While most Blogs are nothing but a vent for the frustration of right thinking Amiricans, this is not my cause. I am building a link to help gather resources and take a proactive stance against the tide of socialism. My posts are meant to inform you and, when possible, help you better explain and defend our principles. We are all leaders, we are all FREEDOM FIGHTERS!

Our goal is to help coordinate as many local political groups as possible in order to create a strong and organized local movement. We would suggest that you either start a meetup group or join one that's already in place. For help go to http://www.meetup.com/ or 912 Project USA.com / For The Sake of Liberty! . With your effort and support we can become a strong force against the socialization of our great nation. If you have a suggestion or want information, please e-mail me at flounders70@aol.com .

Sunday, October 25, 2009

What's Wrong With Socialism: Part one

Before I get to the meat of the topic, let's clear some things up. There is a distinct difference between socialism and communism. Communism is a socio-economic system in which all participants share ownership of all things. That is, it can be very democratic because the majority can establish the rules regardless of its impact on the minority. This is where the evil lies. If the "popular movement" is towards laziness then the minority can be forced to carry the load.

Imagine a business, lets say a pet shop, where there is no boss. All employees have an equal stake in the company and thus equal power. The only way to set any agenda is for all parties to vote on it. Obviously everyone would vote for high wages but would want to do minimum work. The result would be that the majority would "pick" a small group to carry the load in order to pay the payroll and the bills.

Eventually those who were picked as the workers would grow tired of doing IN-equal work for an equal share of the profit and would either try to quit or be forced to carry that load under threat of violence. This is why communist countries do not allow their citizenry to leave the country, nobody would be left to carry the load.

In a socialist system, there is a single party leadership which is "chosen" to divide the task of maintaining profitability throughout the citizenry. This means that everyone in the pet shop would be held accountable for their part. The problem is that it will be the boss (the ruling party) that chooses who does what.

So if the boss favors one person then that person will be placed in charge of collecting the money for the pets (the easy job with much opportunity for corruption) while those whom he perceives as his enemies or a threat to his leadership would be responsible for cleaning the cages. It should be rather obvious where this can end.

Both systems carry a certain degree of "sacrifice" on the part of the individual in order to "provide for the greater good" of the nation. This is admitted in the constitutions of nearly every self proclaimed socialist and communist nation in the world. Some even admit that these "sacrifices" are in the form of potential for prosperity and personal liberty. These are the sacrificial lambs of every system of government ever implemented, including socialism, communism, democracy, monarchy and a host of variables therein... that is, except for the little experiment known as the U.S.A.


Silence DoGood said...

All of the ills you mention are characteristics of extreme capitalism as well.

You are talking about pure systems and they fall hard. Unregulated capitalism is the same.

Monopolies and small groups of power brokers bear no reward whatsoever for personal achievment and incentive. Any new ideas are simply sacrificed for the good of the company, in the vain hope the the small elite group will reward this sacrifice.

American history shows over and over that this rarely happens. The brilliant inventor in a company is often given a company tee-shirt and goes back to work. In early company towns in fact people were not allowed to even leave, much like your socialistic systems.

In fact you say "Eventually those who were picked as the workers would grow tired..." Do you seriously think the original "workers" in America were thrilled to be picked? You know those non-male non-white non-land-owner types. Trust me, the American designated workers were tired too.

Most of what you describe as elite controlled unfair system applies to extreme anything. And that is why the wonderful stroke of genious in our founders involved balance of powers in the new Republic and an adaptable government.

This reflected their varied philosophical and religious backgrounds while applying common morals and sense. They knew that no hard-coded system could survive - they are all abusive left unchecked. Including capitalism.

flounder said...

The capitalism that was built into our nation was to be regulated, in that, the government was to provide that contracts were not to be misrepresented and that the agreed terms would be adhered to. This served our nation well in the beginning of the industrial revolution, actually, it was the driving force behind it. It was after the success of capitalism had proven its worth that the government regulated it to death. Now they have the power to set the terms of contracts as well.

In a true free market.. value is given by the public not the industry. If the practices of a business are too harsh then the people could boycot the product, thus creating a market for a new supplier of that product. There is no product that is a true necessity without the government proclaiming it as such, even money.

In a socialist system, all of the power belongs to the ruling class.

For example: years ago we had a choice between paying into a risk pool for insurance or putting the money aside and accepting the risk. If the insurance industry was really that bad then groups of people would start putting money aside under contract that the money be spent certain ways. Now we cannot do this because the government has set regulations which only big insurance companies can meet.

Soon we will be forced to buy into insurance no matter what because the risk pool will be too heavy to allow the healthy to opt out, it's in the plan.

Which of these plans leans towards personal freedom? Maybe I'm wrong but I'm not aware of any case where free market capitalism (as our forefathers proscribed) has been abusive.

Silence DoGood said...

"Maybe I'm wrong but I'm not aware of any case where free market capitalism (as our forefathers proscribed) has been abusive."

Well then let me give you some examples.

Slavery (many sorts), closed-company towns owning workers, elite monopolies controlling the country, horrible working conditions were all permitted under what the forefathers prescribed. You seriously have never heard of these things?

flounder said...

