Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Since 1935, the USA has been a socialist nation. And you can be assured that every "volunteer" with a SSN is therefore obligated to perform. Any constitutional challenge will fail, because as long as you consented to SocSec, you cannot raise the "involuntary servitude" objection.
In all cases where obligatory action is imposed, with penalties, you will find that it is empowered under some form of consent, such as FICA / SocSec.
Remember, the constitution expressly forbids involuntary servitude (except after conviction), but VOLUNTARY servitude is 100% constitutional.
If you want to rub their fur the wrong way, write a polite letter to your congresscritters and ask:
[] If involuntary servitude is unconstitutional, where and when did I give consent to be obligated by the terms of the [specific] bill?
[] When and how did I become a "person liable"?
[] Where is the jurisdictional limit to Congress' delegation of authority to impose involuntary servitude and punishment for those who disobey?
[] Where can I find "dollars" to pay for this, since only worthless "dollar bills" and counterfeit fractional coin are in circulation?
Of course, you won't receive an answer to your questions.
If only one asks, it won't do a thing.
If one thousand ask, it may raise an eyebrow.
If one hundred thousand ask, an inrush of breath may come.
If one million ask, the sound of running feet may be heard.
If one hundred million ask, a tide of change may flood DC.
No it hasn't. This is a corporatist nation, where the profits of big business is regarded as more important than the freedom and even lives of our citizens. The fact that you're convinced that we're somehow living in a socialist nation clearly shows that you have no idea what socialism even is.
And you too have no idea want you're talking about.
Socialism isn't about big government or sacrificing personal liberty and freedom, in fact, it's the exact opposite. Socialism is about having the means of production owned by the workers themselves.
What's an affront to freedom and liberty is the notion that we should devote our lives serving a master.
Are you daft?
Any worker in America is allowed to buy stock in the company employing said worker as long as it is a public corporation.
Any worker in America is allowed to loan money to the company employing said worker.
Perhaps because such folks repeatedly demonstrate that they don't?
As an example:
"Tell me, my marxist friend, out of the dozens of attempts at marxist governments over the last 100 years, which one was successful?"
While all Marxist are socialist, all socialist are not Marxist and not all Marxist are not followers of Lenin or Mao, both of whom established the theoretical basis for all of those failed socialist governments over the "last 100 years. Which brings up another point, the first socialist government was established in 1917 so we can't look back over 100 years of socialist failures. It may be a fine point, but does add to the argument that you don't know what you are talking about.
As for socialism being diametrically opposed to human nature because no one wants to work and toil for another man's benefit... I don't think that Marx could have put the idea of socialism more succinctly. However, on this point I am in agreement with your argument, just not the reasoning.
We know that humans have been on this planet for some 250,000 years and for about 99% of the time, humans were quite comfortable living in socialist societies. Even today we can look at certain societies that are still organized in the same manner as our most distant ancestors and see that living in cooperative, non-hierarchical societies is not in opposition to basic human nature. So, there is nothing hardwired into the human psyche that prevents us from working in a cooperative, socialist, manner. Where we agree is that as a result of our socialization, not our genetics, the idea of a cooperative based society is an anathema to many folks.
I would disagree. The non-productive starved in all societies, with the exception of modern societies. The "socialism" of primitive cultures was a mutual cooperation with a clear heiarchy of production/benefit elements. The strongest physically and mentally led society, while the weaker were subjugated. This is the natural element of all animals, and is seen not only among humans, but animals as well.
Tell me, in what civilization, were non-productive members allowed to live and prosper through enslaving stronger, more productive members? Think about that one for a while.
Further, can you tell me how many people jumped the Berlin Wall to go from West Berlin to East Berlin to reach the "socialist paradise"?
Last edited by hawkeye2009; 11-08-2009 at 05:18 PM..
I would disagree. The non-productive starved in all societies, with the exception of modern societies.
Well I suppose we need to flesh out your meaning of non productive both from a primitive and modern perspective.
Quote:
The strongest physically and mentally led society, while the weaker were subjugated.
Then we would have to ignore all matriarchal societies, and completely ignore all examples of non-hierarchical societies.
Quote:
Tell me, in what civilization, were non-productive members allowed to live and prosper through enslaving stronger, more productive members? Think about that one for a while.
I just don't get the leap in logic. Why do you frame the discussion in such a way, "non-productive members allowed to prosper by enslaving stronger, more productive members? Enslave? Non-productive??
I suppose I can understand your argument if we were discussing a monarchy but I'm not sure how this fits into a conversation about primitive hunter gatherer societies.
Obama is NOT a socialist. Can you hear me? NOT NOT NOT. Only in America could so many people believe such a load of rubbish. Well there is the birthers, the deathers, the tea party wackos, the ones that claim black is white that white folks face horrible racism and soooo much more crazy goofyness that the rest of the world just sadly shakes their collective heads in astonishment.
