May 1: Remember Communism today.

[wooderson]

I haven't decided jack. I merely said that there are some basic functions of government that are difficult or impossible to "opt out of" when they exist. Education is not one of them, unless we make laws forbidding private education.

If your idea of opting out is to not take part directly ('choosing private education') then far more of us have opted out of the military or police as functions of government.

If you say that we cannot opt out of defense because we benefit from it by its very existence, again, then it's equally impossible to opt out of the benefits of education.

And a privatized police or military is just as theoretically feasible as a privatized educational system, so that, too is a wash. I daresay you'll find some THRers who would support precisely that.

Corporations have many special rules that only apply to them, not to individuals. So while corporations are "individuals" in one legal sense, they are not equivalent in the law, not by a long shot.

They don't have 'special rules' applied to them - they have been found, by Supreme Court precedent, to be 'persons' as defined by the Constitution, given rights of due process and equal protection that don't exist for other for-profit entities, nor for other organizations of persons. Worse, it provides immense protection from criminal liability - a corporation as a whole cannot be imprisoned, after all.

To say that it's treated a little different is a rather massive understatement.

It would indeed be laughable to say it has NO societal benefit.

All of that was, of course in response to your statement: "We still benefit from that protection just by being here."

Just as we "still benefit" from public education "just by being here."

We don't have a democratic system. We have a constitutional republic.

We have, since Senate elections were reformed and universal suffrage became the standard, had a democratic republic.

I've never understood why people seem to think that calling the system of government one thing excludes another. We are both a democracy and a republic - and in American usage it would be extraordinarily difficult to be be a republic without being a democracy.

Maybe public education is the "right thing," maybe it's not. That, too, would need to be decided based on other criteria than just "it has some benefit" without regard to costs, and the slogans of bumperstickers.

The rightness or wrongness is irrelevant. The issue was that someone (or several someones), way back in the thread, argued that public education was equivalent to theft, should not be funded by tax dollars, etc., because they didn't take part of it and had no progeny taking part in it. The argument was about one's perceived direct benefit and thus one's desire to fund a program or function of the state.

This is a simple and easy parallel with defense or police powers or anything else that one may desire to fund or not fund.

 

[ArmedBear]

far more of us have opted out of the military or police as functions of government

How have you done that? I'm curious. Are you on a boat, flying a flag of convenience from a country with no military, in international waters right now?

a privatized police or military is just as theoretically feasible as a privatized educational system, so that, too is a wash.

Again, I didn't say that they were not feasible, only that, once a military is in place guarding an entire country, it's not practical to "opt out" as it is to simply not attend a public school, unless you live on a boat in international waters. That's a practical, not a philosophical, concern.

I made that clear before.

They don't have 'special rules' applied to them

You must be high. Or maybe you've found a way to pay corporate tax rates on your personal income, you must have to keep your household budget according to certain accounting rules or face prison time, you must have household board meetings held and recorded according to specific laws, and you must retain a corporate lawyer to determine the laws that apply to you, since they're the same as those that apply to corporations.

they have been found, by Supreme Court precedent

SCOTUS doesn't find precedent, it makes decisions, which lead to precedent.

All of that was, of course in response to your statement: "We still benefit from that protection just by being here."

Just as we "still benefit" from public education "just by being here."

I never denied that. Did you read what I wrote before quoting it? That was not my point, at all, and I made that clear.

I've never understood why people seem to think that calling the system of government one thing excludes another. We are both a democracy and a republic - and in American usage it would be extraordinarily difficult to be be a republic without being a democracy.

Uh, because the government was specifically set up to be, and was specifically called, a Republic, in 1787? Because those who set it up specifically decided, in so many words, that a Democracy has unavoidable pitfalls? Because the system they set up still stands?

We may have some democracies within our Federal system, e.g. New England towns. But there's a significant difference between a Democracy and a Republic, and if you don't know what it is, again, we have little to discuss.

The argument was about one's perceived direct benefit and thus one's desire to fund a program or function of the state.

This is a simple and easy parallel with defense or police powers or anything else that one may desire to fund or not fund.

So I figure you benefit directly and greatly from the war in Iraq. It's perfectly okay to tax you and spend the money on it? That's not theft? I figure Halliburton's profits are good for the GDP, which is good for all of us, generally. So it's perfectly okay to tax you and send the money to them, since our elected officials said it's okay?

The rightness or wrongness is irrelevant.

I guess so, then.

