Socialist shipwreck

I'm fine with it as long as they bought it legally. Thank goodness we have right-wing politicians to defend private property.

I think we should define socialism. what I mean when I say "socialism" is the workers of a large company voting for who their boss should be, and/or a bossless workforce in wich management takes part in the work.

cuban democracy

Workers never own the means of production. In communist countries, the governing elite take businesses by force and run them into the ground with a combination of incompetence and corruption.

Because of private ownership. Private property rights are essential to a free society. Without then we become serfs. If a business is privately owned (like In-N-Out Hamburgers) then it actually belongs to a person. If it is publicly traded (like General Electric) then it is owned by the investors. Either way it is a matter of ownership. The employees have as much claim on taking the business away from it's owner(s) as a mugger has on taking your wallet away from you.

Marx has no respect for private ownership. He thinks that everything should be owned by the collective. But who is the collective? Well it's everyone, right? But everyone cannot make decisions for the collective regardless of how democratic the claim to be. We just cannot spend all of our time voting. So Marx's solution was central planners. Who are central planners? They are the government. And now the entire dynamic of what Marx promise just falls apart. An authoritarian dictatorship or oligarchy rises up and oppresses the people.

Every time Marxism is inflicted on people, extreme poverty follows. Why? Because what is the point of knocking yourself out in servitude to your overlords if there is absolutely nothing in it for us. Production of everything crumbles to the ground and that is why there are always food shortages in Marxist nations.

The problem with Marx is he was a narcissist and maybe even autistic. He didn't have a clue about human nature. He never cared about what people thought. He looked at people more as insects, in fact Marx may have gotten his ideas from bees or ants. He observed what he thought was a problem, workers being "oppressed" by the business owners. In his day that was true in Europe. That mentality of business owners oppressing workers was exported from Europe into America. But the free market fixed that problem because in America, employees just left and went some place better. Business owners had to change or they would lose their business.

This is why Marxism, regardless of how hard it has been pushed on us, has never and will never gain a foothold on America, except by force. Workers are not oppressed in America.

Marxism will never find a home unless there are oppressed and oppressor classes. We don't have that dichotomy in America so they fabricated one. First the expanded the business owner/worker dichotomy to rich/poor. Now it is white/non-white. That is likely to be their last vain attempt before force is imposed.

"Are you saying workers in America have never been oppressed or just that they are not oppressed right now?"

There's a difference between being poorly treated and oppressed. There's no escaping oppression but a poorly treated employee can always find another job or start their own business. You cannot oppress free people. Free people have the liberty to walk away from oppression.

"Countless workers in the United States are mistreated, in some cases horribly mistreated. There's not much difference between severe mistreatment and oppression"

That's the Marxist myth at work. Marxism cannot gain any traction without first convincing people that they are oppressed. There has to be two groups pitted against each other. For over a century Marxist have been infiltrating our culture with tons of nonsense about how oppressed certain groups of people are.

Has there been oppression in the US. Yes. There will always be narcissists. We once had slavery where most of the those of African ancestry had no freedom. They were oppressed. And many times by other people of African ancestry. Not all slave owner were white. The greater majority of slave owners were white but a significant number of slave owners were black.

Native American were killed off by the millions and those who weren't killed were forced off the land they called home and moved to unfamiliar lands. However, this was not altogether an unfamiliar situation for Native Americans. They may not have killed as many as the those of European ancestry, but there was a lot of Native Americans who wiped out whole tribes of other Native Americans and took their lands.

But for those who have lived as free men and women there has been no oppression. Because a free person cannot be oppressed for very long. There were a very small number of "sweat shops" where business owners lock people in during work hours. There was a small number of businesses who forced their workers to buy exclusively from the company store. Those days are gone. Unions want to take credit for they but they can't.
They were never a significant influence on business because at most they represented about 20% of the workforce. The free market stopped the poor quality of treatment of employees. I've seen big changes in my life time in businesses treat labor. And it just keeps getting better especially if you have a skill that is in demand.

There is no such thing as equal outcome. People who are talented or lucky will accumulate wealth. Equity is impossible. Destroying the economy to achieve equity makes everyone but the politically connected poor.

I agree. Giving everybody the same amount of money is communism, which is not something I stand for because it can't work. Socialism is a happy medium between capitalism and communism. I am not saying we should destroy our economy for the sake of the poor, but the wealth gap has become too large. I think we need to socialize the healthcare system and raise minimum wage. How will we pay for this? Tax large corporations, they can afford it anyway.