We have a very conservative government right now in Canada and they are to the left of Obama. I had to live most of my life listening to deranged American Paranoia about communists hiding under every bush and now that crazyness has evolved into something even worse. The evolution of this idiocy has now reached another low. Liberalism is now a dark dangerous anti Americanism that will take away all the peoples rights BLA BLA BLA.
The American government controls or owns about 1% of the national economy. Now I have to tell you that is BIG time Socialism eh?
These rightwingy dingbats wouldn,t know socialism if it wacked them upside of the head. Here in Canada we have hundreds of government owned corporations, we have universal medical care, we have a guaranteed annual income program and lots of other universal social programs. But you know what? We are not a socialist country at all. We are a free enterprise country and if you doubt that then ask all the foreign corporations why they want so badly to open up shop here in a socialist country. How it is that so many what you would think are normal people are so brainwashed that they believe any stupidity that is fed to them by the Vested interests whos interests are their own, not the country's not the people's. They will throw everything they have at any reform that will improve the lives of Americans because they are greedy,selfish,reactionary people that believe that any improvement in the lives of others will diminish theirs.
I came from a whole culture of these people. They can't fool me or most Canadians either. We stopped listening to their blathering bungle a long long time ago. It's about time the American people wake up and put the boots to these haters of America.
Socialist societies have NEVER scaled well. Similar to a mainframe platform in the computer world, it soon becomes burdensome and intractable as a form of government. It's too bad we can't apply the failures of information technology (as well as the failures of the Soviet Union, Cuba, N. Korea, et al) into the American psyche.
The OP claims the US has been a socialist nation since 1935. If that's the case, where's the revolution? 80 years? I think we passed the Guiness Book record for "longest revolution" some decades ago.
Since 1935, the USA has been a socialist nation. And you can be assured that every "volunteer" with a SSN is therefore obligated to perform. Any constitutional challenge will fail, because as long as you consented to SocSec, you cannot raise the "involuntary servitude" objection.
In all cases where obligatory action is imposed, with penalties, you will find that it is empowered under some form of consent, such as FICA / SocSec.
Remember, the constitution expressly forbids involuntary servitude (except after conviction), but VOLUNTARY servitude is 100% constitutional.
If you want to rub their fur the wrong way, write a polite letter to your congresscritters and ask:
[] If involuntary servitude is unconstitutional, where and when did I give consent to be obligated by the terms of the [specific] bill?
[] When and how did I become a "person liable"?
[] Where is the jurisdictional limit to Congress' delegation of authority to impose involuntary servitude and punishment for those who disobey?
[] Where can I find "dollars" to pay for this, since only worthless "dollar bills" and counterfeit fractional coin are in circulation?
Of course, you won't receive an answer to your questions.
If only one asks, it won't do a thing.
If one thousand ask, it may raise an eyebrow.
If one hundred thousand ask, an inrush of breath may come.
If one million ask, the sound of running feet may be heard.
If one hundred million ask, a tide of change may flood DC.
Well I suppose we need to flesh out your meaning of non productive both from a primitive and modern perspective.
Then we would have to ignore all matriarchal societies, and completely ignore all examples of non-hierarchical societies.
I just don't get the leap in logic. Why do you frame the discussion in such a way, "non-productive members allowed to prosper by enslaving stronger, more productive members? Enslave? Non-productive??
I suppose I can understand your argument if we were discussing a monarchy but I'm not sure how this fits into a conversation about primitive hunter gatherer societies.
My "logic" is the fact that socialist societies enslave the productive for the benefit of the non-productive proliteriat and the small elite ruling segment of the system. This has been the nature of every socialistic system since its inception- it is not a system in which personal liberties are cherished, but are discarded for the benefit of the "masses". This, of course, means the benefit of the small ruling faction.
I think you need to read "Animal Farm" again. Remember what happened to Merry, the draft horse and the engine of production of the farm, at the hands of the pigs? Like "The Who" says, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. We won't get fooled again".
How do you, personally, feel as though you will do in such a socialistic system? History would suggest that you will not do very well. Perhaps you will jumping the wall into Canada, just as your marxist bretheren fled from East Germany to West Germany.
Again, could you tell me how many people jumped the Berlin Wall to flee from West Germany to East Germany? I guess in your mind, it must have been quite a few.
My "logic" is the fact that socialist societies enslave the productive for the benefit of the non-productive proliteriat and the small elite ruling segment of the system. This has been the nature of every socialistic system since its inception- it is not a system in which personal liberties are cherished, but are discarded for the benefit of the "masses". This, of course, means the benefit of the small ruling faction.
That the hard communist states have been totalitarian does not mean people aren't productive. How can you call working people unproductive? Do you think productivity begins and ends in the board room?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
