what type of conservative are you?

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

God Dammit socialist, post Marx so I can prove that all that you base your beliefs on are a lie. Post the manifesto it's public domain post it!

 

[Comrade Brian]

1. The communist manifesto is public domain and not subject to copyright you won't get in trouble.

2. Then bring that **** I got the cure for the socialist disease.

3. I'll post the constitution and the decleration of independence those too are outlines also and you won't be able touch them and I'll shread Marx.

As I said, Its far too long, and will end up using many posts.

But here is a link:http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm

I myself do prefer to read The Principle of Communism by Frederick Engels in 1847, which was the preceded The Communist Manifesto, and was the earlier draft for it. Its great for a FAQ:http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

If he posts it, I'll delete it, that **** is WAY too long.

Dude, just go to your local library, take notes on all of the flaws, and come back here and post them, that'd be alright, but there's not a chance in hell the entire communist manifesto's gonnna get posted here!

It's really not that long have you read it? It would only take up like two pages if that and it's easy to disect and destroy through fact over fiction.

See look it's the short ramblings of an economist hack:

http://www.bibliomania.com/2/1/261/2448/frameset.html

 

[Comrade Brian]

If he posts it, I'll delete it, that **** is WAY too long.

Which is what I said.

Dude, just go to your local library, take notes on all of the flaws, and come back here and post them, that'd be alright, but there's not a chance in hell the entire communist manifesto's gonnna get posted here!

He could just use the link, copy and paste small parts, he has questions on. The only Work of either Marx or Engels in my public library is: Capital Vol. 1 Capital Vol. 2 Capital Vol. 3 The Conditions of the Working Class in England of 1844, missing Vol. 4 of Capital but its really just notes.

 

[Comrade Brian]

Trajan, maybe you could just critique ALL of Marx and Engels works here:http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/cw/index.htm :lol:

And that's still not all of it, those two must have spent a fortune on paper.:lol:

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Which is what I said.

He could just use the link, copy and paste small parts, he has questions on. The only Work of either Marx or Engels in my public library is: Capital Vol. 1 Capital Vol. 2 Capital Vol. 3 The Conditions of the Working Class in England of 1844, missing Vol. 4 of Capital but its really just notes.

O.K. fine I will let's start with the very precept of all socialist thought:

From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.

To each according to his needs? Sounds good right everyone gets what they want right? In theory maybe but in practice? Hell no! It takes away from those most productive members of society and gives it to those without the ability or the incentive to work for what they get so that the society will eventually become one in which no one is willing to work hard because hard work under a socialist society will have no relevance or impact as to the success that can be achieved through hard work, self determination, and individualism, so that the hard workers revert to lazy workers because there is no incentive for them to work hard and thus all of the citizens, over time, devolve into the lowest common denominator thus reducing the entire nation into an unproductive, unsucessful, and unhealthy society, with neither the ability to sustain the governed or the government eg the Soviet Union.

 

[Comrade Brian]

From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. - Karl Marx

Actually you're already wrong there, the one who came up with that was Louis Blanc, in the 1848 European Year of Revolutions, Marx merely borrowed it, and used it.

To each according to his needs? Sounds good right everyone gets what they want right?

You've already misinterpreted it, not want, need, also private property and possesions will have been abolished except that of which is immediate need.

It takes away from those most productive members of society and gives it to those without the ability or the incentive to work

No, if one does not work one will not recieve as many benifits and will therefore have more incentives to work. I'm not saying starve the person or torture him till he works, but over time he'll probably work, and will therefore recieve equal benifits to those who already were working, if one stops working, benifits will be cut. And for those without ability, if physically unable try mental work, if mentally unable, try physical work, if not at all, they should still recieve according to need, an exception. Or do you think we defend this policy fundamentally, and to the death?

what they get so that the society will eventually become one in which no one is willing to work hard