The wage gap has become so great because people are not being educated in ways that make them money. Too many people go to college and take bullshit classes like gender studies and other nonsense, instead of trade school that teach skills that not only make a shit ton of money but also can not be outsourced.

Are you really going to try to blame successful people for poor people's situation? The only system in play to date that a poor person can climb out of poverty by their own hands is Capitalism.

You can't tax large corporations and the rich. They make the laws.

Socialism is NOT a happy medium between communism and capitalism. Where did you get that idea. Socialism IS communism. Communism is just the name that Marx came up with for his version of socialism. Capitalism is another term he came up with so he could trash it.

Capitalism (or more appropriate, free market economics), while not perfect, is far, far, far better for everyone then any type of collectivism.

Does anyone who supports collectivism ever stop and think about some of the stuff they repeat? Have you ever considered what the wealth gap is and if it is an actual problem????

Why would a wealth gap be a problem? I've thought about it for a while and I have come to the conclusion that the only way that would be a problem is if wealth was finite. Meaning that there is X amount of wealth in the world and there can be no more wealth above X.

That would mean that as the rich got richer, the poor would get poorer.

There's one major flaw in that logic. Wealth is infinite, not finite. Wealth is not money, gold, silver, diamonds or anything else like that. Wealth is the intrinsic or utilitarian value we assign to something. Gold has intrinsic value because it is rare. A hammer has utilitarian value because you can build a house with it. The value is lower on a hammer because they aren't rare, they're very easy to make and mass produce.

Wealth is created in the simple exchange of goods and/or services. If you have a hammer and I have gold and you say I will give you my hammer if you give me an ounce of that gold then that means you must value that gold more than the hammer. If I agree to your offer then I must value the hammer more than the ounce of gold. Now I have a hammer that I can use to build a house and because of that I am now more wealth. You have the gold which you can use to turn into jewelry, a very conductive electrical wire or anything else gold is useful for and your wealth has increased as much as my wealth. Before the exchange you couldn't impress the ladies with a pretty ring and I couldn't hammer nails to build a house.

Wealth is created by capitalism. That means the fact that Bill Gates is a billionaire makes absolutely no difference in mine or your lives. His wealth does not make you poor.

In a free nation there is no wealth gap until the government steps in and starts interfering. The government creates that wealth gap. Socialism is notorious for creating and maintaining huge wealth gaps.

That's the myth that was started by the Progressives after Hitler invaded Poland and reports of the atrocities the USSR perpetrated on their own people came out.

Prior to that the Progressive movement in America were praising Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini as "men of the future". The Progressive movement went underground and most left when they saw what Marxism really was. But the die hards just kept their mouths shut until the 50's and 60's.

Because we went to war with Germany and Italy, the Progressive who had already claimed a strong foothold in our education system, started teaching that the Nazis and Fascist are on the far right. They came up with all sorts of bizarre justifications as to why and really, really hoped that no one would actually take a serious look at Nazism and fascism and compare them to socialism and communism.

Unfortunately for them, there are people who still question things. There are people who remember the rallies the Progressives once had where they all gave their devotion to Marx, Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini.

Sorry but Nazism and fascism were born out of socialism just like communism. What they teach in schools is a lie. They all have been strongly influenced by Marx. They all believe the government should control the means of production. They all believe the rich must share their wealth with everyone else, they all promised free healthcare, free education, pretty much free everything. They all believed in the concept of social justice, where the oppressors must be made to pay for their crimes.

They are all forms of authorization collectivism with minor differences to the people on the outside but to those on the inside they are massive. That's why the Italian socialist murdered Mussolini, he wasn't doing socialism the right way. It's why Hitler murdered the German socialists, he didn't want them criticizing his form of National Socialism.

There is so little difference between any of them that there is no room for freedom in the middle. Fascism may be on the right but it is just a hair's width to the right of socialism.

The true extreme right is anarchy, no government at all. Total freedom for everyone to do anything, even if it violates the rights of others.

Our founding fathers put us just to the left of anarchy but miles to the right of authoritarianism.

This myth has been spread for so long that it has built upon itself multiple layers and the majority of Americans have just come to accept it as truth.

"Conservative anarchists do probably exist, but far right conservatives are usually religious and want a government that is controlled by the rules of their religion."

Does anyone on the left ever think. Our founding fathers were all devout Christians and by today's standards they were ultra far right. And what kind of a nation did they give us? Was it a theocracy? Are we ruled by some authoritarian priest or pastor? Have we ever been?

