are government-funded services considered to be "socialism"?

[1147196]

whenever i hear leftists claim that we're a socialistic country they say that the government providing & funding police, firefighters, public education, roads, water, traffic lights, etc. are all forms of "socialism".

is that true?

in addition, they claim that if we use the above services then we are participating in socialism and should stop using them altogether if we truly believe in free-market capitalism.

does the government have the authority to provide & fund police, firefighters, public education, roads, water, traffic lights, etc. or are those forms of socialism?

[LuckyStrike]

whenever i hear leftists claim that we're a socialistic country they say that the government providing & funding police, firefighters, public education, roads, water, traffic lights, etc. are all forms of "socialism".

is that true?

in addition, they claim that if we use the above services then we are participating in socialism and should stop using them altogether if we truly believe in free-market capitalism.

does the government have the authority to provide & fund police, firefighters, public education, roads, water, traffic lights, etc. or are those forms of socialism?


No the government has no authority to do those things. To provide these services money has to be stolen from someone either through taxation or through inflation. Both practices are immoral since nobody has a right to the fruits of your labor.

Consider the Declaration of Independence

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

The only reason we have government at all is to secure our life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and that is IT.

[Carl]

whenever i hear leftists claim that we're a socialistic country they say that the government providing & funding police, firefighters, public education, roads, water, traffic lights, etc. are all forms of "socialism".

is that true?

in addition, they claim that if we use the above services then we are participating in socialism and should stop using them altogether if we truly believe in free-market capitalism.

does the government have the authority to provide & fund police, firefighters, public education, roads, water, traffic lights, etc. or are those forms of socialism?
No, not all of it is true. There is nothing socialistic about people paying taxes within their communities to cover big projects that everyone can benefit from like roads, water treatment plants, sewage treatment plants, police and fire departments, not only is it practical and cost efficient, they are all part of what makes a social civil society that much better to live in. What is socialistic is taxing to redistribute wealth and outcome based laws such as denying a group of people the right to freedom of association in order to accommodate the feelings of another group, etc., etc., etc.

[PDT]

The only reason we have government at all is to secure our life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and that is IT.


You better be careful with that. It could be reasonably interpreted to endorse lots of things claimed to be "socialist."

I have a problem with both Marxism and Capitalism...both came from the same Babylonian source.

[Osaka]

in addition, they claim that if we use the above services then we are participating in socialism and should stop using them altogether if we truly believe in free-market capitalism.


Counter to them that if they believe life must be lived in a binary "all socialist" or "all capitalist" format, then they must refrain from making purchases from anything other than government-owned businesses.

[Gknowmx]

whenever i hear leftists claim that we're a socialistic country they say that the government providing & funding police, firefighters, public education, roads, water, traffic lights, etc. are all forms of "socialism".

is that true?

in addition, they claim that if we use the above services then we are participating in socialism and should stop using them altogether if we truly believe in free-market capitalism.

does the government have the authority to provide & fund police, firefighters, public education, roads, water, traffic lights, etc. or are those forms of socialism?
No, not all of it is true. There is nothing socialistic about people paying taxes within their communities to cover big projects that everyone can benefit from like roads, water treatment plants, sewage treatment plants, police and fire departments, not only is it practical and cost efficient, they are all part of what makes a social civil society that much better to live in. What is socialistic is taxing to redistribute wealth and outcome based laws such as denying a group of people the right to freedom of association in order to accommodate the feelings of another group, etc., etc., etc.





Start with Spooner: http://www.lysanderspooner.org/node/44

When I am denied the right to a private service, say fire protection, because government tax funded services, by law, prevent me from competing to offer my service to the market, then wealth is redistributed just as Carl has suggested.

[LuckyStrike]

No, not all of it is true. There is nothing socialistic about people paying taxes within their communities to cover big projects that everyone can benefit from like roads, water treatment plants, sewage treatment plants, police and fire departments, not only is it practical and cost efficient, they are all part of what makes a social civil society that much better to live in. What is socialistic is taxing to redistribute wealth and outcome based laws such as denying a group of people the right to freedom of association in order to accommodate the feelings of another group, etc., etc., etc.


Under no circumstance does anyone have the right to steal the fruits of my labor. I don't care if it is for projects that "help everyone".

Every instance you mentioned is far better taken care of by the private sector.

