SOCIALISM IS THE USE OF FORCE TO TAKE AWAY FREEDOM

[Notvacka]

I thought this was an almost overly obvious logical truth, bordering on the tautological. Did you notice the initial "if"? If those who can afford it don't pay for the education, there will be no education, becasue somebody has to pay, and those who can't afford it can't. (Do you agree?)

It's nothing of the kind. The reality is not every child will get the education that they need. Some will do without. That's life. But, despite this optimum level of education not being reached, the fact remains, many, many children will receive great educations without any need to force anyone to pay to educate them.

Yes. "That's life" and "the fact remains". But what you say doesn't contradict my statement in any way, unless you read "there will be no education" as meaning there will be no education at all (which is silly) when what I mean is that there will be no education for them (the children of the parents who can't afford it).

There is nothing pretty about democracy, it is mob rule, and is based on the principle of might makes right, as the assumption is the majority could phycially slaughter the minority.

No, that's not what democracy is about. In practice might is always "right", since those with most muscle or biggest bombs can always force those with less to obey. That's life. But that doesn't make it "right" as in morally right. The beauty of democracy is the idea that everybody's opinion counts.

Any system that equates the opinion of a stupid person with that of a smart one is not rational or moral.

But democracy doesn't equate opinions; everybody's opinion counts, yes, but once counted, the majority opinion is worth more. Could there be a more rational or moral way of deciding?

[John]

I can guarantee you that the people who want to take my money never paid for my education, so by what moral right do they get to use the acts of another to steal from me? If my parents gave me gifts by supporting me growing up, how does a stranger down the street use that as a justification to take money from me? I see no logical connection, and you failed to provide one.

If you were schooled in the state run education system then I'm saying that you could view your current tax liability as a repayment of that. If your parents were similarly schooled then their taxes weren't paying for your education as a child but repaying their own and so forth.

[bobevenson]

The following article by economist Walter Williams is submitted for consideration by all you socialists out there:

Libs, Progressives and Socialists
By Walter Williams

In Europe, especially in Germany, hoisting a swastika-emblazoned Nazi flag is a crime. For decades after World War II, people have hunted down and sought punishment for Nazi murderers, who were responsible for the deaths of more than 20 million people.

Here's my question: Why are the horrors of Nazism so well-known and widely condemned but not those of socialism and communism? What goes untaught — and possibly is covered up — is that socialist and communist ideas have produced the greatest evil in mankind's history. You say, "Williams, what in the world are you talking about? Socialists, communists and their fellow travelers, such as the Wall Street occupiers supported by our president, care about the little guy in his struggle for a fair shake! They're trying to promote social justice." Let's look at some of the history of socialism and communism.

What's not appreciated is that Nazism is a form of socialism. In fact, the term Nazi stands for the National Socialist German Workers' Party. The unspeakable acts of Adolf Hitler's Nazis pale in comparison with the horrors committed by the communists in the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the People's Republic of China. Between 1917 and 1987, Vladimir Lenin, Josef Stalin and their successors murdered and were otherwise responsible for the deaths of 62 million of their own people. Between 1949 and 1987, China's communists, led by Mao Zedong and his successors, murdered and were otherwise responsible for the deaths of 76 million Chinese. The most authoritative tally of history's most murderous regimes is documented on University of Hawaii Professor Rudolph J. Rummel's website, at http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills, and in his book "Death by Government."

How much hunting down and punishment have there been for these communist murderers? To the contrary, it's acceptable both in Europe and in the U.S. to hoist and march under the former USSR's red flag emblazoned with a hammer and sickle. Mao Zedong has been long admired by academics and leftists across our country, as they often marched around singing the praises of Mao and waving his little red book, "Quotations From Chairman Mao Tse-tung." President Barack Obama's communications director, Anita Dunn, in her June 2009 commencement address to St. Andrews Episcopal High School at Washington National Cathedral, said Mao was one of her heroes.

Whether it's the academic community, the media elite, stalwarts of the Democratic Party or organizations such as the NAACP, the National Council of La Raza, Green for All, the Sierra Club and the Children's Defense Fund, there is a great tolerance for the ideas of socialism — a system that has caused more deaths and human misery than all other systems combined.