One would not even work hard under communism, capitalism is best system for production. But much of this production is unneeded, e.g. advirtisement, jewellery, etc. etc. And also in capitalism wealth is hoarded into the hands of a few people, not only that, but they are idlers, they don't work, they just buy labor, and sell the material made by labor. Also, since almost everybody works, less labor is needed by each person, as in capitalism the wealthy don't work, and many poor don't(which is many reasons why they're poor) But also in communism the division of labor will have been abolished, one will do one task one day, tommorrow another sort of task, a fisherman one day, a farmer the next.

because hard work under a socialist society will have no relevance or impact as to the success that can be achieved through hard work so that the hard workers revert to lazy workers because there is no incentive for them to work hard and thus the all of the citizens over time, devolve into the lowest common denominator thus reducing the entire nation into an unproductive, unsucessful, and unhealthy society,

Explained through above.

with neither the ability to sustain the governed or the government eg the Soviet Union.

The USSR was a state-controlled society, it wasn't genuine socialism or communism or a worker's state. Communism has no state. Socialism's is dying away.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Actually you're already wrong there, the one who came up with that was Louis Blanc, in the 1848 European Year of Revolutions, Marx merely borrowed it, and used it.

Well good for that then Blanc was an asshole too.

You've already misinterpreted it, not want, need, also private property and possesions will have been abolished except that of which is immediate need.

Yes private property would be abolished ask yourself is that a good thing that the state can just arbitrarially come and take your land whenever it wants because they deem it for the public good?

No, if one does not work one will not recieve as many benifits and will therefore have more incentives to work. I'm not saying starve the person or torture him till he works, but over time he'll probably work, and will therefore recieve equal benifits to those who already were working, if one stops working, benifits will be cut. And for those without ability, if physically unable try mental work, if mentally unable, try physical work, if not at all, they should still recieve according to need, an exception. Or do you think we defend this policy fundamentally, and to the death?

And who is to decide who it is that will or will not recieve those benefits the only institution that could possibly accomplish such a task would be the state itself and thus creating the perpetual and continuous need for the state to decide who gets what and when.

One would not even work hard under communism, capitalism is best system for production. But much of this production is unneeded, e.g. advirtisement, jewellery, etc. etc. And also in capitalism wealth is hoarded into the hands of a few people, not only that, but they are idlers, they don't work, they just buy labor, and sell the material made by labor. Also, since almost everybody works, less labor is needed by each person, as in capitalism the wealthy don't work, and many poor don't(which is many reasons why they're poor) But also in communism the division of labor will have been abolished, one will do one task one day, tommorrow another sort of task, a fisherman one day, a farmer the next.

Exactly, no one would work hard, production growth is necessary, without growth economies and nations die. Without increased food production the continuously growing population would soon starve to death in the matter of a few generations. And as for all people working you are forgetting the monstrous buraucracy that is necessary to maintain the state control over the populace to insure who gets what and when and it is this buracucracy that overtime will come to dwarf that of the Proletariat workers and which will create a disparity between what is needed and the needs.

Explained through above.

Not explained at all it's simply a faulty economic theory that sounds good on paper but doesn't work at all in real life.

The USSR was a state-controlled society, it wasn't genuine socialism or communism or a worker's state. Communism has no state. Socialism's is dying away.

With out the state even the basic principles of communism are totally impossible as I explained above the true goal of Capitalism is to if not eliminate the state then to restrict it to very limited functions; such as, securtiy and defense.

 

[Comrade Brian]

Well good for that then Blanc was an asshole too.

So are you

Yes private property would be abolished ask yourself is that a good thing

Yes, I think its a good thing.

that the state can just arbitrarially come and take your land whenever it wants because they deem it for the public good?

In communism, one does not own land, it is already in public hands. Also the state doesn't exist in its today's institutions. But however, the US Govt. does that, and sometimes for private use for corporations. Is that good?

And who is to decide who it is that will or will not recieve those benefits

Society. The material produced, will be collected in a local area, and then distributed according to need among the local populace. Ones who do not work shall not recieve as many benifits and goods.

the only institution that could possibly accomplish such a task would be the state itself and thus creating the perpetual and continuous need for the state to decide who gets what and when.

No society is a better institution.