[Saul Mine]

I read the bible once and it didn't mention names for the variations of central governments. It only distinguishes between king and no king. Cities in that system were governed by elected councils, but there were almost no services other than witnessing or judging public matters, and zoning. (Any smelly business had to be downwind from town.) After about 250 years the people demanded a king, because they wanted the pageantry of a royal person and a standing army. The declaration of independence specifies other purposes for creating a government, but the people don't really care much about securing rights; they want pageantry, peace, and quiet. They will give up the peace and quiet in some situations, but they still demand the pageantry.

NOTE: "Pageantry, peace, and quiet" is equivalent to what we call "law and order".

[LuckyStrike]

After about 250 years the people demanded a king, because they wanted the pageantry of a royal person and a standing army. The declaration of independence specifies other purposes for creating a government, but the people don't really care much about securing rights; they want pageantry, peace, and quiet. They will give up the peace and quiet in some situations, but they still demand the pageantry.



They wanted an earthly King because they thought they could manipulate him. However they failed to realize that the people get the government they deserve.

[Carl]

No, not all of it is true. There is nothing socialistic about people paying taxes within their communities to cover big projects that everyone can benefit from like roads, water treatment plants, sewage treatment plants, police and fire departments, not only is it practical and cost efficient, they are all part of what makes a social civil society that much better to live in. What is socialistic is taxing to redistribute wealth and outcome based laws such as denying a group of people the right to freedom of association in order to accommodate the feelings of another group, etc., etc., etc.


Under no circumstance does anyone have the right to steal the fruits of my labor. I don't care if it is for projects that "help everyone".

Every instance you mentioned is far better taken care of by the private sector.
"People paying taxes within their communities" was the qualifier.

With that qualifier in mind: If you desire not to participate within a community's social/civil matters, find another community to live in that offers you the nothing you crave, then you can strive to live life as only you are capable of producing under such circumstances.

But I'll wager that most people with an entrepreneurial spirit will chose to settle in the communities that provides the infrastructure that best supports their endeavors and I'm sure that most will gladly pay a few coins in tax to maintain that infrastructure so as to free them from doing those tasks themselves.

Meanwhile in your community, the ruts in the dirt paths that lead to your outhouses grow ever deeper....
............

[LuckyStrike]

No, not all of it is true. There is nothing socialistic about people paying taxes within their communities to cover big projects that everyone can benefit from like roads, water treatment plants, sewage treatment plants, police and fire departments, not only is it practical and cost efficient, they are all part of what makes a social civil society that much better to live in. What is socialistic is taxing to redistribute wealth and outcome based laws such as denying a group of people the right to freedom of association in order to accommodate the feelings of another group, etc., etc., etc.


Under no circumstance does anyone have the right to steal the fruits of my labor. I don't care if it is for projects that "help everyone".

Every instance you mentioned is far better taken care of by the private sector.
"People paying taxes within their communities" was the qualifier.

With that qualifier in mind: If you desire not to participate within a community's social/civil matters, find another community to live in that offers you the nothing you crave, then you can strive to live life as only you are capable of producing under such circumstances.

But I'll wager that most people with an entrepreneurial spirit will chose to settle in the communities that provides the infrastructure that best supports their endeavors and I'm sure that most will gladly pay a few coins in tax to maintain that infrastructure so as to free them from doing those tasks themselves.

Meanwhile in your community, the ruts in the dirt paths that lead to your outhouses grow ever deeper....
............


Carl you are missing the point. If people voluntarily give money to an elected government at any level than it is not a tax.

A tax, any tax is theft and is immoral regardless of what you do with the proceeds.

It is immoral to steal billions from Bill Gates even if you cure cancer with it or give it all to poor people. It is wrong case closed.

As I pointed out there is no problem that can't be fixed by the private sector, and as our Founders point out the ONLY reason governments are created is to insure nobody tramples on our God given rights. Period, paragraph and of post.

[Carl]

Carl you are missing the point. If people voluntarily give money to an elected government at any level than it is not a tax.

A tax, any tax is theft and is immoral regardless of what you do with the proceeds.

It is immoral to steal billions from Bill Gates even if you cure cancer with it or give it all to poor people. It is wrong case closed.