Or, we go back to what I originally wrote: I'd be with your "trade" on opting out, but I see practical logistical problems with opting out of military protection while living on a country's soil.

Military protection is a direct service. The military defends us from foreign invasion (let's ignore that all politics sometimes contains perversions of purpose, for the moment, since that's true of public schools as much as the military). Teaching someone else's kids at my expense is NOT a direct service. You can argue that having literate neighbors (debatable) is a benefit to me, and it is. But so are a lot of things that no one, left or right, would think it moral to force on you or me, with the threat of a jail term.

That's all.

If you can tell me how you can opt out of military protection, then so much the better. I'm interested. I mean the logistical, not philosophical, as I originally wrote.

 

[wooderson]

How have you done that? I'm curious. Are you on a boat, flying a flag of convenience from a country with no military, in international waters right now?

I'm not a member. I've never sworn to defend blah blah blah.

Just as the original poster is neither a student of any public school nor has a child who is.

Again, I didn't say that they were not feasible, only that, once a military is in place guarding an entire country, it's not practical to "opt out" as it is to simply not attend a public school, unless you live on a boat in international waters. That's a practical, not a philosophical, concern.

Ah, so it's practicality.

What, exactly, is practical about shutting down schools that educate roughly 75 million Americans in order to privatize? Is it overnight? Do we negotiate a transfer? Is there any kind of oversight?

Again, all I'm doing are drawing parallels. You stated that defense and education are apples and oranges. They aren't.

You must be high.

You have a real problem cutting statements in half. Try responding to a complete sentence.

SCOTUS doesn't find precedent, it makes decisions, which lead to precedent.

"Has been found, by Supreme Court precedent" means the exact same thing - it's actually more accurate. Supreme Court decisions are 'findings.' They comprise 'precedent.'

Uh, because the government was specifically set up to be, and was specifically called, a Republic, in 1787?

It was set up to be a democratic republic in 1787, excluding women, minorities and, often, non-landholding males from parts.

Since 1919 and the Civil Rights Era, it has been a true democratic republic.

Because those who set it up specifically decided, in so many words, that a Democracy has unavoidable pitfalls? Because the system they set up still stands?

You understand that 'democracy' and (absolute) 'direct democracy' aren't the same thing, right? And that in no case is democracy a proper noun?

One hates to be pedantic, but we should turn to our old friend Noah Webster.
"1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free election"

Democracy and republic aren't mutually exclusive. At all. In no way, shape or form. Our system of government is properly referred to a democratic republic - Constitutional republic is redundant, as all western republics are bound by the rule of law (whatever that law may be, in our case the ultimate being the Constitution).

But that's an absurd semantic argument to get into, because it's irrelevant. I neither know nor care why you're hostile to the word democracy.

So I figure you benefit directly and greatly from the war in Iraq. It's perfectly okay to tax you and spend the money on it? That's not theft? I figure Halliburton's profits are good for the GDP, which is good for all of us, generally. So it's perfectly okay to tax you and send the money to them, since our elected officials said it's okay?

It's perfectly legal, yes. And I'm not allowed, by any version of the social contract or reasonable conduct to simply opt out of paying a portion of my taxes because I don't like what they may or may not be going to, yes.

Again, I'm drawing parallels. The logic that wishes to deny 'free public education,' must necessarily also give us the option of denying national defense.

 

[USSR]

Quote:
I think every American should take a trip to a formerly socialist country, and take a good look at the fruit that that tree bears. I travel every year to a former USSR republic, and have seen first-hand the legacy of socialism. Delapidated buildings, pot hole filled streets, rampant corruption, and a government health care system that no one in their right mind uses. Hey, but just as they promised, everbody is equal; poor, that is. When you get back home to the USA, you have a MUCH better sense of appreciation for the economic model and system of government we have here.

The USSR also wasn't socialist. At the beginning of the Russian revolution it had something good. Then after the Bolshevik takeover things went bad. A truly communist society is run by the people, it is a true democracy.

freakazoid,

You are clueless. How many years have you studied Russia and the FSU? How many times have you been there, talked to the people, and seen things for yourself? I would hazard a guess that the numbers we are talking about here are quite low. The USSR WAS a socialist country. The people were always told "Soon, we will have communism", but it never came.

At the beginning of the Russian revolution it had something good. Then after the Bolshevik takeover things went bad.

I got news for you, things were bad from the get-go for the Russian people, hence something called a "revolution".

