"Religious Liberty" ?

[ether-ore]

I'm asking for a simple quote in the constitution where it explicitly or implicitly depicts a power that the federal government should not have that it currently has. Its easy to say "well the constitution this..." or "the constitution that...". When it comes down to it most of the time people don't actually have a specific portion in mind and simply went along with a generalized feeling of what they thought or think the constitution should be or said. What are the "bounds" that it has crossed? What articles do they list them?

Very cleverly phrased. The problem with socialists is that sooner or later, you run out of other people's money. There exists a conflict between what the founders intended with the original constitution and the perversion that exists today. Efforts are being made to call a states convention to rectify the matter.
But to name the defining powers of the original:
Article 1, section 8, 9 &10 define the specific powers of Congress.
Article 2, section 2 defines the specific powers of the President.
Article 3, section 2 defines the specific power of the Judiciary.
These are some of the powers strictly defined and outlined by the Constitution.
The 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
It was never intended by the founders that the Federal Government should be so all invasive, intrusive and so full of corruption as it has become. In fact the checks and balances built into the Constitution were intended to prevent that very thing.
Amendments to the constitution that need to be rolled back by the convention of states are these:
The 16th amendment: Senators were supposed to be assigned by the various state legislators and not by popular vote in order to preserve the interests of the states against a too abusive federal government.
The 17th amendment: The power to tax the people directly was to be reserved to the states and the federal government was to get its funds from the various states. There should be no IRS.
These two amendments were designed by evil men to garner power for elitists and are the source for most of the problems existing today. Another thing that the federal government is involved in that it should not be is education. This belongs under the auspices of the various states.
I've no doubt but that you will disagree. Socialism requires someone lusting for power or someone looking to benefit from someone else's labor. Which are you? What socialism really requires is people losing their freedom.
Please to not tell me that you are in favor of helping the poor. If that were the case, there is nothing stopping anyone from giving to the poor. Promoting the general welfare as stated in the preamble of the constitution does not mean providing welfare and the federal government has no business forcibly extracting funds from people at the point of a gun for something it shouldn't be involved in anyway. That is a state function as per the 10th amendment.
I'm not saying that these functions shouldn't exist. I'm saying that if they do, they belong at a state level.
In the struggle of freedom versus security, I'm in favor of freedom. I get my security from obedience to God, not the federal government.

 

[icehorse]

ether-ore,

You're making lots of claims at once. How about a few at a time? You said:

Socialism requires someone lusting for power or someone looking to benefit from someone else's labor. Which are you? What socialism really requires is people losing their freedom.

I'll ask again, are highways and bridges and fire departments and safety standards and building codes examples of socialism in your mind? If not, how do you classify these things? If so, what would you propose instead?

 

[ether-ore]

ether-ore,

You're making lots of claims at once. How about a few at a time? You said:



I'll ask again, are highways and bridges and fire departments and safety standards and building codes examples of socialism in your mind? If not, how do you classify these things? If so, what would you propose instead?

I should have thought that would have been clear from what I said. Anyway, with the exception of an interstate system of highways, all of the things you mentioned should be handled by individual states. In that context, those are legitimate functions of state governments. My concern is with the federal government being out of control, and it being out of control, there is no way to escape it. If state governments attempt overstepping reasonable restrictions to power, people can vote with their feet and move to a more just state.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Very cleverly phrased. The problem with socialists is that sooner or later, you run out of other people's money. There exists a conflict between what the founders intended with the original constitution and the perversion that exists today. Efforts are being made to call a states convention to rectify the matter.

We have spent more on war than it would be needed to run every socialist program imaginable. We could have given free tuition to every person in the united states, free healthcare to everyone in the united states, expanded food stamps and secured nearly half a million public jobs to help stimulate the economy. But instead we indirectly created ISIS and made the whole radical Islamic state worse.

But to name the defining powers of the original:
Article 1, section 8, 9 &10 define the specific powers of Congress.

Article 2, section 2 defines the specific powers of the President.
Article 3, section 2 defines the specific power of the Judiciary.
These are some of the powers strictly defined and outlined by the Constitution.
The 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
It was never intended by the founders that the Federal Government should be so all invasive, intrusive and so full of corruption as it has become. In fact the checks and balances built into the Constitution were intended to prevent that very thing.