Today's leftists, socialists and progressives would bristle at the suggestion that their agenda differs little from those of Nazi, Soviet and Maoist mass murderers. One does not have to be in favor of death camps or wars of conquest to be a tyrant. The only requirement is that one has to believe in the primacy of the state over individual rights.

The unspeakable horrors of Nazism didn't happen overnight. They were simply the end result of a long evolution of ideas leading to consolidation of power in central government in the quest for "social justice." It was decent but misguided earlier generations of Germans — who would have cringed at the thought of genocide — who created the Trojan horse for Hitler's ascendancy. Today's Americans are similarly accepting the massive consolidation of power in Washington in the name of social justice.

If you don't believe it, just ask yourself: Which way are we headed tiny steps at a time — toward greater liberty or toward more government control over our lives?

Perhaps we think that we are better human beings than the German people who created the conditions that brought Hitler to power. I say, don't count on it.

[Notvacka]

The following article...

The whole article is based upon guilt by association, confusing what's been done in the name of ideas with the ideas themselves. Any noble concept could be used as an excuse for atrocities. I won't stoop to suggesting in turn that people with right wing leanings are all like Anders Behring Breivik. But I'd like to point out that none of the regimes mentioned were real democracies when the atrocities took place.

[bobevenson]

The following article...

The whole article is based upon guilt by association, confusing what's been done in the name of ideas with the ideas themselves. Any noble concept could be used as an excuse for atrocities. I won't stoop to suggesting in turn that people with right wing leanings are all like Anders Behring Breivik. But I'd like to point out that none of the regimes mentioned were real democracies when the atrocities took place.

Sorry, you totally miss Williams' point.

[John]

Why do people think they can get away with statements like "Nazism is a form of socialism. In fact, the term Nazi stands for the National Socialist German Workers' Party" when no one thinks they can get away with saying "North Korea is a democratic country. In fact, the full name of the country is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea"?

[bobevenson]

Why do people think they can get away with statements like "Nazism is a form of socialism. In fact, the term Nazi stands for the National Socialist German Workers' Party" when no one thinks they can get away with saying "North Korea is a democratic country. In fact, the full name of the country is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea"?

I'm sorry, John, but you also fail to understand what Williams is saying. It doesn't matter whether you call yourself a communist, fascist or socialist; you all believe in your heart of hearts in the primacy of the state over individual rights. As Williams asks, are we headed toward greater liberty or more government control over our lives? Europe has already lost that battle, and unfortunately the U.S. is not that far behind.

[ForgedinHell]

The following article...

The whole article is based upon guilt by association, confusing what's been done in the name of ideas with the ideas themselves. Any noble concept could be used as an excuse for atrocities. I won't stoop to suggesting in turn that people with right wing leanings are all like Anders Behring Breivik. But I'd like to point out that none of the regimes mentioned were real democracies when the atrocities took place.

One of the problems with socialism is that it gives control of our lives to the state. Hitler was definitely a socialist, he bragged about being a socialist, he instituted socialist policies. He outlawed all small business in Germany with a single stroke of the pen. He instituted wage and price controls. He confiscated property without paying any compensation. He certainly was not promoting free markets, or freedom of any kind. Even with the best of intentions, socialism is inherently dangerous, because it concentrates power into too few hands. Capitalism diversifies power.

[Satyr]

The only "problem" with socialism is that it is meant to "correct" the usual natural selection process, which capitalism would reflect so precisely if it were not for ownership and the inheritance of past superiority.
Socialism is a more softer form of Communism, which is no more than Christianity minus the authority of a divine entity (God).
In its place the State is raised as the supreme authority.
The "believer" turns to a "party member" and "sin" is converted to "criminality" or disloyalty to the party.

In more recent times and because of the indoctrination, brain-washing, institutionalization, education, caused by the Cold War, the communist ideals either revert back to their origins in Religion or they take-on new monikers, like: New age, or Modernity, or Democracy or Venus Project, or Humanism or Liberalism or Feminism or Egalitarianism.

It all amounts to the same uniforming shit and it all proposes an anti-nature, nihilism with a twist.
The "twist" consists in that it proposes annihilation, leveling, but consciousness is retained...reflecting the christian doctrine which proposes death with an after-life to make it more digestible.