While we know that Jefferson generally had no love for blacks and their culture, he was the first to defend their equality as humans. He was not a supporter of slavery as we think of it and most historical accounts show that he was very good to his slaves, in that, they considered it better to be his slave than to be free in that time.

Remember, it was the Democrats that fought so hard against civil rights throughout our nations history and the republicans who fought to free the slaves.

The Capitalism that our founders gave us was working well up until the end of the 1800s. It was at that point that the socialist elitists moved in and created the worst part of the conditions that you speak of.

Beyond that, the phrase "horrible working conditions" is subjective. First of all, the Federal government is in NO way responsible for working conditions. that is left up to local governments and was the failure of the electorate... not our founding fathers.

It seems like these days people are of the belief that work should be easy and that it is the governments job to make it so. That's just plain stupid. The fact is that even those "horrible working conditions" were much easier than actually having to work the field at the risk of losing the crop and starving to death so those who accepted those conditions did so as a contractual agreement. In other words, they gave up their freedom for security.

Nobody was forced to work and if they didn't accept the job then the employer would be forced to either raise the pay or ease the work load. That is how capitalism works. The alternative is that the majority votes for one group to set the rules to match their own values and that is real slavery.

Silence DoGood said...

You are seriously arguing that because one man's slaves were cool being there, all slaves were actually happy?

"Nobody was forced to work" - I am calling bull **** on this one. A black slave or Chinese slave or any of the non-white slaves we had in this coutry certainly were forced to work. There is much historical evidence of physical violence and captivity.

And even if they could physically leave and choose to go without say food, what would they do? Put their resume up on Monster?

Congratulations, you are officially in the Revisionist group. I think it would be better if you don't share your thoughts on the holocaust.

flounder said...

"You are seriously arguing that because one man's slaves were cool being there, all slaves were actually happy?"... No way! I was saying that even our founders knew that slavery was wrong and that the majority of Northerners as well as many southern Republicans either did not own slaves or owned them to keep them safe.

The topic is the comparison between capitalism and socialism so for now let's concentrate on those who were afforded the freedom that our founders had intended.

Nobody was forced to work, they chose to do so. In a free society no government can force one man to provide for another. We have the freedom to decide who will recieve the fruits of our labor and who will not.

If someone does not like the conditions of a working contract then he can refuse it. He will then either need to make himself marketable or make himself worhty of charity... otherwise he is on his own.

Freedom requires courage, the promise of infinite reward is hinged on the risk of ultimate failure. If this is a risk that you are willing to take then come to America... but if you are afraid then go to any one of the other countries where you will be required to give up freedom for security. Do not try to make it unlawful for the rest of us to take that risk.

flounder said...

You have suggested that you are against both total control and total freedom, where do you draw that line and how does one pick those who will draw that line for us?

silence dogood said...

Yes, I am against total control, whether it be a socialist politburo or a conservative McCarthy inquisition.

Ok so as a thought experiment - we all have total freedom! Where I draw the line is when that personal freedom is stopped.

When someone is denied a job because of their color or religion, I would want my government to pass a law that assures the freedom to work.

If someone steals my idea and prevents me from cashing in on it, I expect my government to pass a law against such theft to give me back my freedom.

And liberals have gone too far sometimes by attempting be so inclusive that the laws now attempt to bring everyone to neutral instead of lifting up people with limited freedoms. Liberals often do this by money control laws such as punitive taxation.

And conservatives have gone too far in attempts to apply morality laws usually based on supposed religious heritage. They would establish a religious oppressive government if unchecked.

I don't think our founders envisioned either a conservative religious state or a socialist elite state.

And THAT is precisely the reason they were astoundingly brilliant in creating a changable system with checks and balances. They knew reality and reason swing between what today is looney conservatives and pie-eyed liberals. Lord help us if either group ever "wins".

Anonymous said...

First let me point out that real conservatives have no intent to legislate morality, however, you are referring to the religious right, which calls themselves conservative but I am working hard to help them past their ignorance.

Beyond that simple misunderstanding (or mis-inclusion) I completely disagree with the government telling me who I must hire. If I am the one accepting ALL of the risks of starting a business then I should have the freedom to hire whomever I choose for whatever reason I choose. To order me to hire a black man simply because he is black is federally enforced racism.

If I think my business will do better if I hire only white women then it is my right to hire those individuals, if a segment of the population disagrees then they have the right to start an opposing business and hire as they please. That is real freedom, for the government to pick my employees would be giving them way too much power.

A great example of this type of problem is this... Here in Florida the state has passed a clean air law that bans smoking in all resturaunts.

So this tiny little greasy spoon near rural plant city is kept in business by the same group of patrons from week to week. The prices were a little high and the food was not so great but the owner allowed smoking. This drew business from many of the larger (non-smoking) resturaunts around town.

Once the ban was passed it became illegal for this owner to allow his only customers to do what they came to do. As a result, they returned to the cheaper places near their homes and our businessman is now collecting unemployment.

To and for whom was this fair? It was a minority store supported by a minority clientel but was wiped out by the wishes of the majority who would never have even heard of this place. This is your regulation at work.

Remember.. "The majority must always succeed, unless it is at the expence of the minority".

Custom Search