To my knowledge the government hasn't breached this. You do understand that this means that the federal government can do whatever it wants and the states then have powers that the federal government doesn't grant itself. IF there is an amendment made to the constitution that changes something that was different beforehand it is then changed and the previous portion is invalidated. A good example of this is the prohibition. They made an amendment to end the prohibition by nullifying part of the previous constitution. Same with slavery and the granting of rights to certain individuals such as women and minorities. There has never been any such portion of the constitution that states the federal government cannot do what it has done.

Amendments to the constitution that need to be rolled back by the convention of states are these:
The 16th amendment: Senators were supposed to be assigned by the various state legislators and not by popular vote in order to preserve the interests of the states against a too abusive federal government.
The 17th amendment: The power to tax the people directly was to be reserved to the states and the federal government was to get its funds from the various states. There should be no IRS.
These two amendments were designed by evil men to garner power for elitists and are the source for most of the problems existing today. Another thing that the federal government is involved in that it should not be is education. This belongs under the auspices of the various states.
I've no doubt but that you will disagree. Socialism requires someone lusting for power or someone looking to benefit from someone else's labor. Which are you? What socialism really requires is people losing their freedom.

First off get your facts strait. A simple google search could have prevented you making an *** of yourself. The 16th amendment states that the government has power to tax for federal purposes without having to obtain taxes from the states. This is no way breeches any previous constitutional right of the states. Even if it did the fact that it is an amendment means that it is now the law. The old law is no longer valid. This is a legal proceeding as designed by our founding fathers. The 17th Amendment was the amendment granting a direct vote for senators. I have never heard someone argue against this. You are in favor of having non-elected officials being the most powerful voting caucus of law making power in the united states? No thanks. I would like a say with my votes rather than someone simply appointing me a leader.

You don't have the first clue about socialism or what it means to be a socialist. You don't see how you have directly benefited from socialism. All you know is the lies that you have been taught and no amount of education or information will sway you. I hope I am wrong. If you want a clear explanation of why I support certain socialistic policies I can tell you. It has nothing to do with wanting someone else's power or benefiting from someone else's labor. I actually am above the 50% line in this country in terms of income. I'm not the 1% or anything like that but I make more than the average household as a single male living by himself. I have plenty of money left over for hobbies, savings ect. The only major bill that I am working out right now is my student debt and I should be able to pay that off in the next three to five years.

I support social polices because they make sense by the money. It is simply cheaper to fund public single payer healthcare systems that are fair and effective for all people. We waste more than twice as much money as we should for a level of care that simply isn't superior by the numbers. We don't have the best healthcare in the world and we pay far too much for such a shoddy system. A single payer system would drastically increase the amount of spending money as nearly 20% of our GDP is spent on HEALTHCARE. This should be around 6 or 7%. Maybe up to 9% if we really wanted a *****in system.

Our schools are far behind what they need to be. Our education system is so **** poor that we aren't even in the top 10 in the world anymore.
It goes
1) S korea
2) Japan
3) Singapore
4) China
5) Finland
6) UK
7) Canada
8) Netherlands
9) Ireland
10) Poland
11) Denmark
12) Germany
13) Russia
14) USA

That is pretty pathetic. For the Richest nation in the world to have such **** poor performance its disgusting. But then when we look at the way our country treats education and the way we fund it (or rather don't) its easy to see why we fall so low. We are also the only country on that list that actively fights fact based science with religious propaganda.

Another thing is that Canada doesn't have drastically higher taxes than we do. In fact in my Tax bracket I am taxed at 25%. That is higher than the majority of Canada. There are two Providences in Canada where I would be taxed higher and the highest would be a whooping 27%. The lowest would be at 21%. Yet they have free healthcare, lower crime, 21 people were killed by police in Canada in 2014. That is less than NYC. Poverty in the United states is 14.5%. Canada is rated at 4.9%. Canada, despite being a socialized nation with tons of socialized programs have a lower tax rate than Americans, higher average income and smaller national debt than the US.

I could bring up more and more about other nations but Canada is usually enough. This is why I support social programs. I am not a communist and for some reason anti-socialist don't actually understand the difference between communism and socialism. I believe this is because the two terms were put into the blender used to make your cocktail of lies in order to make you a good hardworking American to make the 1% as rich as possible and move against your better interests.