[ForgedinHell]

The only "problem" with socialism is that it is meant to "correct" the usual natural selection process, which capitalism would reflect so precisely if it were not for ownership and the inheritance of past superiority.
Socialism is a more softer form of Communism, which is no more than Christianity minus the authority of a divine entity (God).
In its place the State is raised as the supreme authority.
The "believer" turns to a "party member" and "sin" is converted to "criminality" or disloyalty to the party.

In more recent times and because of the indoctrination, brain-washing, institutionalization, education, caused by the Cold War, the communist ideals either revert back to their origins in Religion or they take-on new monikers, like: New age, or Modernity, or Democracy or Venus Project, or Humanism or Liberalism or Feminism or Egalitarianism.

It all amounts to the same uniforming shit and it all proposes an anti-nature, nihilism with a twist.
The "twist" consists in that it proposes annihilation, leveling, but consciousness is retained...reflecting the christian doctrine which proposes death with an after-life to make it more digestible.

'Anti-nature"? You are confused. You are starting to remind me of bob evenson, the insane one.

[Satyr]

Whatever works for you, turd.

[Notvacka]

The only "problem" with socialism is that it is meant to "correct" the usual natural selection process, which capitalism would reflect so precisely if it were not for ownership and the inheritance of past superiority.
Socialism is a more softer form of Communism, which is no more than Christianity minus the authority of a divine entity (God).
In its place the State is raised as the supreme authority.
The "believer" turns to a "party member" and "sin" is converted to "criminality" or disloyalty to the party.

In more recent times and because of the indoctrination, brain-washing, institutionalization, education, caused by the Cold War, the communist ideals either revert back to their origins in Religion or they take-on new monikers, like: New age, or Modernity, or Democracy or Venus Project, or Humanism or Liberalism or Feminism or Egalitarianism.

It all amounts to the same uniforming shit and it all proposes an anti-nature, nihilism with a twist.
The "twist" consists in that it proposes annihilation, leveling, but consciousness is retained...reflecting the christian doctrine which proposes death with an after-life to make it more digestible.

'Anti-nature"? You are confused.

Surprisingly, I agree with you, just a tiny bit, hellforged one, in that there is something confusing about Satyr's notion of "nature". Nature encompasses all that we are, and it can't be "corrected", though it's in our human nature to try.

Having said that, I would like to point out that if you disregard the often relentless stream of insults pouring out of Satyr, it's perfectly possible to engage in an actual discussion about real issues with him. He has a standpoint as well as a viewpoint. I don't care for it, but he has one. You, on the other hand, have yet to define where you stand. I noticed that you didn't answer my latest post in your thread "Socialists are egomaniacs without a clue" so I repeat it here:

No, because the statement "no one owns me" means that the person has no right to assert anything on his own behalf.

How do you come to that conclusion? It sounds like nonsense to me. Just like ownership implies two separate entities, speaking on someboy's behalf implies that you are speaking for somebody else. I am me. I don't need to "own" me to speak for me.

If the real meaning of the statement is "no one owns me, but me," then it would be okay.

As far as I'm concerned there is no difference between the statements "no one owns me" and "no one owns me, but me" because the addition of "but me" makes no sense.

How can you jump to owning what you produce if you don't own yourself first?

Because if you work, it's you who do the work. How hard can it be?

A slave owner owns the wealth created by the slave.

Only if you acknowledge the ownership, the right to own another person in the first place.

A landlord owns the rents from people living on his property.

Only if you acknowledge the ownership, the right to own land in the first place.

A musician gets money from the sales of his song because he is the owner of the song.

Only if you acknowledge the ownership, the right to own an idea in the first place.

What justifies the recipient receiving the wealth in every case is the person owns the property creating the wealth. Therefore, applying the same principle to a person, the person owns himself, which is why the person owns the fruits of his labor.

You don't seem to realise that ownership is a much weaker bond. The slave owner, the landlord and the musician can claim ownership, a bond that binds the slave, the land and the song to them respectively. This bond is artificial and exists only as long as others acknowledge it. The bond can be severed and what is owned removed from them. A person has no use for self-ownership, an artificial bond, because he is himself and can't be removed from himself.