What makes you think that an authoritarian theocracy or any kind of theocracy is what we want? It is just liberal mythology and you have been lied to.

Conservatives, including Christian conservatives, DO NOT WANT any kind of authoritarianism. None. We want the freedom that our founding fathers left for us. We want a government that follows the Constitution to the letter and spirit of the law. We DO NOT want a return of slavery, we want everyone regardless of race or whatever to be free. As free as possible without infringing on other people's rights. That's what conservatives and Christian conservatives want.

You might find some Christian somewhere who wants a theocracy because there are all kinds of people in the world but the vast majority of us do not want that.

"Extremists on the right, are rarely anarchist"

Then you know absolutely nothing about the people on the right. It is true that anarchists (anarcho-capitalists or voluntaryists) are rare but they are the very extreme end of the right.

"they are usually authoritarians are nearly always religious authoritarians, like the governments in Saudi Arabia and Iran."

Islam is the ONLY religion in the entire world that was based on force from day one. No other religion has ever been authoritarian. There have been times when the Catholic church was very authoritarian but those days are long gone. What stopped the Catholics from being authoritarian is when the Protestants got ahold of the Biblical manuscripts and translated into languages of the common people. When the people saw how evil the Catholic Church had become many left the Church. Martin Luther wanted to reform the Church but was ultimate killed and that spawned the Lutheran religion. The Church itself had to completely reverse course.

BTW I am not a Catholic and I don't hate Catholics or the Church. I think they have made great strides in becoming Christian. They do more good in the world now than harm they did in centuries past.

"No, not all of them were"

They all are were. Read their words instead of trusting modern historians. Thomas Jefferson what a deist and a Christian. He believe in Jesus Christ's moral teachings, he just didn't believe in the miracles performed in the Bible. Benjamin Franklin had a falling out with his Presbyterian minister and stopped attending church but he paid tithing to that church until the day he died.

Read about any of them. The build this nation on a foundation of the message of Jesus Christ. It is true that this nation is not a Christian nation but it is a nation built on Christianity.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports." George Washington

"They were progressive for their day, at least in some ways. Not in other ways."

The Progressive era began just after Karl Marx died. It was built entirely on Marxism. Prior to that progressive just meant anything that leads to progress. Marxism has NEVER been progressive. It is the most repressive form of government ever devised by mankind.

What you may be confusing Progressivism with classical liberalism. The Progressives actually thought they were advancing the cause of liberty. They still think that while they dismantle every right and liberty that our Creator gave us. So the Progressives took the moniker "liberal". What a mistake that was. Marxism is the worst of the classical conservative movements. John Locke and Thomas Hobbes. Two diametrically opposed philosophers are considered the father of liberalism and conservativism (respectively). Locke believed that people were basically good and therefore only needed a very minimalistic government. Hobbes believe the exact opposite.

The founders were all liberals but they were classical liberals. They are the polar opposites of todays liberals. The government that they left us was so minimalistic that even Jefferson, when he became president, balked at how little was actually permitted to do under the Constitution. Presidents ever since him has been trying to push the sever restrictions placed on them by the Constitution. Then came Woodrow Wilson, evil incarnate, and his creation of agencies to legislate without the need of Congress.

"Maybe the fact that I've heard some conservative Christians talk about wanting to use the Bible as the basis for our laws"

Too late. The founders have already based or laws on the Law of Moses. We do not use most of the laws and punishments in the Law of Moses but we cover the basics. Don't kill, don't steal, don't lie (commit perjury).

"Or use the government to promote Christianity"

The 1st amendment prohibits the congress from making any laws to create a state religion and to control any religious activity.

Christians all know this. Liberals don't understand the 1st amendment and think it means something it does not.

We do not want the government to promote Christianity or any other religion or lack of religion. The government is to play the most minimal role in all of our lives.

"or only elect Christians to political office. "

You might find 1 or 2 Christians who talk like this but the majority of us just want fair and honest elections that represent the majority of the people who the politician serves.

But let's look at this another way. Thomas Jefferson took excerpts from the King James Version of the New Testament and compiled it into a book. It contains just the moral teachings of Jesus Christ. It is called the "Jefferson Bible". Jefferson required all incoming Congressmen to read his "Bible" and to live by it.

Can you imagine just how much better our politicians would be if we still required Congress to read and adhere to the moral teachings of Jesus? No more lying politicians. No more politician accepting bribes. No more insider trading. No more stolen elections. No more Democrat Party, or at least the Democrats wouldn't be working to destroy this nation. Just honest and decent politicians. I would take that anytime over the scum we have in office right now.