Please to not tell me that you are in favor of helping the poor. If that were the case, there is nothing stopping anyone from giving to the poor. Promoting the general welfare as stated in the preamble of the constitution does not mean providing welfare and the federal government has no business forcibly extracting funds from people at the point of a gun for something it shouldn't be involved in anyway. That is a state function as per the 10th amendment.
I'm not saying that these functions shouldn't exist. I'm saying that if they do, they belong at a state level.
In the struggle of freedom versus security, I'm in favor of freedom. I get my security from obedience to God, not the federal government.

I don't believe in god. His track record is terrible and his reliability and results are zilch. I trust in science, math and human ingenuity. The answers are there. The goals are attainable. I can't help the poor on a large scale. But my money could be put to use to allow our country as a whole to be healthy, functional and great once again. Our economy is sick and the arguments are between treating it with poison or venom.

 

[Nakosis]

Capitalist police forces don't work out well for example. It is products or services. It doesn't have to be a production of something physical that is used but rather the public service that is a shared ownership. Capitalism and socialism are not conflicting terms always.

Ideally, maybe that's true. It doesn't seem to work that way. The police turn out to be as capitalist as anything else.

"Hello. I just read your article about the current state of affairs in law enforcement. After 20 years in law enforcement in the NYPD I must say it was spot on. Not everything we did was to combat crime as revenue generating was considered more important. The amount of officers dedicated strictly to revenue generating would shock most people.
Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/retired-police-officer-revenue-generating"
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/retired-police-officer-revenue-generating/

Not saying you are wrong, just saying. It's all about generating money for one's own organization. I don't personally have anything against socialism but I don't see we have anything like that. Maybe on paper.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Ideally, maybe that's true. It doesn't seem to work that way. The police turn out to be as capitalist as anything else.

"Hello. I just read your article about the current state of affairs in law enforcement. After 20 years in law enforcement in the NYPD I must say it was spot on. Not everything we did was to combat crime as revenue generating was considered more important. The amount of officers dedicated strictly to revenue generating would shock most people.
Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/retired-police-officer-revenue-generating"
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/retired-police-officer-revenue-generating/

Not saying you are wrong, just saying. It's all about generating money for one's own organization. I don't personally have anything against socialism but I don't see we have anything like that. Maybe on paper.

I agree that this is wrong. It is a flaw of our system. The police themselves are designed to be socialistic in nature but there are corruptions and there are flaws. Public roads, public education and most commonly or directly are the programs and departments that regulate the safety of our infrastructural systems such as water, waste, trash and electricity. Those are socialist in nature as well.

 

[ether-ore]

We have spent more on war than it would be needed to run every socialist program imaginable. We could have given free tuition to every person in the united states, free healthcare to everyone in the united states, expanded food stamps and secured nearly half a million public jobs to help stimulate the economy. But instead we indirectly created ISIS and made the whole radical Islamic state worse.


To my knowledge the government hasn't breached this. You do understand that this means that the federal government can do whatever it wants and the states then have powers that the federal government doesn't grant itself. IF there is an amendment made to the constitution that changes something that was different beforehand it is then changed and the previous portion is invalidated. A good example of this is the prohibition. They made an amendment to end the prohibition by nullifying part of the previous constitution. Same with slavery and the granting of rights to certain individuals such as women and minorities. There has never been any such portion of the constitution that states the federal government cannot do what it has done.


First off get your facts strait. A simple google search could have prevented you making an *** of yourself. The 16th amendment states that the government has power to tax for federal purposes without having to obtain taxes from the states. This is no way breeches any previous constitutional right of the states. Even if it did the fact that it is an amendment means that it is now the law. The old law is no longer valid. This is a legal proceeding as designed by our founding fathers. The 17th Amendment was the amendment granting a direct vote for senators. I have never heard someone argue against this. You are in favor of having non-elected officials being the most powerful voting caucus of law making power in the united states? No thanks. I would like a say with my votes rather than someone simply appointing me a leader.