Exactly, no one would work hard, production growth is necessary, without growth economies and nations die

As I said, no one will work hard, but almost all will work some to get what is needed to be done. That's why capitalism is best for industrialisation. Huge production, but as said much is uneeded and also technology will have increased by then.

Without increased food production the continuously growing population would soon starve to death in the matter of a few generations

As said before, one works to meet society's need, if more food is needed then all work a bit more to meet the needs.

And as for all people working you are forgetting the monstrous buraucracy that is necessary to maintain the state control over the populace

Communism is stateless. No bureaucracy, it has a habit of doing terrible things.

that overtime will come to dwarf that of the Proletariat workers and which will create a disparity between what is needed and the needs.

Proletariat is strictly exists in capitalism. In socialism more will be pubicly own, and thus turns them into a new class, which will be abolished in the socialist stage. And again no state.

Not explained at all it's simply a faulty economic theory that sounds good on paper but doesn't work at all in real life.

So does capitalism, capitalism sounds good, owning private property, wealth, and all. But what about the loads of impovershed, unemployed and such underr capitalism. I know for a fact capitalism won't survive, as technology increases more will be laid off as unneeded. Now this in effect might trigger a revolution or something. If not by then, just wait until the capitalist automates all production, what happens to workers? Wealth in capitalism is more and more concentrated, what happens if one person owns all?

With out the state even the basic principles of communism are totally impossible as I explained above

With many faults you had.

the true goal of Capitalism is to if not eliminate the state then to restrict it to very limited functions; such as, securtiy and defense.

Both those can be provided without the state. E.g. militias, etc. etc.

Like what you did with my name, wish I could change it...

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

I think you got some **** backwards the Libertarians are so conservative that they're reactionary to the liberal tendencies of the Neo-Cons and modern Republicans with a big R not a small r.

No. That some so-called "conservative" ideas are actually right doesn't mean the philosophy that makes them legitimate is "conservative". So-called "liberals" (a term as sloppy and vacant as "conservative" also have the one or two right idea. They just don't know why becuase like "conservatives" they can't state a guiding central principle.

Only libertarians can derive their philosophy from logical first principles.

 

[Middleground]

Lables totally suck.

Me, I look at each issue with an open mind, educate myself as much as possible, weight the pros and cons of each side, and come to a conclusion (a conclusion that might change over the course of time... depending on new information).

I believe if one takes a side, he/she will most likely develop a bias that will override common sense and an open mind.

No thanks, I did not vote.

 

[LaMidRighter]

I usually look to the situation to decide the path. That being said, I am very conservative economically, I am a constitutionalist, so basically I am not liberal or conservative socially, I personally don't care what people do with their lives as long as it doesn't effect my life or the country's well being. I guess you could say my debate name says it all, mid-right, semi-libertarian.

 

[Kandahar]

In communism, one does not own land, it is already in public hands. Also the state doesn't exist in its today's institutions. But however, the US Govt. does that, and sometimes for private use for corporations. Is that good?

No it's not good. It's a terrible idea. And the state doesn't exist under communism? You're funny.

Society. The material produced, will be collected in a local area, and then distributed according to need among the local populace. Ones who do not work shall not recieve as many benifits and goods.

Then it's not Marxism/communism.

Who decides whether or not someone is "working" to qualify for these benefits, if the state doesn't exist?

No society is a better institution.

What does that mean? Please explain the distinction between "society" and "government" in this context. How will "society" decide anything? Put it up for a vote? Have a council decide? Have the village elders decide? Have the strongest local thug decide? If it's any of those things, you're just talking about government.

As I said, no one will work hard, but almost all will work some to get what is needed to be done. That's why capitalism is best for industrialisation. Huge production, but as said much is uneeded and also technology will have increased by then.

Technology won't increase at all under communism, because there's no incentive for people to invest in R&D and product testing if they won't realize any profit from it.

And who are you to decide what work "needs to be done"? If an employer/client is willing to pay an employee/professional to do some kind of work, obviously the employer/client thinks that the work "needs" to be done. To tell him otherwise is to simply stick your nose where it does not belong.

As said before, one works to meet society's need, if more food is needed then all work a bit more to meet the needs.