[John]

Why do people think they can get away with statements like "Nazism is a form of socialism. In fact, the term Nazi stands for the National Socialist German Workers' Party" when no one thinks they can get away with saying "North Korea is a democratic country. In fact, the full name of the country is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea"?

I'm sorry, John, but you also fail to understand what Williams is saying. It doesn't matter whether you call yourself a communist, fascist or socialist; you all believe in your heart of hearts in the primacy of the state over individual rights. As Williams asks, are we headed toward greater liberty or more government control over our lives? Europe has already lost that battle, and unfortunately the U.S. is not that far behind.

I believe I do understand what he's saying because there's nothing complicated in his writing. There's also nothing new in it. What I don't appreciate is his assertions that socialism can be extrapolated to Nazism on the basis that Nazi was a short form for National Socialist. If he really wants the make that argument then he needs to do it in a more rigorous way because it means no more than saying Korea is democratic because they have the word in their full name of the country.

The whole essay is lazy, as many polemics are, because he knows the audience he's preaching to doesn't need anything proven to them as they've already decided that "government = bad" and "freedom = good". Throw in a weakly substantiated association with Nazis and fervour is duly whipped.

For Williams there are no shades of grey and the argument is presented as being a choice between individual freedom and the complete surrender of individual rights to the state rather than about finding the right balance. Williams knows that it's about balance but he dishonestly presents the argument as being a stark choice between one or the other because it suits his agenda. He's happy to write about creeping state authority leading to Nazism but he shies away from the experience of Somalia where there is no effective state. Is that what he's proposing? Of course he isn't. He knows it's about balance but apparently he has no tolerance for any position other than his own.

[ForgedinHell]

Why do people think they can get away with statements like "Nazism is a form of socialism. In fact, the term Nazi stands for the National Socialist German Workers' Party" when no one thinks they can get away with saying "North Korea is a democratic country. In fact, the full name of the country is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea"?

I'm sorry, John, but you also fail to understand what Williams is saying. It doesn't matter whether you call yourself a communist, fascist or socialist; you all believe in your heart of hearts in the primacy of the state over individual rights. As Williams asks, are we headed toward greater liberty or more government control over our lives? Europe has already lost that battle, and unfortunately the U.S. is not that far behind.

I believe I do understand what he's saying because there's nothing complicated in his writing. There's also nothing new in it. What I don't appreciate is his assertions that socialism can be extrapolated to Nazism on the basis that Nazi was a short form for National Socialist. If he really wants the make that argument then he needs to do it in a more rigorous way because it means no more than saying Korea is democratic because they have the word in their full name of the country.

The whole essay is lazy, as many polemics are, because he knows the audience he's preaching to doesn't need anything proven to them as they've already decided that "government = bad" and "freedom = good". Throw in a weakly substantiated association with Nazis and fervour is duly whipped.

For Williams there are no shades of grey and the argument is presented as being a choice between individual freedom and the complete surrender of individual rights to the state rather than about finding the right balance. Williams knows that it's about balance but he dishonestly presents the argument as being a stark choice between one or the other because it suits his agenda. He's happy to write about creeping state authority leading to Nazism but he shies away from the experience of Somalia where there is no effective state. Is that what he's proposing? Of course he isn't. He knows it's about balance but apparently he has no tolerance for any position other than his own.

Well, actually, I was thinking Bob Evenson was going to shine up his Hitler blow-up doll for the weekend as he takes it from the rear. I'm not so sure Evenson isn't in love with the fascist ideal. But, Hitler was a socialist, and here is the problem in denying that he was: The danger presents itself of a repeat performance.

[John]

But, Hitler was a socialist, and here is the problem in denying that he was: The danger presents itself of a repeat performance.

Hitler took elements from many ideologies but I would dispute that he was a socialist and he certainly hated communists.

It's a bit rich that anyone that tries to defend any form of welfare programmes is called a socialist by the same conservatives who also claim that Hitler was a socialist even though his welfare programmes primarily consisted of murdering the helpless.

You're entitled to believe that Hitler was a socialist but it'll take a bit more than your word for everyone to believe it.