You don't have the first clue about socialism or what it means to be a socialist. You don't see how you have directly benefited from socialism. All you know is the lies that you have been taught and no amount of education or information will sway you. I hope I am wrong. If you want a clear explanation of why I support certain socialistic policies I can tell you. It has nothing to do with wanting someone else's power or benefiting from someone else's labor. I actually am above the 50% line in this country in terms of income. I'm not the 1% or anything like that but I make more than the average household as a single male living by himself. I have plenty of money left over for hobbies, savings ect. The only major bill that I am working out right now is my student debt and I should be able to pay that off in the next three to five years.

I support social polices because they make sense by the money. It is simply cheaper to fund public single payer healthcare systems that are fair and effective for all people. We waste more than twice as much money as we should for a level of care that simply isn't superior by the numbers. We don't have the best healthcare in the world and we pay far too much for such a shoddy system. A single payer system would drastically increase the amount of spending money as nearly 20% of our GDP is spent on HEALTHCARE. This should be around 6 or 7%. Maybe up to 9% if we really wanted a *****in system.

Our schools are far behind what they need to be. Our education system is so **** poor that we aren't even in the top 10 in the world anymore.
It goes
1) S korea
2) Japan
3) Singapore
4) China
5) Finland
6) UK
7) Canada
8) Netherlands
9) Ireland
10) Poland
11) Denmark
12) Germany
13) Russia
14) USA

That is pretty pathetic. For the Richest nation in the world to have such **** poor performance its disgusting. But then when we look at the way our country treats education and the way we fund it (or rather don't) its easy to see why we fall so low. We are also the only country on that list that actively fights fact based science with religious propaganda.

Another thing is that Canada doesn't have drastically higher taxes than we do. In fact in my Tax bracket I am taxed at 25%. That is higher than the majority of Canada. There are two Providences in Canada where I would be taxed higher and the highest would be a whooping 27%. The lowest would be at 21%. Yet they have free healthcare, lower crime, 21 people were killed by police in Canada in 2014. That is less than NYC. Poverty in the United states is 14.5%. Canada is rated at 4.9%. Canada, despite being a socialized nation with tons of socialized programs have a lower tax rate than Americans, higher average income and smaller national debt than the US.

I could bring up more and more about other nations but Canada is usually enough. This is why I support social programs. I am not a communist and for some reason anti-socialist don't actually understand the difference between communism and socialism. I believe this is because the two terms were put into the blender used to make your cocktail of lies in order to make you a good hardworking American to make the 1% as rich as possible and move against your better interests.


I don't believe in god. His track record is terrible and his reliability and results are zilch. I trust in science, math and human ingenuity. The answers are there. The goals are attainable. I can't help the poor on a large scale. But my money could be put to use to allow our country as a whole to be healthy, functional and great once again. Our economy is sick and the arguments are between treating it with poison or venom.

That wars occur is not justification for spending money on social programs at the federal level.
I am taken aback at you statement" "You do understand that this means that the federal government can do whatever it wants and the states then have powers that the federal government doesn't grant itself"... That the federal government grants power to itself is the problem.
The idea that the federal government should tax the people directly is a bad thing because as history has shown, it refuses to live within its means and taxes keep going higher and higher. If the federal government had to depend on the budgeted revenue it received from the states, I don't believe we would be in the condition we are in.
I actually think I do have a clue of what if means to be a socialist. It means that you believe in what is expedient and efficient in terms of economics. Whereas I believe that freedom is beyond economic consideration. The thing about socialism that I do not like is that participation in it is not voluntary; that it stifles the agency and spirit of man in deciding what he will do with the resources he has earned. Socialists do not believe in private property and they seem to believe that the state can "at will" take whatever it thinks is needs and the individual who is deprived of his property has no recourse.
Of course I disagree that the most economically efficient way of handling healthcare is by the federal government taking it over, so you and I will be political enemies over this issue.
I believe the low standards in education are the direct result of federal government interference. Education belongs at the local community level and those school systems with input from parents should decide what their children are taught. I believe when this is done, our ranking will go back up.
I do believe there is a difference between socialism and communism. It is a matter of degrees, but the thing is that once the socialist ball gets rolling, it snowballs and government is never satiated until is has absolute control over everything. The definition of socialism states that all things are managed by the community. Herein is the lie. It is not and never has been the voluntary cooperation of members of a community. It is always the forced will of elitist who think they know better than everyone else... it is about power, controlled by a centralized government.
That you don't believe in God is evident, but I don't think you understand why we are here in mortality. God is not going to do things for us or make choices for us while we're here. He gave us agency and provided guidelines for our behavior. It is up to us to make choices for good or evil relative to God's commands and then live with the consequences. When the day of judgment comes He will determine from how we chose and how we responded to challenges, what will happen to each individual then. This life, this test, is not all there is to existence. It is a precursor for what is to come depending on the choices we make and how we respond to challenges.
Of course you can put your trust in science, math and human ingenuity if you please, but may I suggest that a temporal perspective is a bit short sighted. I'll continue to put my trust in the guidelines God has set and hold onto my agency which socialism would take away.