Yeah, that's been tried in Zimbabwe, and the result was quite possibly the most spectacular famine and societal collapse of the last 15 years.

If everyone worked harder, perhaps it would increase food production. But why would everyone work harder when their individual contribution would make a minimal difference in food production? If I'm getting by on 1,000 calories per day in a society where people's individual contributions are not valued, why should I work my ass off to increase the amount I'm able to eat to 1,001 calories per day?

Communism is stateless. No bureaucracy, it has a habit of doing terrible things.

Bullshit. There is simply no way to redistribute wealth on this scale without a leviathan government.

Proletariat is strictly exists in capitalism. In socialism more will be pubicly own, and thus turns them into a new class, which will be abolished in the socialist stage. And again no state.

So even you acknowledge that this "socialist stage" requires a huge government with everything being publicly owned. What makes you think that the leaders of this government would ever have any intention of giving up their power to go to this stateless utopia? It's no coincidence that every single communist country has become a totalitarian dictatorship almost immediately.

So does capitalism, capitalism sounds good, owning private property, wealth, and all. But what about the loads of impovershed, unemployed and such underr capitalism.

I want you to compare the poverty in Hong Kong with the poverty in China. I want you to compare the poverty in South Korea with the poverty in North Korea. I want you to compare the poverty in Miami with the poverty in Havana. I want you to compare the poverty in Chile with the poverty in Venezuela. I want you to compare the poverty in the old-school NATO countries with the poverty in the former Warsaw Pact countries.

Now then, is free-market capitalism the system that produces poverty?

I know for a fact capitalism won't survive, as technology increases more will be laid off as unneeded.

Technology does lay off some people, but so what? Technology also reduces the cost of our basic necessities and improves the quality of life, and technology only progresses through capitalism.

Luddites are nearly as laughable as communists...

Now this in effect might trigger a revolution or something.

Marx said this over a hundred years ago. We're still waiting.

If not by then, just wait until the capitalist automates all production, what happens to workers?

By the time that happens, the cost of food, shelter, education, medicine, and clothing will have dropped to nearly zero. So people will have a lot more time to do whatever they want, including work for themselves in whatever field interests them.

Wealth in capitalism is more and more concentrated, what happens if one person owns all?

Then it's not capitalism, it's monopolistic feudalism.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Marx merely borrowed it, and used it.

Good enough, he parroted it, he must believe if.

Who gets to define "need"? Voila, either instant anarchy because the individual does, or instant totalitarianism because the individual isn't allowed to. Either way, socialism's basic precept is immoral and impractical.

Socialism's is dying away.

Ain't it great?

 

[Comrade Brian]

No it's not good. It's a terrible idea.

It may be terrible to you, but not to me.

And the state doesn't exist under communism? You're funny

I like to think of myself as funny but I'm not joking.
While the State exists there can be no freedom; when there is freedom there will be no State." - Lenin The State and Revolution
"Under socialism all will govern in turn and will soon become accustomed to no one governing." -Lenin
“When, together with class domination and the struggle for individual existence created by the present anarchy in production, those conflicts and excesses which result from this struggle disappear, from that time on there will be nothing to suppress, and there will be no need for a special instrument of suppression, the state.”-Engels Anti-Duhring
“The proletariat needs a state—this all the opportunists can tell you," wrote Lenin in 1917, two months before the seizure of power, "but they, the opportunists, forget to add that the proletariat needs only a dying state—that is, a state constructed in such a way that it immediately begins to die away and cannot help dying away."- Lenin The State and Revolution
"Then the door will be thrown wide open for the transition from the first phase of communist society [Socialism] to its higher phase [Communism], and with it the complete withering away of the state. -Lenin

Just if You need evidence of something along the lines, but there is more to things than just out-of-context quotes.

Then it's not Marxism/communism.

Why not? And also Marxism is only the the theory of it, its not a society.

Who decides whether or not someone is "working" to qualify for these benefits, if the state doesn't exist?

People

Please explain the distinction between "society" and "government" in this context.