As I pointed out there is no problem that can't be fixed by the private sector, and as our Founders point out the ONLY reason governments are created is to insure nobody tramples on our God given rights. Period, paragraph and of post.
Yep, in the tradition of Lysander Spooner you stand in the middle of what constitutes civilization and what it has provided for your convince and, in true deconstructionist form, you bitch about paying the taxes to maintain it.

So you believe the "private sector" can provide, via "private labeled" toll booth taxation or per use taxation, the framework for a civilization to grow and prosper?

Can you provide any historical evidence of that ever occurring?

You ever wonder why Lysander Spooner never got on a horse and rode 1,000 miles west to escape the evil taxes of the society he lived in?

[LuckyStrike]

Carl you are missing the point. If people voluntarily give money to an elected government at any level than it is not a tax.

A tax, any tax is theft and is immoral regardless of what you do with the proceeds.

It is immoral to steal billions from Bill Gates even if you cure cancer with it or give it all to poor people. It is wrong case closed.

As I pointed out there is no problem that can't be fixed by the private sector, and as our Founders point out the ONLY reason governments are created is to insure nobody tramples on our God given rights. Period, paragraph and of post.


Can you provide any historical evidence of that ever occurring?



Sure can.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lewrockwell-show/2008/08/20/23-road-socialism/


You still do not address the fact that you think theft is ok in certain situations. Which should be alarming to anyone reading this thread.

You act like government run infrastructure provides the backbone for society. Yet can you provide any evidence that this is the case? Look at the early days of this republic we were very free, didn't even have a standing army and we flourished like no other country on planet earth.

Regardless of your arguments for or against, government run programs of any sort that are paid for by taxation are socialism which is the point of this thread. If you are for these programs than so be it but at least be honest with yourself and admit it.

I think everyone including you would agree that centrally planned economies are never a good thing and that socialism has never proven to work. Yet you sit here and argue that some socialism is a good thing. :oo-->

[Carl]

Carl you are missing the point. If people voluntarily give money to an elected government at any level than it is not a tax.

A tax, any tax is theft and is immoral regardless of what you do with the proceeds.

It is immoral to steal billions from Bill Gates even if you cure cancer with it or give it all to poor people. It is wrong case closed.

As I pointed out there is no problem that can't be fixed by the private sector, and as our Founders point out the ONLY reason governments are created is to insure nobody tramples on our God given rights. Period, paragraph and of post.


Can you provide any historical evidence of that ever occurring?



Sure can.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lewrockwell-show/2008/08/20/23-road-socialism/


You still do not address the fact that you think theft is ok in certain situations. Which should be alarming to anyone reading this thread.

Why should I address your ludicrous scenario when it has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand? You argue just like your fellow Leftist Socialists that you rile against, in absurd extremes, as exemplified in that idiotic Lew Rockwell audio link you posted, which did not address my question. And no, finding one or two private road exceptions within a nation of community built roads is not enough to prove the assertion correct.

It's easy for ideological whores to make bold assertions based upon untried assumptions where the only approximate examples anyone can possibly point to as being close to exemplifying your beliefs, can only be found in the most socially and civically backward and hostile regions on the planet.

[LuckyStrike]

Carl you are missing the point. If people voluntarily give money to an elected government at any level than it is not a tax.

A tax, any tax is theft and is immoral regardless of what you do with the proceeds.

It is immoral to steal billions from Bill Gates even if you cure cancer with it or give it all to poor people. It is wrong case closed.

As I pointed out there is no problem that can't be fixed by the private sector, and as our Founders point out the ONLY reason governments are created is to insure nobody tramples on our God given rights. Period, paragraph and of post.


Can you provide any historical evidence of that ever occurring?



Sure can.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lewrockwell-show/2008/08/20/23-road-socialism/


You still do not address the fact that you think theft is ok in certain situations. Which should be alarming to anyone reading this thread.

Why should I address your ludicrous scenario when it has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand? You argue just like your fellow Leftist Socialists that you rile against, in absurd extremes, as exemplified in that idiotic Lew Rockwell audio link you posted, which did not address my question. And no, finding one or two private road exceptions within a nation of community built roads is not enough to prove the assertion correct.

It's easy for ideological whores to make bold assertions based upon untried assumptions where the only approximate examples anyone can possibly point to as being close to exemplifying your beliefs, can only be found in the most socially and civically backward and hostile regions on the planet.



Well it is clear now that we are not intellectual equals.

