my personal views as socialism, or vice versa.
"Although I have never met a "creationist" socialist it is perfectly possible to say God created the Earth and God wants us to be socialists"
What about "Thou shalt not steal"?
I realise another issue I have to deal with is personal debt. There is an assumption that mortgage debt is "good" and credit card or general debt is "bad". The way financial institutions push personal debt is astonishing.
There is a capitalist argument that companies should leverage themselves with debt, allowing them in some cases to return the initial start up capital to the owners. They get their money back and they keep control of a debt ridden business. Apparently it keeps the company safe from the Wall Street wolves. I see the advantage of this to management but I am less clear on the value of this for the shareholders. Yet the proponents say that it raises shareholder value.
Where do the conservatives stand on these issues?
Anyone who argues that debt is "evil" or "good" is an ignoramus.
There is no "good debt" or "bad debt" there is merely debt.
What is debt? It is the recognition that you chose to pay more money in the future than the money you receive today. This necessarily means that money today is worth more than money tomorrow, because you're paying for the benefit of using it today.
Interest rates are that price.
If two people voluntarily agree to trade today-money for tomorrow-money at a certain rate, then this is the interest rate. It is not evil, it is not good. It is simply the acknowledgment that one persons THINKS that they have found a better way to spend money today than someone else. They might be wrong, they might be right.
***Actually, let me correct that. There IS such a thing as Bad debt. Bad debt is when you become indebted because a third party forced you to pay for something you didn't want to pay for.
Thus, government debt is bad debt because the citizenry has to pay for the mistakes of other people who stole the money from them in the first place.
This is one reason why socialism doesn't generally succeed.
***I know no one is listening to these argument -- I've already demolished every single pro-socialist argument on this forum. Hopefully someone will read this and realize what "interest rates" are.
If you are borrowing money for things that you are going to consume today but pay for in the future, with interest, you are decidedly silly and getting into bad debt!
Hey, aren't you rather upset by the governments debt? According to this thesis of yours, it doesn't matter!
Borrowing money to pay for things today, and then choosing to pay later isn't dumb.
If you believed that, then half of what you see around you is "dumb". You name it, someone likely went into debt to pay for it, but then was able to make the money back to repay whomever they borrowed from.
No, it doesn't count demolishing arguments to your self.
You have to provide evidence that what you say is correct. As far as I'm concerned you have strengthened some of my arguments, others you just haven't touched at all.
I dunno, I'm open to new ideas - I really am. I used to be a raging Socialist. I finally realized that liberty is what generates wealth, not governments.
No one has managed to convince me otherwise, and each time someone argues against me there is a gaping flaw in their argument. As soon as you say "Government should X" then you've just admitted that you think theft is ok.
It's only theft if it is against your will, be like the Swedes and don't look at the tax, look at what you have left!
Neither liberty nor governments on their own will generate wealth.
A healthy balance between liberty and a healthy government will.
You have a down on government because big business has too big a hand in it and you are essentially being governed by big business.
"are essentially being governed by big business. " - that is how I see it - however - we have two problems that I see...... both sides from an extremist point of view are way out to lunch in my opinion. We need to attack both wrongs and work to save the middle class. One statement sums up my thoughts....
"On the backs of the working middle class the giant companies climb.... and on the backs of the working middle class wasteful Governments ride."
The working class is the middle class.
There are only three classes available-
Any other distinction is semantics.
100% correct - working class is middle class.
Middle class is not and income level it is a lifestyle.
Different amounts of income is required to be middle class based on location you live.
I deem middle class as anyone who can have a house, two working cars, save for holiday, save for kids education and help kids establish themselves when they leave home and save for retirement.
Liberty - allowing people to make their own decisions.
Government - an entity that uses force to enforce its will on masses.
... One of those just inherently has the power to generate wealth, and another doesn't.
I think that this argument has yet to be made (i just made it on the other forum of yours)
People argue against monopolies. I usually hear this argument from liberals (not to be used in a derogatory means), who are more likely to be socialists (conservative socialists are a rare breed).
But, they always fail to point out that governments are nothing more than a stolen-money funded, monopoly with a military.
If you dislike monopolies, then you can NOT like governments.
I do not like Governments at all - nor do I like the select corporations that fund and promote them. Nor do I like the mega giant corporations that control. (namely energy companies, insurance companies and pharmaceuticals..... and study those companies/industries and you will see how much they control the government)
I have the greatest respect for FREE ENTERPRISE.
I have NO admiration for those who control, by money control nor military control nor foolish controlling laws and "unnecessary permits required type" B.S.
Again, the UK government has made a lot of money before the money making elements were sold off.
George Will Says GOP Should Avoid "Obama Rants"
In his Detroit News op-ed today, March 7, conservative guru George Will advised the Republican Party to avoid "Obama rants" because sensible Americans are "detecting vibrations of weirdness" emanating from people associated with the GOP. Will cited Mike Huckabee as the number one "vibrator" for stating last week that President Obama grew up in Kenya.
That's the best we've heard from George since he referred to Ann Coulter as "him."
"I finally realized that liberty is what generates wealth, not governments."