"Some have even said that the First Amendment only protects freedom of religion for Christians and nobody else."

You'll have to introduce me to that Christian who said that. They need to be set straight on a few things.

The 1st protects religion (all religions) a whole lot more than what libs currently think. Libs love to replace the wording in the 1st with "separation of church and state". Jefferson did not mean to wall off religion from society. The wall separates the government from messing with the people. Churches are on the same side of the wall as the people.

I really hate ImgFlip's policy on there reply hyperlinks. I hate having to search for one.

"The Supreme Court has over and over and over again interpreted the First Amendment as applying to all government institutions, not just Congress specifically."

And the Supreme Court was WRONG in doing so. They are violating the wall of separation of church and state.

Pretty much everything I mentioned had been a part of American culture from day one. The Bible used to be taught in schools. And it wasn't optional back then. It wasn't just about history and literature, it was mostly about morality. They did not get into specific doctrines because they did not want to upset the parents. This type of education was standard in our schools until the 20th century.

I think the founding fathers had a pretty good idea of what they meant when they originally said it. If they meant that anything slightly points to religion then it must be beat to a pulp they would have said it. So if a kid brings a Bible to school then he must be expelled, they they would have said that. Yes, a kid was expelled in San Diego for bringing a Bible to school.

Yes I means majority. BUT, I believe that any parent who does not want their children to be taught a set of values that will make this nation a better place to live, then those idiot parents can opt out. They should also be able to send their kids to the school of Idiocracy instead of public school. But they do not have the right to turn public education into Idiocracy (and I hope you've seen that movie so you know what I am talking about).

I am opposed to any superfluous government spending, so I think if there is going to be a nativity scene on government property, it should be donated by private citizens. This goes for any kind of religious display. But even that is far too extreme for the militant atheists.

There are a whole lot of Christians who have been taught to fear Satan, so, when the church of Satan wants to put up a display it scares them. No one should be made to be afraid. I think the church of Satan was created by kids who just wanted to piss off their parents. It grew because, even as adults with responsibilities, they still just want to piss people off. They're all just attention w**res and they should not be allowed to put up a display. And I say that with every intention of pissing them off and because why should they try to make people feel scared. They have no real meaning or purpose in life.

"Those predate the Bible, and they're also universal. Calling them the "law of Moses" is misleading because it implies those laws originated in the Bible."

I am fairly certain that they only other written law that predates the Bible was the the code of Hammurabi. However, the code of Hammurabi doesn't matter because it was not known to our founding fathers but the Bible was.

"Correct. But quite a few Christians don't care about what it says."

Well it sucks to be them, doesn't it. Fortunately they are not the majority. Not even close to the majority. So don't fret over them, they do not define the rest of us.

"No, they dont. Why do you claim to know what all Christians think or know?"

Well, you're right. I don't know what every Christian thinks. There are some Christians who believe in some really odd things. The snake handlers are bonkers. My father-in-law had a friend who believed that the UPC bar code system was the "mark of the beast" spoken of in the book of Revelations. I am software developer. I've worked with barcoding systems in the past. The UPC barcodes are the kind that are used in stores to help monitor the inventory system. I really think that giving every product the inventory ID of 666 is a very, very crappy inventory system. But I couldn't change his mind. So there are some ideas that some Christians have that do not define me or the rest of us. They are in the minority.

"I understand what it means. You don't speak for me."

Okay, so then if you understand what the 1st Amendment says then you would support that in a predominantly Christian area that the local school district would:

Offer classes on the Bible
Local court houses would display monuments to the 10 commandments
Science would teach creationism and evolution side by side without any bias to one over the other.
The school in that district begins the day with a prayer.
School textbooks and school library books would contain content that all parents would approve of being taught to their children.

Because if you truly understand the 1st amendment then you would know that there is nothing in our Constitution that prevents ANY of that happening.

I am not talking about forcing my religion on you. I am talking about Christians having more access to Christian information, in the public square. Because there is nothing, absolutely nothing, in the writings of our founding fathers that places any kind of restrictions on religion in the public square.

Please explain to me how a socialist can dismiss the history of the entire 20th century. After the Berlin Wall fell, I thought the debate was settled. I have no problem with replacing Capitalism but with something better. Maybe AI will create a new economic model superior to Capitalism. Until then it is the best we have even with its obvious flaws.