You will not, or lack the ability to, assess this situation honestly which is of crucial importance in a debate.

Even though my logic and sound argument is lost on you, unfortunately, undoubtedly the wiser and more astute of the board will have no trouble understanding the arguments I have laid forth. Thankfully they are here or else I would be troubled that I have wasted so much time trying to argue with a dumbass.

[Carl]

Well it is clear now that we are not intellectual equals.

You will not, or lack the ability to, assess this situation honestly which is of crucial importance in a debate.

Even though my logic and sound argument is lost on you, unfortunately, undoubtedly the wiser and more astute of the board will have no trouble understanding the arguments I have laid forth. Thankfully they are here or else I would be troubled that I have wasted so much time trying to argue with a dumbass.
Clearly your ideology has afflicted your ability to reason, as all you've done so far is regurgitate your dogma without substantive supporting argument. And creating fictional scenarios within which your arguments can reside untouched by reality does not count.


You act like government run infrastructure provides the backbone for society. Yet can you provide any evidence that this is the case? That's a nonsensical question as current reality demonstrates that the taxpayer supported, government provided infrastructure was and is part of creating and sustaining the society we live in today.


Look at the early days of this republic we were very free, didn't even have a standing army and we flourished like no other country on planet earth. What does this have to do with the subject? In the early days of the republic, people were more communal, does that make them communist too?

**They also had Private Run Fire Brigades that would either get into a brawl with other Private Run Fire Brigades while someone's house burnt to the ground or they would attempt to extort more money from a victim whose house was on fire.

Paying taxes to support the infrastructure of the society, within which you reside, in no way equates to slavery and only a blathering idiot such as Lysander Spooner and the feckless few who follow him subscribe to such a nonsensical spin on reality.



Regardless of your arguments for or against, government run programs of any sort that are paid for by taxation are socialism which is the point of this thread. If you are for these programs than so be it but at least be honest with yourself and admit it. No, the subject of the thread is whether or not government providing & funding police, firefighters, public education, roads, water, traffic lights, etc. are all forms of "socialism".

The first fallacy in that argument, which you've decided to incorporate into your argument, is the notion that government pays for anything. It does not, the taxpayers do. The second fallacy of that argument, which you've decided to incorporate into your argument, is the notion that tax payer supported, government implemented infrastructure services are "programs".

Welfare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicade, Fannie mae, Freddie Mac, TARP, DOT, DHS, DoE, etc., etc., etc. are programs, having running water and flushing toilets, a responsive fire departmenrt or consistent roads to travel upon are not. See The Difference?

By participating in their fallacy, which was nothing more than a weak minded attempt to justify themselves, you've become just as intellectually dishonest as they are.

[LuckyStrike]

The first fallacy in that argument, which you've decided to incorporate into your argument, is the notion that government pays for anything. It does not, the taxpayers do. The second fallacy of that argument, which you've decided to incorporate into your argument, is the notion that tax payer supported, government implemented infrastructure services are "programs".

Welfare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicade, Fannie mae, Freddie Mac, TARP, DOT, DHS, DoE, etc., etc., etc. are programs, having running water and flushing toilets, a responsive fire departmenrt or consistent roads to travel upon are not. See The Difference?

By participating in their fallacy, which was nothing more than a weak minded attempt to justify themselves, you've become just as intellectually dishonest as they are.


They are all programs they are all funded by literal theft at gun point from an unwilling participant.

You might require protection and a safety net I don't I can drill my own well to flush my toilets.

If you wanna keep it up I will challenge you to thunderdome. 2 man enter 1 man leave....GSUS forever. I came here because I didn't think dipshit shills would follow, clearly I was mistaken.

Now I don't mind people to have a difference of opinion but someone who is either mentally retarded (which I don't think you are) or a troll/shill I have no time for and will not waste my time trying to debate.

[Carl]

The first fallacy in that argument, which you've decided to incorporate into your argument, is the notion that government pays for anything. It does not, the taxpayers do. The second fallacy of that argument, which you've decided to incorporate into your argument, is the notion that tax payer supported, government implemented infrastructure services are "programs".

Welfare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicade, Fannie mae, Freddie Mac, TARP, DOT, DHS, DoE, etc., etc., etc. are programs, having running water and flushing toilets, a responsive fire departmenrt or consistent roads to travel upon are not. See The Difference?