The Zoe Tribe in Brazil is probably the most free / liberated people on planet earth. Yet they do not, have never, and will never generate "wealth." The list of distinct peoples who are free /liberated and yet do not generate wealth is a long one.
Okay, there are a few things I would like to point out.
A) It doesn't matter what sort of government you have, Socialist, marxist, capitalist, Emerial - all governments need taxes. However, America faught a war because the colonies were not being represented in England, the Founder set a guideline for taxes that isn't being followed. The government is taking our money ILLEGALLY. There are only two stipulations in our Constitution for taxes.
B) Socialism isn't a religion. Neither is being a Marist, or being a Caitalist. There are just words to describe a sort of political idea that people like to live by.
C) We can rule ourselves. That is what America is about. It's about trust. Trust that no one will take your property, and if they do - they get a hand cut off. It's trust that you'll go the speed limit, if you break it, you get a ticket. Sorry. That's how it works. We have laws because some people are too stupid to understand that you just don't do certain things.
D) Laws aren't just an American thing. If some people bothered to read history, ALL GOVERNMENTS HAD LAWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
E) Governments never generate wealth because they don't invest. That's just the way it works. It's a movement of money from one department to another.
F) Borrowing money with the intention of not paying it back is called Credit fraud. Or something of the like. And yes, it is dumb. Racking up debt that you can't pay back and you know you can't, is dumb. Sometimes, you just can't fix dumb.
G) I think that all debt is bad, which is why I won't ever get a credit card. I will pay in green cash that I can just hand over that same day. That way, the person I am paying all ready has the cash. They don't have to worry about my check bouncing or if my credit card will fail.
Thank you all.
I can be reasonably comfortable with debt for items of a capital nature like buildings roads and machinery. I am distinctly unhappy with borrowing for daily living expenses because that adds repayment costs to an already unbalanced budget.
Borrowing for holidays is to my mind just crazy. It is an avoidable expense.
Evan - you are obviously passionate about whatever you currently believe in. Just bear in mind that we are not all as intelligent as you and don't get so cross with other folk.
Before I buckle down to writing "The Conservative Case Truly Stated " is there any dimension or argument I have missed?
"Evan - you are obviously passionate about whatever you currently believe in. Just bear in mind that we are not all as intelligent as you and don't get so cross with other folk."
LOL. I'm not smart. If I were, i wouldn't have to use mean-sounding language.
I hear illogical arguments, and feel that I must remedy them.
"Socialism is great and will save us"
--- NO NO NO!!! Governments STEAL their money at the point of a GUN!!!
"Governments should buy up wasted capital from bankrupt institutions!"
WHY?! If the business is unprofitable, why should we steal money from profitable people to give it to people who can't make a business work?
... Anyway, I really don't mean to come of angry, it's just hard to say things without sounding mean.
Some Conservatives I understand object to dollar bills and say money should only be in coin. The Constitution uses the word "coin" as in "coining money" at a time when banknotes were already in existence. I don't think it says the Federal Government can print banknotes.
But the Government does print banknotes.
Can someone clarify all this for me please? What is the issue?
Where do the working poor fit into this construct? Poverty or Middle?
There are no classes in America, there are only different income levels. Those that promote income envy do a disservice to all peoples. Those that belittle lower income levels do as well.
It seems to me that this thread has more or less run out of steam. I am so grateful to the 26 individuals who have helped me. These are (in no particular order) ladylove 158, weholdthesetruths, wormdo, RalphDeeds, Katiem2, Mighty Mom, John Holden, Evan G. Rogers, American Romance, Kerryg, Doug Hughes, Kimberlyslyrics, Neil Sperling, Greek One, kwgluvna, S Leretseh, johnnypenn, evankahl, Ann Cee, JOHN EWALL. Ron Montgomery, DTR005, knolyourself, uncorrected vision, J S Alison and Cagsil.
I am writing hubs for a different branch of Socialism 101 (the reading list), and so it will be probably 5 or 6 weeks before I can return to "The Conservative Case Truly Stated". At that point I will come back to this forum strand, read it enormously carefully, and try to turn it into a hub or hubs.
Once again, thank you all!
by James Smith3 years ago
Hans-Hermann Hoppe in A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism essentially argues that there are in fact only 2 possible economic ideologies: Socialism and Capitalism, and variations of. You either believe there should be...
by Peter Freeman4 years ago
Recently there have been some long-tailed debates held in the comments section of certain Hubs. Particularly in the Hubs written by James Watkins and John Holden. I was wondering if it would be possible to have a...
by Brian6 years ago
I was talking with a group of friends the other day. and I suggested that there should be a national tax, where the money collected should be distributed evenly among every U.S. citizen, and I was labled as a...
by Elliott_T6 years ago
I'm a Capitalist - what that means to me is that the closest thing to an ideal economy we can achieve is one where the government has almost no interference in the private business sector whatsoever. I think you can put...
by Doug Hughes5 years ago
The 14th AmendmentSection 4. "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or...
by egiv7 years ago
And also to those who claim liberals don't argue with statistics:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/opini … ref=global
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.