To put in simplistic form, society is given restrictions of many things by the govt., can't do this can't want that, so a distinction is that one is suppresed by the other, but also the other supresses the other.

Technology won't increase at all under communism, because there's no incentive for people to invest in R&D and product testing if they won't realize any profit from it.

Technology will increase, the incentive is fairly simple. If one invents something all society benifits, and therefore they would benifit too.

And who are you to decide what work "needs to be done"?

A planned economy, do not confuse this with state-planning. Communism should ahere to a common plan, most likely devised locally, but also for larger areas if needed.

But why would everyone work harder when their individual contribution would make a minimal difference in food production?

As said before, if you don't work some of your benifits will have been dropped.

Bullshit. There is simply no way to redistribute wealth on this scale without a leviathan government.

Wealth will have been redistributed in socialism, where there is a state, but it is quite possible to do many things without a state, probably more.

So even you acknowledge that this "socialist stage" requires a huge government with everything being publicly owned

Socialism in general, will not have a very powerful one, but it shall provide some guidance, or more like society will guide it. Socialism is the transormation into a communist society, it will at start operate like capitalism and at the end will operate more like communism, at first mainly a combination of state and private property, at the and manly public property with some state-ownership, and also the socialist period will most likely exist for about 100 yrs of transformation of capitalism to communism, unless it degenerates back to capitalism.

What makes you think that the leaders of this government would ever have any intention of giving up their power to go to this stateless utopia?

It will more likely "whither away" than be abolished. And communism isn't a utopia, utopia's def. is nowhere. So in a sense if we were living under communism, it wouldn't be a utopia. Also communism will have problems, but not entirly the same that have arisen in capitalism. New problems.

It's no coincidence that every single communist country has become a totalitarian dictatorship almost immediately.

Technically there never has been communism, and "communist state" is a bit conflicting.

I want you to compare the poverty in Hong Kong with the poverty in China

Isn't Hong Kong a part of China?

I want you to compare the poverty in South Korea with the poverty in North Korea.

Well, N. Korea is under quite a brutal dictatorship.

I want you to compare the poverty in Miami with the poverty in Havana

Well, as such, Cuba is a former-US territory, and after it was realesed it was still pretty much a US-puppet govt. Under Castro Cuba has fared better than it should have. Comparing they were blockaded by the US and can't trade with it. Cuba is actually one of the better Latin American countries on the issue of distribution, poverty and repression of govt. E.g. the USSR sold Cuba oil below the cost of production, and bought Cuban sugar at high-above market prices. And actually it was noted to say that Castro actually didn't want nukes in his country. But you were trying to compare the wealthiest country in the world to a rather poor one, it is natural for the wealthier one to say, suck up wealth in other countires.

I want you to compare the poverty in the old-school NATO countries with the poverty in the former Warsaw Pact countries.

How they are today? Or were under the Stalinist governments? Should you include Albania which later left?

Now then, is free-market capitalism the system that produces poverty?

Not a lone system, but a system.

Technology does lay off some people, but so what?

So would you just shrug your shoulders if you had just been laid off, and lost all your income?

Technology also reduces the cost of our basic necessities and improves the quality of life

Still, you would have to afford, what if you had no income, and were literaly a beggar on the street, or had no income?

and technology only progresses through capitalism.

Oh really? I didn't think the spear had been invented under capitalism, or the wheel, or chariot, or the artificial satellite.

Luddites are nearly as laughable as communists...

At least we don't want to destroy machines to react to capitalism.

Marx said this over a hundred years ago. We're still waiting.

Its triggered many. Now none in the long run have been entirly successful, as most of the more successful ones were supressed, and the less successful ones fell apart.

By the time that happens, the cost of food, shelter, education, medicine, and clothing will have dropped to nearly zero

Maybe the 1,000,000,000+ living on less than a dollar a day might get some food.

So people will have a lot more time to do whatever they want, including work for themselves in whatever field interests them.

As I said everything is done by machines, so, what work?

Then it's not capitalism, it's monopolistic feudalism.

So are you saying we're currently living under fuedalism?

Either way, socialism's basic precept is immoral and impractical.