By participating in their fallacy, which was nothing more than a weak minded attempt to justify themselves, you've become just as intellectually dishonest as they are.


They are all programs they are all funded by literal theft at gun point from an unwilling participant.

You might require protection and a safety net I don't I can drill my own well to flush my toilets.

If you wanna keep it up I will challenge you to thunderdome. 2 man enter 1 man leave....GSUS forever. I came here because I didn't think dipsh*t shills would follow, clearly I was mistaken.

Now I don't mind people to have a difference of opinion but someone who is either mentally retarded (which I don't think you are) or a troll/shill I have no time for and will not waste my time trying to debate.
Yea that's right, everyone who disagrees with your idiotic dogma is a "shill” and isn't that oh so convenient for you.

Why don't you try pulling your dogma stupored head out of your ass and read some actual literature on the subject sometime?

SECOND TREATISE OF GOVERNMENT by JOHN LOCKE - http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/locke/locke2/locke2nd-a.html

[Gknowmx]

Carl you are missing the point. If people voluntarily give money to an elected government at any level than it is not a tax.

A tax, any tax is theft and is immoral regardless of what you do with the proceeds.

It is immoral to steal billions from Bill Gates even if you cure cancer with it or give it all to poor people. It is wrong case closed.

As I pointed out there is no problem that can't be fixed by the private sector, and as our Founders point out the ONLY reason governments are created is to insure nobody tramples on our God given rights. Period, paragraph and of post.


Can you provide any historical evidence of that ever occurring?



Sure can.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lewrockwell-show/2008/08/20/23-road-socialism/


You still do not address the fact that you think theft is ok in certain situations. Which should be alarming to anyone reading this thread.

Why should I address your ludicrous scenario when it has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand? You argue just like your fellow Leftist Socialists that you rile against, in absurd extremes, as exemplified in that idiotic Lew Rockwell audio link you posted, which did not address my question. And no, finding one or two private road exceptions within a nation of community built roads is not enough to prove the assertion correct.

It's easy for ideological whores to make bold assertions based upon untried assumptions where the only approximate examples anyone can possibly point to as being close to exemplifying your beliefs, can only be found in the most socially and civically backward and hostile regions on the planet.



Well it is clear now that we are not intellectual equals.

You will not, or lack the ability to, assess this situation honestly which is of crucial importance in a debate.

Even though my logic and sound argument is lost on you, unfortunately, undoubtedly the wiser and more astute of the board will have no trouble understanding the arguments I have laid forth. Thankfully they are here or else I would be troubled that I have wasted so much time trying to argue with a dumbass.


Nordic,

I have no trouble understanding your arguments. The problem that both you and I have is that, like it or not, there are plenty of folks who over-estimate their own reasoning ability and under-estimate blindness that results from the pathetic clutching to emotion-laden perspectives.

Sure, government funded services are forms of socialism. Anything a government does is socialist by definition at the very least. The philosophical problem is that there are those folks who believe that individuals, acting for themselves first is an act that is mutually exclusive with an act that is also good for society at large. Will some individual act purely selfishly with no concern for society? Sure, but does that fringe phenotype justify designing a government that mandates unilateral laws and policies for all individuals? No. Society can correct itself. But, there are just as many dangerous narcissist and sociopaths that form and run government as there are those that they purport to need to govern by legislation and taxation.

As you will see on this forum, the Carl Avitar is rather popular with the Conservative, authoratarian, semi-intellectual types. However, as you have discovered, once you punch through the thin logic, the response strategy is to divert from offering authentic opinion and replace it with witty insults. It is a totally predictible one-trick pony response. It does add entertainment value to be sure.

[Gknowmx]

The first fallacy in that argument, which you've decided to incorporate into your argument, is the notion that government pays for anything. It does not, the taxpayers do. The second fallacy of that argument, which you've decided to incorporate into your argument, is the notion that tax payer supported, government implemented infrastructure services are "programs".

Welfare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicade, Fannie mae, Freddie Mac, TARP, DOT, DHS, DoE, etc., etc., etc. are programs, having running water and flushing toilets, a responsive fire departmenrt or consistent roads to travel upon are not. See The Difference?

By participating in their fallacy, which was nothing more than a weak minded attempt to justify themselves, you've become just as intellectually dishonest as they are.


They are all programs they are all funded by literal theft at gun point from an unwilling participant.