Don

 

[ProficientRifleman]

Quatin....???

Not all of socialism is bad.

It must be true....if you believe that, "A little bit of involuntary servitude is a good thing."

 

[Chui]

Thanks for the input, USSR!

 

[freakazoid]

While I understand the nobility of the "communist ideal" and its ideal successor, anarchism, you do understand why it has never gotten off the ground and why, given the human element, it never really will.

You also (I imagine) understand that the "capitalism" that you scorn is actually a corruption of what it's supposed to be.

Until you can bring into being a critical mass of non-broken humans (completely sane and rational people), you're never going to get socialism in any of its brands or permutations to work.

I can empathize with the ideal. The implementation details pretty much screw it up every time.

And one of the details is that somebody has to be in charge. And that somebody either begins with power or winds up with it. And, being human, once he has the power, the dominoes start falling over.

Part of it is the simple fact that outcome-fairness can't be enforced.

Opportunity-fairness is as good as it gets.

You'll occasionally see me launch into a righteous bash of socialism. Understand that I'm not throwing rocks at the ideal, only the way it gets implemented. Every time.

So you and I will pretty much always disagree on this, even though we are both lovers of liberty and freedom.

Go in peace.

Which is why I believe it can work best in small communes where people generally know eachother, not large cities where you more than likely won't even know the person a block away from you. Also it takes anarchist for anarchy to work. If you have people who think that they need some one to make rules for them then it won't work very well.

Oh and... Go in peace to.

The people were always told "Soon, we will have communism", but it never came.

Which is another reason why I do not believe that it should go threw a transitionary period. Socialists think that it will just naturaly evolve from socialism to communism. I, and pretty much all anarchists, believe that it should go directly to it. Because we know that once the person is in power they will not want to let go of it.

 

[precisionshootist]

The incentive is that if no one works then everyone starves. Just like now, if you don't work you starve.

My main problem with capitalism is that in order to rise above you have to exploit others. You exploit the workers.

Wow, a perfect example of how well the public school system works. I would also venture to say your thinking has been well reinforced by the unbiased main stream media.

I agree with you totally. Bill Gates for example did rise above, and along the way produced many thousands of VERY financially well off workers. Many became millionaires working for Bill. Exploitation at its finest.

 

[freakazoid]

Wow, a perfect example of how well the public school system works. I would also venture to say your thinking has been well reinforced by the unbiased main stream media.

Main stream media, lol nope. I think that everyone should be allowed to own any kind of Class 3 device if they wanted, and walk around with it, definitaly not main stream media.

I agree with you totally. Bill Gates for example did rise above, and along the way produced many thousands of VERY financially well off workers. Many became millionaires working for Bill. Exploitation at its finest.

Except that he sometimes stole others work. You do know that right? And then he charges a lot for the OS. Compare that to oh... say Linux, which is free.

And the working class is exploited. The working class does all of the actual work, while the bourgeois doesn't do the work and yet he/she makes more money. It is because of unions that we have better working conditions, because the bourgeois doesn't actuall care for the safety of it's employes, only about making money off of the work that they do. The rich keep getting richer, the poor keep getting poorer. I believe that it is something along the lines of that 5% of the population own 95% of the wealth.

And to requote from the book of Acts 4,

32All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. 33With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. 34There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.

and also from Matthew 19,

16Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?"

17"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."

18"Which ones?" the man inquired.

Jesus replied, " 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, 19honor your father and mother,'[d] and 'love your neighbor as yourself.'[e]"

20"All these I have kept," the young man said. "What do I still lack?"

21Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

22When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.

23Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

 

[obxned]

Of all the events I have witnessed during the last 62 years, the most memorable was not the moon landing, or the wars, or recessions, or inventions, or assassinations. It was the Berlin Wall coming down. Yes, I remember Communism.

 

[JWarren]

I've been watching this thread with interest, but have been reluctant to participate in the discussion of communism. Being an investment manager, most would consider me the walking embodiment of capitalism and therefore not the most impartial participant.

However, I will take this from a very different point of view than my profession. I what I've seen in my own family to draw from.

My grandfather, who was my best friend, grew up in a POOR household in MS. When I say poor, I mean he LITERALLY hunted what they ate that day. No, I am not making that up. He was always a reader, and a very intelligent man. After school, he started college with the aspirations of becoming a lawyer.