How?

 

[Kandahar]

People

There's that ambiguous equivocation again. "People" will decide things under your economic system, not the "government." They are one and the same in this context! How the hell will "people" decide ANYTHING if there's no forum to vote, with clearly defined rules?

Just saying "the people will decide" doesn't explain a damn thing, unless you also explain exactly HOW they will decide and where this legitimacy comes from.

To put in simplistic form, society is given restrictions of many things by the govt., can't do this can't want that, so a distinction is that one is suppresed by the other, but also the other supresses the other.

In other contexts, this may be correct. But saying "society will decide" or "people will decide" is no different than saying the "government will decide."

Technology will increase, the incentive is fairly simple. If one invents something all society benifits, and therefore they would benifit too.

That's not how economics works. If Acme Technological Progress has 1,000 workers, then it's benefitting society a certain amount. Now if *I* join Acme Technological Progress too, the benefit to society (and therefore myself) will be only 0.1% greater. This doesn't even come close to the benefit to myself of having much more free time every day.

You assume that someone will do everything just because it "needs" to be done. Why would anyone clean **** out of the sewers, when they can kick back with a beer and watch TV? Even if no one is doing the job and the city is filthy, the marginal benefit to myself of helping society is much less than the marginal cost of having to do the job in the first place.

A planned economy, do not confuse this with state-planning. Communism should ahere to a common plan, most likely devised locally, but also for larger areas if needed.

Then you're talking about government. You can avoid that word all you want, but "devised locally, but also for larger areas if needed" shows EXACTLY what you're talking about.

As said before, if you don't work some of your benifits will have been dropped.

Right, because "the people" (but not government) will decide whether or not someone is working hard enough. Will there be some kind of rule to figure this out (but not a "law," of course) or will you have to assemble every single person in the community to vote on whether or not each person has contributed enough?

Isn't Hong Kong a part of China?

Compare Hong Kong to China proper.

Well, N. Korea is under quite a brutal dictatorship.

Brutal dictatorships don't have nearly as much impact on the economy as the economic system does. Augusto Pinochet was a brutal dictator, yet made Chile the wealthiest country in South America. The reason North Korea is so poor and South Korea is so rich, despite their similar culture and history, is that the former has a planned economy and the latter has a free market.

Comparing they were blockaded by the US and can't trade with it.

So you're pro-free-trade? Certainly odd for a communist.

Cuba is actually one of the better Latin American countries on the issue of distribution, poverty

Yes, everyone is about equally poor.

and repression of govt.

You're joking right? Cuba is hands-down the most repressive government in the Western Hemisphere. Period.

E.g. the USSR sold Cuba oil below the cost of production, and bought Cuban sugar at high-above market prices.

And the USSR collapsed, in large part, because of its financial mess. Obviously a little country like Cuba didn't have much impact on that, but it was partially trade policies like this that bankrupted the USSR.

And actually it was noted to say that Castro actually didn't want nukes in his country.

Irrelevant.

But you were trying to compare the wealthiest country in the world to a rather poor one, it is natural for the wealthier one to say, suck up wealth in other countires.

That analogy is crude, I'll agree. Mainly because there weren't any capitalist countries with similar culture, geography, and history of Cuba. Use the other comparisons if you will.

How they are today?

Compare the standard of living in capitalist Western Europe with the standard of living in communist Eastern Europe. This should be a strong indication of which system produced more poverty.

Now fast forward twenty years. Eastern Europe is among the most free-market-oriented regions of the world, and its economy is booming.

So would you just shrug your shoulders if you had just been laid off, and lost all your income?

No. I'd stop being a victim, not blame the government, and find another job.

Still, you would have to afford, what if you had no income, and were literaly a beggar on the street, or had no income?

Then I'd get some income.

Oh really? I didn't think the spear had been invented under capitalism, or the wheel,

And it took thousands of years for technology to invent just those things. Compare that with capitalist countries today, where there are millions of things invented every year.

or chariot,

Actually it was.

or the artificial satellite.

Literally the only thing invented by communists in their entire history...and even here, much of the know-how was stolen from capitalist countries.