You might require protection and a safety net I don't I can drill my own well to flush my toilets.

If you wanna keep it up I will challenge you to thunderdome. 2 man enter 1 man leave....GSUS forever. I came here because I didn't think dipsh*t shills would follow, clearly I was mistaken.

Now I don't mind people to have a difference of opinion but someone who is either mentally retarded (which I don't think you are) or a troll/shill I have no time for and will not waste my time trying to debate.
Yea that's right, everyone who disagrees with your idiotic dogma is a "shill” and isn't that oh so convenient for you.

Why don't you try pulling your dogma stupored head out of your ass and read some actual literature on the subject sometime?

SECOND TREATISE OF GOVERNMENT by JOHN LOCKE - http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/locke/locke2/locke2nd-a.html


Yeah, we get this from you a lot. Locke here, Hobbes, Constitution there, blah, blah, blah. What you won't do is take the time to lay out your original thoughts and interpretations of these guys. Pull out a quote or a passage from Locke and lets discuss it. Or Spooner, specifically.

[LuckyStrike]

The first fallacy in that argument, which you've decided to incorporate into your argument, is the notion that government pays for anything. It does not, the taxpayers do. The second fallacy of that argument, which you've decided to incorporate into your argument, is the notion that tax payer supported, government implemented infrastructure services are "programs".

Welfare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicade, Fannie mae, Freddie Mac, TARP, DOT, DHS, DoE, etc., etc., etc. are programs, having running water and flushing toilets, a responsive fire departmenrt or consistent roads to travel upon are not. See The Difference?

By participating in their fallacy, which was nothing more than a weak minded attempt to justify themselves, you've become just as intellectually dishonest as they are.


They are all programs they are all funded by literal theft at gun point from an unwilling participant.

You might require protection and a safety net I don't I can drill my own well to flush my toilets.

If you wanna keep it up I will challenge you to thunderdome. 2 man enter 1 man leave....GSUS forever. I came here because I didn't think dipsh*t shills would follow, clearly I was mistaken.

Now I don't mind people to have a difference of opinion but someone who is either mentally retarded (which I don't think you are) or a troll/shill I have no time for and will not waste my time trying to debate.
Yea that's right, everyone who disagrees with your idiotic dogma is a "shill” and isn't that oh so convenient for you.

Why don't you try pulling your dogma stupored head out of your ass and read some actual literature on the subject sometime?

SECOND TREATISE OF GOVERNMENT by JOHN LOCKE - http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/locke/locke2/locke2nd-a.html


Yeah, we get this from you a lot. Locke here, Hobbes, Constitution there, blah, blah, blah. What you won't do is take the time to lay out your original thoughts and interpretations of these guys. Pull out a quote or a passage from Locke and lets discuss it. Or Spooner, specifically.


Don't hold your breath. As you can see from this thread I have addressed all of his questions and hypothetical scenarios yet he chooses to keep diverting the argument away from his weak points while completely ignoring sound arguments.

I'm assuming he works for the government and is in denial that every dollar that enters his pocket is stolen from his neighbors first.

The basis of this thread is not is socialism right or wrong, but rather are government programs socialism. Which anyone with an IQ of room temperature can see if most definitely the case.

[Carl]

Don't hold your breath. As you can see from this thread I have addressed all of his questions and hypothetical scenarios yet he chooses to keep diverting the argument away from his weak points while completely ignoring sound arguments. No, you haven't responded to anything, all you've done is regurgitate your dogma and insulte me. By the way, it is you that relies upon hypothetical scenarios and romanticized ideals to justify their position, not me.


I'm assuming he works for the government and is in denial that every dollar that enters his pocket is stolen from his neighbors first. I'll PM you my address and you can come see for yourself what I do for a living. I'd like a nice face to face with you.


The basis of this thread is not is socialism right or wrong, but rather are government programs socialism. Which anyone with an IQ of room temperature can see if most definitely the case. And anyone who doesn't have their dogma fill heads planted squarely up their asses would see that civic infrastructure are not "programs".

[Carl]

I have no trouble understanding your arguments. The problem that both you and I have is that, like it or not, there are plenty of folks who over-estimate their own reasoning ability and under-estimate blindness that results from the pathetic clutching to emotion-laden perspectives.Marx also argued well, but he was still wrong.