However, his father's passing ended his plans and left him to be the "man" of the family. Somehow, he managed to send both his younger brothers to college and both earned PhDs on my grandfathers ticket.

Whatever plans he had left were altered by WWII. Yet they also were a major turning point in his life. Where many others wasted the meager pay they received, my grandfather saved as much as he could. In 1945, he had exactly $642.00 to invest into a diversified mutual fund. He worked hard at two jobs until he had enough money to buy equipment to open his own business. Even with it going and having employees, he worked ANOTHER full time job as a postal carrier.

When he died three years ago, that $642.00 investment had grown to over $900,000-- and he was a multimillionaire.

This is the essence of capitalism. No one can accuse this man of being born with a "silver spoon" in his mouth. He was not benefited by his position in a social hierarchy-- if anything he had to OVERCOME it. He made what he did by working hard, working smart, saving fiercely, and never going in debt.

Communism somehow ignores the drive and determination of those how have taken extra measures to build a life. Communism ignores the sacrifices that these people may make to develop a stable position in life.

Communism somehow believes that the person with NO drive, NO determination, and has made NO sacrifices is somehow entitled to EXACTLY THE SAME as one who has shown courage, discipline, intelligence and drive.

Communism disgusts me.


Oh, I've attended all the philosophy classes where communism has been discussed on its merits-- and I've sat through more ecomomics classes than I'd ever wish on an enemy. All of that CRAP sounds great academically in a classroom. It is nice and shiny when it is dicussed in the Ivy Towers.

Down here in the real world, you get FOR yourself what you give OF yourself.

And you get exactly what you deserve based on your choices.

Sure, there are those that are born to money--- SO freaking what??? If I had the money Bill Gates has, my life would change very little from what it is now. There IS only so much that you can spend it on. Besides, money is only a tool. If someone having more than you, gets you so bent out of shape, I'd start to worry about my priorities in life.


And that's my thoughts on the matter. Getting off the soapbox now. Thanks for bearing with me.

-- John

 

[Cato the Younger]

My family lost their land in Yugoslavia to the Communists

in 1944. Their lands were appropriated for "the people"- (the supporters of Tito). My great-uncle went back to visit in 2004, and guess what, the only change had been that the road between the villages my family lived in had been paved. The farms and houses were in a dilapidated state- communism is really just a way of stealing from one's political enemies to enrich ones political supporters. I agree with JWarren- my family came here with little $- my grandfather came here in 1950 with nothing- no English, 2 years of H.S., $5 in his pocket- and he retired well in 1983. A system where people are rewarded for hard work is the only way to make people work hard- slaves can be driven to do work, but they will never work as vigorusly as free men, driven by their own initiative.

 

[freakazoid]

Yes, I remember Communism.

Guess you might be glad to hear that the USSR wasn't communist. Since commmunism is classless and STATELESS.

JWarren - And what did your family do to deserve being poor? Nothing. People shouldn't have to live like that. It is my duty as a Christian to help the less fortunate.

Communism somehow believes that the person with NO drive, NO determination, and has made NO sacrifices is somehow entitled to EXACTLY THE SAME as one who has shown courage, discipline, intelligence and drive.

Are you saying that because someone is poor that they don't deserve to be helped? Who are these people with no drive, determination, and haven't made any sacrifices? In a communist society there would be very few of those kind of people. To quote from 2 Thessalonians 3,

10For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: "If anyone will not work, neither let him eat." 3:11For we hear of some who walk among you in rebellion, who don't work at all, but are busybodies. 3:12Now those who are that way, we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.

And you get exactly what you deserve based on your choices.

Was it your grandfathers choice to be born poor?

If someone having more than you, gets you so bent out of shape, I'd start to worry about my priorities in life.

I don't care if someone has more than me. The problem is when someone exploits someone else to make alot of money. Such as when buisnesses send jobs over seas, where they use forced child labor, that way they can keep a lower price. They don't care where they get there product from, just that it is cheaper. To quote 1 Timothy 6,

9People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. 10For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

The farms and houses were in a dilapidated state- communism is really just a way of stealing from one's political enemies to enrich ones political supporters.

Those countries have never been communist! Communism is classless and STATELESS!! There are no kings, presidents, or rulers.

A system where people are rewarded for hard work is the only way to make people work hard- slaves can be driven to do work, but they will never work as vigorusly as free men, driven by their own initiative.

Yup, even wage slaves won't work as hard as someone who is free.