 

[Nakosis]

ether-ore,

You're making lots of claims at once. How about a few at a time? You said:



I'll ask again, are highways and bridges and fire departments and safety standards and building codes examples of socialism in your mind? If not, how do you classify these things? If so, what would you propose instead?

They are government agencies of which the public has little control over. Certainly not in the "spirit" of socialism.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

That wars occur is not justification for spending money on social programs at the federal level.
I am taken aback at you statement" "You do understand that this means that the federal government can do whatever it wants and the states then have powers that the federal government doesn't grant itself"... That the federal government grants power to itself is the problem.

I tend to agree with this as well. But the argument of constitutional power somehow saying the government can't do what it currently does is bull**** and you know it. It is your opinion that the government is doing something you don't personally feel the government should do. It isn't backed by any sort of constitutional issue

The idea that the federal government should tax the people directly is a bad thing because as history has shown, it refuses to live within its means and taxes keep going higher and higher. If the federal government had to depend on the budgeted revenue it received from the states, I don't believe we would be in the condition we are in.

What has the debt done to hurt your life? What has the debt done at all or caused? I don't think its a good thing but so many people have linked the high national debt to our economic problems. There is a huge link but its not in the direction you think. Our poor economic situation caused the debt. Not vice versa. Fix the economy you fix the debt. The majority of extra spending comes in that of war. Stop going to war and we balance the budget.

I actually think I do have a clue of what if means to be a socialist. It means that you believe in what is expedient and efficient in terms of economics. Whereas I believe that freedom is beyond economic consideration. The thing about socialism that I do not like is that participation in it is not voluntary; that it stifles the agency and spirit of man in deciding what he will do with the resources he has earned. Socialists do not believe in private property and they seem to believe that the state can "at will" take whatever it thinks is needs and the individual who is deprived of his property has no recourse.
Of course I disagree that the most economically efficient way of handling healthcare is by the federal government taking it over, so you and I will be political enemies over this issue.
I believe the low standards in education are the direct result of federal government interference. Education belongs at the local community level and those school systems with input from parents should decide what their children are taught. I believe when this is done, our ranking will go back up.

You are simply wrong then on both accounts of healthcare and education. Without public education the majority of us would not have education. What has caused our low standards of education is that we have improved over the years and have slowly whittled down the budget allotted to schools. Back in the 50's and 60's just learning what we learn now would be fine. We didn't need to be as educated as most jobs for the common people were low skill factory jobs or menial jobs working on something you learn on the job. Now the economy has evolved. We require more from our workers now than ever before and the wage gap has caused individuals who are on the lower, unskilled, spectrum to be forced into poverty with no real means of going up without having the most expensive secondary schooling in the world.

There is no study ever that claims that our lack of a healthcare system is effective. Every other industrialized nation has some kind of socialized medicine. Every coutnry but America that has the means to create a system has seen that it is the most effecitve system to go to. Only in America do you go into debt for being sick. If you want to pay 3-4 times as much for worse care than everyone else in the modern world then fine. But I don't want to be a part of that.

If you live in a country you are by law unable to opt out of being a part of that nation without leaving. This means paying taxes. This means following the laws. In socialized nations this means that you get benifits or basic services for being in that country.

I do believe there is a difference between socialism and communism. It is a matter of degrees, but the thing is that once the socialist ball gets rolling, it snowballs and government is never satiated until is has absolute control over everything. The definition of socialism states that all things are managed by the community. Herein is the lie. It is not and never has been the voluntary cooperation of members of a community. It is always the forced will of elitist who think they know better than everyone else... it is about power, controlled by a centralized government.