The ability to argue well does not validate the argument nor does it mean the argument is rightfully reasoned.

And the entire dogma of Libertarianism, as well as Marxism, Socialism, fascism and all the other "isms" out there are predicated upon emotion-laden romantic ideals. And again, that someone can argue them well, or even with a straight face, does not make them right.


Sure, government funded services are forms of socialism. Anything a government does is socialist by definition at the very least. The philosophical problem is that there are those folks who believe that individuals, acting for themselves first is an act that is mutually exclusive with an act that is also good for society at large. Will some individual act purely selfishly with no concern for society? Sure, but does that fringe phenotype justify designing a government that mandates unilateral laws and policies for all individuals? No. Society can correct itself. But, there are just as many dangerous narcissist and sociopaths that form and run government as there are those that they purport to need to govern by legislation and taxation.

As you will see on this forum, the Carl Avitar is rather popular with the Conservative, authoratarian, semi-intellectual types. However, as you have discovered, once you punch through the thin logic, the response strategy is to divert from offering authentic opinion and replace it with witty insults. It is a totally predictible one-trick pony response. It does add entertainment value to be sure. Mentally masturbated gibberish. You throw a bunch of uncorrelated sentences together, form a couple of paragraphs and pretend you've said something witty.

By the way, Marx, as well as Hitler and most politicos, loved to use those broad sweeping generalizations, in their arguments too, just like you.

[LuckyStrike]

Once again Carl, you can't successfully argue your point instead your resort to. "just because you say something eloquently and beat me logically doesn't make you right"

You still haven't shown that these government programs are not socialism. Every cop, public school teacher, firefighter, DOT worker etc. is paid 100% in money that is stolen at gunpoint from those that do not work for or benefit from government programs. This is socialism and it stares you in the face despite you trying to delude yourself.

[Carl]

Once again Carl, you can't successfully argue your point instead your resort to. "just because you say something eloquently and beat me logically doesn't make you right" You misunderstand; I was talking about gknownmx not you.

All you've done s scream at me "THEY ARE SOCIALIST" and call me names, which doesn't prove your point.



You still haven't shown that these government programs are not socialism. Every cop, public school teacher, firefighter, DOT worker etc. is paid 100% in money that is stolen at gunpoint from those that do not work for or benefit from government programs. This is socialism and it stares you in the face despite you trying to delude yourself.
And you haven't shown that they are "programs" or "socialist" and repeating bold faced lies doesn't forward your argument either.

[LuckyStrike]

Once again Carl, you can't successfully argue your point instead your resort to. "just because you say something eloquently and beat me logically doesn't make you right" You misunderstand; I was talking about gknownmx not you.

All you've done s scream at me "THEY ARE SOCIALIST" and call me names, which doesn't prove your point.



You still haven't shown that these government programs are not socialism. Every cop, public school teacher, firefighter, DOT worker etc. is paid 100% in money that is stolen at gunpoint from those that do not work for or benefit from government programs. This is socialism and it stares you in the face despite you trying to delude yourself.
And you haven't shown that they are "programs" or "socialist" and repeating bold faced lies doesn't forward your argument either.


Clearly we are at an impass so with that in mind my conversation with you is over. If anyone else would like to debate so be it.

Also I responded to your PM and haven't heard back from you.

[Gknowmx]

The basis of this thread is not is socialism right or wrong, but rather are government programs socialism. Which anyone with an IQ of room temperature can see if most definitely the case.

Agreed.

[Gknowmx]

By the way, Marx, as well as Hitler and most politicos, loved to use those broad sweeping generalizations, in their arguments too, just like you.


And yet you excuse yourself for broadly attacking Spooner or broadly prescribing Locke with no courage to pick a specific quote or passage from either that supports your expansive opinion and original thoughts.

Luckily, we don't have to worry about making this sh*t up, you volunteer it and make it entertaining to boot. It sure makes good copy.

[Carl]

And yet you excuse yourself for broadly attacking Spooner or broadly prescribing Locke with no courage to pick a specific quote or passage from either that supports your expansive opinion and original thoughts.

Luckily, we don't have to worry about making this sh*t up, you volunteer it and make it entertaining to boot. It sure makes good copy.
I attacked his ideology and when he made it personal, so did I. I give what I receive.

