- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 96,116
- Reaction score
- 33,462
- Location
- SE Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
You just did exactly what I pointed out was invalid logic: use different source for different definitions rather than the same source for both. That's called "cherry picking" and it is invalid logic. Your argument has no merit because of it.
You didn't even use a dictionary for one of the definitions, but instead used a court case as though that's not an utterly asinine way to get a definition for a word.
Seriously, your argument can only have the effect of increasing people's ignorance.
Its moreover about the economics of socialism (and besides they were communist anyway)
Has there even been a purely socialist state? No. So there cannot be a failed socialist state in that terms.
lets have a try at this again.:
America boldly proclaimed at its birth that natural rights were endowed by man’s very nature – and that individuals are incapable of relinquishing them. Because these rights are endowed in people from Nature’s God, they are inherent in each individual and cannot be abandoned – in other words, such rights are unalienable.
The definition of "unalienable rights," is those rights that cannot be surrendered, sold or transferred to someone else - the government, for example, or another person. Some people refer to these as "natural" or "God-given" rights (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness).
"Nothing... is unchangeable but the inherent and (unalienable rights) of man." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:48
In contrast, "inalienable rights" are those rights that can only be transferred with the .......(consent of the person) possessing those rights, such as an indentured servant.
Alienable Inalienable Unalienable
Isn't that what you are looking for? failed socialist states?
You do understand that nowadays, there are only 4 socialist and or communist states in the world remaining.
1. Republic of Laos.
2. China.
3. Cuba
4. N. Korea.
Those that failed were everything that the USSR had influenced. Outside the eastern block you had the asian communist countries like afghanistan and in africa you had a few countries, the most important one being ethiopia.
So.. I don't understand what more evidence you need? I mean, what is the point?
I'm not looking for anything. I didn't start this thread.
My point was that the OP doesn't want to include those because it goes against the answer he's looking for.
I'm not looking for anything. I didn't start this thread.
My point was that the OP doesn't want to include those because it goes against the answer he's looking for.
Just because a country says it's socialist doesn't actually mean that it is. North Korea being the easiest example. North Korea, while calling itself socialist, doesn't actually do anything in line with socialist principles. It is a fascist, military dictatorship. It is the exact type of society that socialism exists to oppose. The same was true of the Stalin-era USSR. The trampling of personal rights and the extreme concentration of power are completely antithetical to socialist ideals. Just as the Democratic Republic of Congo is neither democratic nor a republic, neither is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (aka North Korea) democratic or a republic, nor is it owned or operated by or for the benefit of the people.
The reason that those nations were excluded in the OP is because, despite their nomenclature, they are not examples of states that embrace socialist ideals.
I don't think the OP said a Purely, socialist state...
Why can't those countries be included?
Because the USSR/Eastern European states were state capitalist & N.Korea is Juche.
The nearest we have come to true socialism in my opinion, was anarchist Spain during the civil war. This collapsed due to defeat by Franco & attacks from Stalinist communists.
There you go... separating out the "bad" socialist countries from the ideal utopia that communism promised to bring.
I don't think the OP said a Purely, socialist state...
I was told that the path to communism is through socialism.
america was created with 1 direct and two indirect votes, that does not make democracy.
FEDERALIST PAPER #39 – Conformity of the Plan to ..........Republican Principles
please if you will produce a document by the (founders) which states we have representative democracy.
because John Adams says we don't!
It's not a case of separating "bad" socialist countries. The USSR economy was run along state capitalist principles.
Lenin wrote:
"The state capitalism, which is one of the principal aspects of the New Economic Policy, is, under Soviet power, a form of capitalism that is deliberately permitted and restricted by the working class. Our state capitalism differs essentially from the state capitalism in countries that have bourgeois governments in that the state with us is represented not by the bourgeoisie, but by the proletariat, who has succeeded in winning the full confidence of the peasantry."
Well if it's worth anything, Jefferson named his political party the "Democratic-Republican Party"
yes i do know that.
the premise is simple, the founders did not put power in only the peoples hands directly, because one person, a few, or even the people themselves can become corrupt.
to prevent that corruption of power, it was put into 3 sets of hands, and that is not popular government/ democracy.
Has there even been a purely socialist state? No. So there cannot be a failed socialist state in that terms.
Dude.
State capitalism is socialism and communism even though it says capitalism. Why? Because what is considered "private sector" is owned by the government. That is what socialism is. That is what the means of production in the hands of the people mean. That the government owns industry. There was no real private sector in the communist countries and that makes them socialist!
Let's try this again:
Inalienable and unalienable have identical meanings. This has been PROVEN by showing that they have identical meanings in current dictionaries and in old dictionaries as well.
In order to make the utterly absurd argument that you present, you MUST rely on fallacy by REJECTING any legitimate definitions of inalienable found in DICTIONARIES and instead rely entirely on what is clearly a misuse of the term in a court case.
Rather than using the same source you use to define unalienable, you chose instead theleast logical route instead. Why do you do this? The answer is that your argument fails miserably when valid logic and consistent, legitmate sources are used.
I understand that, for some complete irrational and utterly incomprehensible reason, you WANT inalianble to mean something other than the exact same thing as unalienable, but unfortunately, reality cares naught for your desires. The mean precicely the same thing, as one of your own links so eloquently put it.
"The Path to" I wanted the States that hadn't gone down the path of Communism but stopped and sat down at the socialist roadside.
Sorry but you're wrong, although I can understand why you would think that.
Socialism is social ownership of the means of production where goods & services are produced directly for use instead of profit
State capitalism is run on capitalist principles, i.e. on a for profit basis, where the state has taken the role of the factory owner.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?