 

[Avenger29]

First of all, everyone who believes that the US is a democracy, listen up. We are not a democracy. The US is a constitutional republic. Laws are on the books and inforced.

Democracy is mob rule. Three wolves and a lamb deciding on what's for dinner.

The problem is that since FDR, the word democracy has replaced constitutional republic. Before the 1930's, the word democracy was considered to be a dirty word. I can't stand it when people say we are spreading democracy through the world, either. No, we are supposed to be spreading freedom.

A constitutional republic has the few positive points of a democracy. Mainly, everyone has a voice, albiet indirectly (through our congress critters). It is not an absolute, direct democracy, which would cause serious problems. No one would be able to agree on anything.

A true democracy would be a society without laws, where the majority (or Mob) rules. An example is that there are 10 people. 9 out of 10 want to kill the last guy, Bob. In a democracy, Bob's goose is cooked. In a constitutional republic, because there are laws against killing, Bob will live.

We do not have a constitutional republic by accident. The Founding Fathers worked long and hard to come up with the best possible system of government out of all the types available. It takes elements from most systems of government (monarchy, aristocracy, democracy, etc) and combines them into the best.

Cato the Younger: I bet he despises welfare, too.

 

[Chui]

"I do not believe that it should go threw a transitionary period. Socialists think that it will just naturaly evolve from socialism to communism. I, and pretty much all anarchists, believe that it should go directly to it. Because we know that once the person is in power they will not want to let go of it."

You've just confirmed your position. It's people like you who motivate me to constantly train.

 

[precisionshootist]

Was it your grandfathers choice to be born poor?

No it was not his choice to be born poor. It was his choice not to remain poor.

 

[JWarren]

JWarren - And what did your family do to deserve being poor? Nothing. People shouldn't have to live like that. It is my duty as a Christian to help the less fortunate.

I could probably cite instances of poor choices or lost opportunities. Everyone’s situation will ultimately result from some choices. As for living like that, I don’t know what to say. Practically every childhood story my grandfather ever told was a happy one. They lived and met their needs. That is the most important thing.

I don’t dispute your duty as a Christian. The church originally had provisions addressing this very duty. This was one reason for tithing, this was the reason why deacons were anointed in the early church, and the example of helping the poor is heralded in the bible.

I’ve yet to see anything in it, however, that asserts that communism is the proper economic system. In fact, I see many examples where we are taught to use our resources wisely. “The Parable of the Talents”, anyone?

Was it your grandfathers choice to be born poor?

Obviously not. It was also not his choice to ideally wait for someone to do something about it. He fostered his own drive, worked hard, planned ahead, and make wise decisions.

He also never complained about it or felt a sense of entitlement.

It’s no wonder that they call that “The Greatest Generation.”

The problem is when someone exploits someone else to make alot of money.

My grandfather had about 50 employees in his business. Around here, that was a substantial employer. None of those that worked for him had any real prospects – and none better than working for him. When he died, even the children of his former employees were in attendance at his funeral. Many openly wept. Somehow, I don’t see these people as exploited.

Besides, Why SHOULDN’T the person that puts up the funding, takes a risk that may financially ruin him, sacrifice to even HAVE the funds to invest in the business NOT turn a profit???

Such as when buisnesses send jobs over seas, where they use forced child labor, that way they can keep a lower price.

This is confusing globalization into the mix—it is only relevant in terms of profit. Exploiting inequities in economic systems in a global economy is a FAR cry from redistribution of wealth, class balancing, etc. That deserves its own thread and only detracts from this one.



Incidently, it may not be wise to pick and choose verses from the Bible to support your position. I won’t look it up right now, but in Paul’s letters to the Corinthians, he had to pass instructions that those that will not work, will not eat. In that letter, many people were convinced that the 2nd coming of Christ was imminent. Because of this, many chose not to work or contribute to the needs of the community. The early church WAS operating in a type of commune-ish state at that time Even so, it seems it was hardly a perfect system when they have to threaten to withhold food to produce work.



-- John

 

[freakazoid]

No it was not his choice to be born poor. It was his choice not to remain poor.

Not everyone has the chance to not remaine poor.

You've just confirmed your position. It's people like you who motivate me to constantly train.

Wait... what? Are you saying that we need kings? Are you saying that someone needs to be in power?

My grandfather had about 50 employees in his business. Around here, that was a substantial employer. None of those that worked for him had any real prospects – and none better than working for him. When he died, even the children of his former employees were in attendance at his funeral. Many openly wept. Somehow, I don’t see these people as exploited.