Why should I be made to quote Locke to you or anyone else? If you would bother to read Locke, you would know exactly where I'm coming from and until you do, me quoting him will not make any difference or help you understand any better simply because it is an all encompassing philosophical/sociological study into western man's nature and the nature of government, and that can't be summed up in a paragraph or two. It represents the depth of understanding you lack.

Lucky for you, you possess a mind so readily amenable to assuaging your ego into believing what it wants to believe and disregarding the rest.

[Gknowmx]

And yet you excuse yourself for broadly attacking Spooner or broadly prescribing Locke with no courage to pick a specific quote or passage from either that supports your expansive opinion and original thoughts.

Luckily, we don't have to worry about making this sh*t up, you volunteer it and make it entertaining to boot. It sure makes good copy.
I attacked his ideology and when he made it personal, so did I. I give what I receive.

Why should I be made to quote Locke to you or anyone else? If you would bother to read Locke, you would know exactly where I'm coming from and until you do, me quoting him will not make any difference or help you understand any better simply because it is an all encompassing philosophical/sociological study into western man's nature and the nature of government, and that can't be summed up in a paragraph or two. It represents the depth of understanding you lack.

Lucky for you, you possess a mind so readily amenable to assuaging your ego into believing what it wants to believe and disregarding the rest.


Hey, I am not making you quote Locke, or Hobbes, or Spooner, and I am not making you post to GSUS either, like I said, you do a great job volunteering and bringing entertainment to threads like this. I will work with what you give us, please, don't stop; there is a unique and authentic if not depricating poetry to your writing style.

[Carl]

Hey, I am not making you quote Locke, or Hobbes, or Spooner, and I am not making you post to GSUS either, like I said, you do a great job volunteering and bringing entertainment to threads like this. I will work with what you give us, please, don't stop; there is a unique and authentic if not depricating poetry to your writing style.
OK slick. Now if only you would put half as much effort into attempting to comprehend as you do in spinning conversations to suite your ego's demand, you would probably come to a point to where you might realize that there's a whole lot more to the argument than you're willing to admit.

Here's a John Locke quote for you: Reverie is when ideas float in our mind without reflection or regard of the understanding.

I hope I've disturbed your reverie..............

[Gknowmx]

Hey, I am not making you quote Locke, or Hobbes, or Spooner, and I am not making you post to GSUS either, like I said, you do a great job volunteering and bringing entertainment to threads like this. I will work with what you give us, please, don't stop; there is a unique and authentic if not depricating poetry to your writing style.
OK slick. Now if only you would put half as much effort into attempting to comprehend as you do in spinning conversations to suite your ego's demand, you would probably come to a point to where you might realize that there's a whole lot more to the argument than you're willing to admit.

Here's a John Locke quote for you: Reverie is when ideas float in our mind without reflection or regard of the understanding.

I hope I've disturbed your reverie..............


So, here we are in a thread on Socialism and you pick a quote by Locke that validates your poetic license? Now then, please indulge us and float a quote that reflects your regard for understanding the point of this thread.

As Nordic said, and I agree, government is socialist. I am not making a value judgement on the goodness or evilness of Socialism in stating that government is socialist. We can do that later...

[Carl]

So, here we are in a thread on Socialism and you pick a quote by Locke that validates your poetic license? Now then, please indulge us and float a quote that reflects your regard for understanding the point of this thread.

As Nordic said, and I agree, government is socialist. I am not making a value judgement on the goodness or evilness of Socialism in stating that government is socialist. We can do that later...
The point is readily understood, socialist want to incorporate the services created by civilized society as belonging to an a product of government, as such; we all become "socialist" because we use those services.

They are mistaken; just as you are mistaken when you assert that all governments are socialist.

[Ash_Williams]

Sure they're socialist. The problem is they are involuntary. The worse problem is they are not paid for equally or by usage. If they decide your land is worth more than someone else's, you get to pay more for the fire department and garbage collection and snow cleaning than others.

The disparity is greater when there are high rise apartments. Your property tax goes to pay for the buses these tenants use, and school for their kids. I realize the building owner does pay property tax which is passed down to the tenant, but it's a tiny amount as compared to what any home owner pays. Possibly your property tax is covering the cops as well, which are of no use to you, but are always parked outside these highrises.

And despite your taxes being based on what they say your property is worth, your voting power is not...

[TPTB]

It's Socialism when "they" receive the benefits and it's a "Free Country" when I do.