At least we don't want to destroy machines to react to capitalism.

That's good. Keep in that frame of mind.

Its triggered many. Now none in the long run have been entirly successful, as most of the more successful ones were supressed, and the less successful ones fell apart.

Marx was WRONG because soon after he wrote those words, capitalism helped usher in the middle-class in virtually all countries that embraced it. Russia was never really free, and so didn't have much of a middle-class to begin with.

Maybe the 1,000,000,000+ living on less than a dollar a day might get some food.

Under capitalism, that's a very strong possibility. Under communism, it's almost impossible. Note that after fifty years of self-reliance, North Korea still relies on capitalist nations to feed it.

As I said everything is done by machines, so, what work?

Whatever work you want to do. If you want to debate this more in depth, we can do so on the Science/Technology forum.

So are you saying we're currently living under fuedalism?

No. One person doesn't own everything in the United States.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Either way, socialism's basic precept is immoral and impractical.

How?

Immoral: Because it requires that the life of one person be devoted to the support of the life of another, or many others, without providing the sacrificial victim the choice to decline the honor.

Impractical: Because this is one of the very few things a biblical quote covers. Don't bind the mouths of the kine that treads the grain.

People that don't get rewarded for extra work won't put forth the extra effort, and all effort slumps to the barest minimum.

And no, I'm not a lunatic christian fundamentalist, far from it.

 

[Australianlibertarian]

Oh crap, I always seem to get into these threads a little late, anyway, I see myself as a classical liberal. It really drives me up the wall, that liberal in Australia, and in America, seems to be used to someone that believes in economic collectivism, and moral liberalism. But not liberalism of both equations. I feel like saying, what part of the word "liberal" don't you understand?

Although I would still call myself, a moderate Libertarian/economic conservative.

I believe in state education, as I went through a state education, as that is all my parents could afford. I believe in some degrees of state health care. I know that this sounds socialist, but i believe that equal acess to education and health care, are the tools needed to improve your life.

Although, I believe in free trade. I hate trariffs and subsidies with a passion. I believe that it is morally wrong to have a tax code so complex (here in Australia) that it seems scary. I belive in reduced income taxes, not just for richest income earners, but for EVERYONE.

I believe that MOST of the time, (not all of the time, as some libertarians believe) that the free market can provide a better, more efficient product than government ever will.

I believe IN PERSONAL responsibility, for our actions in life.

Lastly there is nothing conservative about the neo-conservative movement!

The ideal, that your ideology is just and right, and that the use of force to change the world reeks more of Marxist-Communism, not conservatism.

If the Democrates/had supported neo-conservatism, it would be branded as hawkish liberalism. See where I'm coming from?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Oh crap, I always seem to get into these threads a little late, anyway, I see myself as a classical liberal. It really drives me up the wall, that liberal in Australia, and in America, seems to be used to someone that believes in economic collectivism, and moral liberalism. But not liberalism of both equations. I feel like saying, what part of the word "liberal" don't you understand?

Although I would still call myself, a moderate Libertarian/economic conservative.

I believe in state education, as I went through a state education, as that is all my parents could afford. I believe in some degrees of state health care. I know that this sounds socialist, but i believe that equal acess to education and health care, are the tools needed to improve your life.

Although, I believe in free trade. I hate trariffs and subsidies with a passion. I believe that it is morally wrong to have a tax code so complex (here in Australia) that it seems scary. I belive in reduced income taxes, not just for richest income earners, but for EVERYONE.

I believe that MOST of the time, (not all of the time, as some libertarians believe) that the free market can provide a better, more efficient product than government ever will.

I believe IN PERSONAL responsibility, for our actions in life.

Lastly there is nothing conservative about the neo-conservative movement!

The ideal, that your ideology is just and right, and that the use of force to change the world reeks more of Marxist-Communism, not conservatism.

If the Democrates/had supported neo-conservatism, it would be branded as hawkish liberalism. See where I'm coming from?