Sounds like he was a petty-bourgeoisie? I don't have as much of a problem with them as I do with just bourgeois, at least they still work. My problem is with the bourgeoisie. The ones who do not care about the well being of the workers. Listen to Woody Guthries Ludlow Massacre.

But I think that workers do not need a manager, they can manage themselves.

 

[wooderson]

First of all, everyone who believes that the US is a democracy, listen up. We are not a democracy.

Yeah, we are. Really.

The US is a constitutional republic. Laws are on the books and inforced.

We're also a republic, bound by the rule of law. Yes.

Democracy is mob rule. Three wolves and a lamb deciding on what's for dinner.

Democracy is also voting for those who will represent you in Congress. Or voting to determine your state's electors for the Presidency. Or voting directly for your Governor.

Moreover, there exists no conflict between participatory/direct democracy and a constitutional form of government (or the rule of law).

Could a majority of a direct democracy oppress a minority in violation of whatever laws are on the books? Undoubtedly. But, and this might be news, this is also just as feasible in the realm of a republic. Perhaps even more feasible: rather than convincing 50.1% of an entire population, you need convince a much smaller republican body.

I seriously cannot believe there are people for whom multiple meanings to a single word is a wild and crazy concept. Or who don't understand that a direct democracy can be bound by laws.

At the end of the day, however we are a democracy by the simple fact that we all sign on and accept the basic authority of the state. Even when we disagree with it. If a majority of Americans didn't accept and support that representative government, warts and all, the state would simply cease to exist.

As of yet, it has not.

 

[wooderson]

This is the essence of capitalism.

A wonderful tale and congrats to your grandfather and all that... but he's an outlier. The essence of anything is the norm, not the exception. The norm of capitalism is not an uneducated rural boy striking it rich and never has been.

What your grandfather was, really, was the essence of the American Dream, mythology come true. That is a rare and momentous chain of events.

 

[Avenger29]

Neal Boortz on Democracy

The idea of "democracy" suddenly became popular when politicians sought to expand the power of the state beyond anything imagined by our Constitution. To do this they needed to cite the "will of the people." Majority rule moved the rule of law aside, and our modern "democracy" was born. Along with the arrival of the "D" word came disappearing references to freedom and more emphasis on security ... government provided security.

 

[freakazoid]

If a majority of Americans didn't accept and support that representative government, warts and all, the state would simply cease to exist.

What is the current disaprovel rate of Bush right now?

 

[JWarren]

A wonderful tale and congrats to your grandfather and all that... but he's an outlier. The essence of anything is the norm, not the exception. The norm of capitalism is not an uneducated rural boy striking it rich and never has been.

What your grandfather was, really, was the essence of the American Dream, mythology come true. That is a rare and momentous chain of events.

Wooderson,

I understand your sentiment, and do not disagree with you on that level.

But, in a way that still does remain the essence of capitalism. Obviously, there will always be outliners on any bell-curve. Heck, there will even be a fair share of "dumb luck."

But that does not diminish the very fact that we are not cardboard cut-outs. We are all individuals with different skillsets and talents. We will have different levels of determination, and we will have different risk-tolerances.

Communism seeks to create equities where there are none by nature's design.

I'll give an interesting scenerio:

About a year ago, I read a study that shows that taller men, tend to make, on average $3,000 more than thier comparable co-workers regardless of the field-- and almost certainly with height not being a factor in performing the job.

Now, I am 5'8". I'm hardly considered a tall person. I suppose I could use this as a basis for advocating hacking the feet off of anyone over 6 foot. Ths is essentially what communism is asserting, metaphorically speaking.

Still, I do understand your position on outliners.


-- John

 

[precisionshootist]

Not everyone has the chance to not remaine poor.

This is a typical leftist unqualified statement. Who exactly are you talking about? Give me an example of where our capitalist society denies people the chance to achieve financial freedom. On the other hand your statement in of itself is correct if taken out of context. There are many many people who are destined to remain poor. Those unfortunate souls live in countries other than The United States Of America.

 

[AntiqueCollector]

Quote:
If a majority of Americans didn't accept and support that representative government, warts and all, the state would simply cease to exist.

What is the current disaprovel rate of Bush right now?

Illogical reasoning. Disapproving of the people in office does not equate with disapproving of the system itself.


And as for the communists, where's Joe McCarthy when you need him?