But you're a foriegner so why would I care what you have to say? :mrgreen:

Dude I'm so kidding you raise a good point what liberal used to mean is not what it means anymore the liberals these days are socialist's there's really no way of denying it, it's simply what happened during the 70's, but hay good to see that some countries haven't gone the route of socialism and actually listened to the Founding Father's of the U.S., Australia's cool just stay the **** out of our way. :mrgreen:

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Not neccisarily. Albeit you have a point in that liberals as a whole are getting to be socialists, they're not neccisarily there yet. Give them a couple of years, cause a lot of them still have some brains.

Name one...................

 

[hipsterdufus]

I didn't vote in the poll but I am a fiscal conservative.

Going from a $230 billion surplus to an $8 trillion debt in 5 years is an outrage.
And the current reverse-robin hood answers to "aid the greedy and hurt the needy is appalling.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

I didn't vote in the poll but I am a fiscal conservative.

Going from a $230 billion surplus to an $8 trillion debt in 5 years is an outrage.
And the current reverse-robin hood answers to "aid the greedy and hurt the needy is appalling.

Umm...sorry, but we never had a surplus if you're going to factor in the national debt. The alleged "surplus" the Republican Congress claimed to have created in the late '90's was a simple "gee we took more taxes in, this year, than we spent, this year" situation. Only the rubes got conned by claims of a "surplus".

Anyone with a brain realized what a government "surplus" means. It means taxes were too high.

That $8,000,000,000,000 national debt has been building up since Ford.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Umm...sorry, but we never had a surplus if you're going to factor in the national debt. The alleged "surplus" the Republican Congress claimed to have created in the late '90's was a simple "gee we took more taxes in, this year, than we spent, this year" situation. Only the rubes got conned by claims of a "surplus".

Anyone with a brain realized what a government "surplus" means. It means taxes were too high.

That $8,000,000,000,000 national debt has been building up since Ford.

First off I love how the Democrats take credit for the Republican congress's "surplus", second off I love the fact that people say the word surplus like it's a good thing, "hay we stole more money off you this year Joe Citizen so much so that we couldn't even spend all of it." It's funny that people are so stupid that they'll let the government screw them out of their money and then ask for seconds. As for the national debt I'll admit it's a problem but it's hardly Bush's problem alone and besides either Bush increases taxes and kills the economy to pay for the wars or he takes out loans from other countries, it's a loose loose situation but I think he made the right move because we can always pay off the debt in the future that is if we don't kill growth in the economy.

Plus I think the whole problem is that people don't understand what the surplus actually is if I understand it correctly it's just the annual operating budget for the federal government, I think it's something like 3 trillion dollars, and if they don't spend it all they claim a surplus if they spend to much they claim a deficit but this is only for the annual operating budget and the surplus has no impact on the debt that had already been incurred, the national debt is the total accumulated amount of money that the nation owes through loans from foriegn powers and the tax payer a debt that still hasn't been payed off even under Clinton the national debt under Clinton was appx 6 trillion dollars so the billion dollar so called surplus wouldn't have even made a dent, Bush has increased the national debt but he's also fighting two wars, has had a national disaster, 9-11 happened etc etc, and all this without dragging the country into a recession.

Here's a couple of links that can explain it a little better:
http://www.federalbudget.com/
http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Yeah I feel much safer when the government spends like they're drunken sailors, and then tries to trick us into thinking someone else will foot the bill by cutting taxes.

So you think Bush should increase taxes and kill the economy to pay for the war? And you ignored the whole point I was trying to make Clinton didn't have a surplus of anything it was the Republican congress and it was only a surplus of money that Clinton stole from the American tax payer that the Reps wouldn't let him redistribute through entitlement programs, "hay good news John Q tax payer I stole so much money that I can't even spend it all wooo hooo!"

 

[George_Washington]

What kind of conservative am I?

I think my views are very similiar to those of our first Secretary of Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, and the old Federalist Party. I favor capitalism, free enterprise, gun rights, military interventionalism, and personal responsibility. But unlike some conservatives and libertarians, I believe in having a socialist system to help the poor and the needy. I also believe in having federal funding of the arts and other things, to a certain extent.