All kinds of false. Socialism is simply services provided to the public as funded by the public. It doesn't even have to be a form of government. Communism is government control of the economy. Socialism is not an economic system. Communism is an economic system.

A good example here.
Socialists pool in money and fund a school and a hospital so that the capitalistic economy can function well having educated and healthy workers. This means the economy doesn't have to compensate for either and can run more smoothly. You have even more economic freedom than purely capitalistic nations with no socialistic tendencies as you then have to compensate your own economic freedom in order to make up for your healthcare and education.

communists tell you to go to a building they call a school. They tell you what work you are to do and you get paid whatever they say you get paid. You don't have economic freedom to do what you want.

That you don't believe in God is evident, but I don't think you understand why we are here in mortality. God is not going to do things for us or make choices for us while we're here. He gave us agency and provided guidelines for our behavior. It is up to us to make choices for good or evil relative to God's commands and then live with the consequences. When the day of judgment comes He will determine from how we chose and how we responded to challenges, what will happen to each individual then. This life, this test, is not all there is to existence. It is a precursor for what is to come depending on the choices we make and how we respond to challenges.
Of course you can put your trust in science, math and human ingenuity if you please, but may I suggest that a temporal perspective is a bit short sighted. I'll continue to put my trust in the guidelines God has set and hold onto my agency which socialism would take away.

Nothing in socialism fights against freedom or god. In fact it makes it easier. You have more freedom with socialism than you do without it.

 

[Nakosis]

I agree that this is wrong. It is a flaw of our system. The police themselves are designed to be socialistic in nature but there are corruptions and there are flaws. Public roads, public education and most commonly or directly are the programs and departments that regulate the safety of our infrastructural systems such as water, waste, trash and electricity. Those are socialist in nature as well.

Unfortunately these "socialist" systems are open to corruption like anything else. Ideally capitalism would work except for corruption. Both have some ideal of power being shared equally, but that's never the way it works. People are controlled by their desires.

If there is no God to judge their actions, then why shouldn't people seek to benefit themselves at the expense of others?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Unfortunately these "socialist" systems are open to corruption like anything else. Ideally capitalism would work except for corruption. Both have some ideal of power being shared equally, but that's never the way it works. People are controlled by their desires.

There are self regulating systems that can be put in place to help end corruption. An effective one for several several years was checks and balances. Term limits for congresspersons would be a huge step up for ending a lot of political corruption. Also capping campaigner money.

However I don't see how a purely capitalistic system with no socialistic tendencies would effectively create a police, fire department, effective education or regulatory system. Even if there were no corruption.

If there is no God to judge their actions, then why shouldn't people seek to benefit themselves at the expense of others?

Because we as sentient beings can deduce the fairer and more just thing to do. We can choose to create a society in which this is not tolerated because it is desirable by nature. I don't see how this has anything to do with socialist or non-socialist issues.

 

[Nakosis]

The issue of religious liberty is about all religious denominations and religious individuals having the right not to violate their own belief systems. If a particular denomination owns and operates a hospital, they have the right not to have to perform abortions if that is against their belief system. The woman wanting an abortion can go some place else. There are plenty of other places available. If a particular individual believes that homosexuality is contrary to their set of beliefs, then they have a right not to associate with or do business with a homosexual for any reason if that is their choice. Again, there are plenty of other places a homosexual can go. There is no need for any religion or person to be forced to go contrary to their will in these matters.

Some "belief" systems need to be violated in the name of compassion.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The issue of religious liberty is about all religious denominations and religious individuals having the right not to violate their own belief systems. If a particular denomination owns and operates a hospital, they have the right not to have to perform abortions if that is against their belief system. The woman wanting an abortion can go some place else. There are plenty of other places available. If a particular individual believes that homosexuality is contrary to their set of beliefs, then they have a right not to associate with or do business with a homosexual for any reason if that is their choice. Again, there are plenty of other places a homosexual can go. There is no need for any religion or person to be forced to go contrary to their will in these matters.

Why not have the bigots go elsewhere. Iran seems to have similar political views? Can I make that recommendation?

 

[Koldo]

The thing about socialism that I do not like is that participation in it is not voluntary;

What do you mean by 'voluntary'? Can you give me an example of what would be 'voluntary' ?

 

[Nakosis]

There are self regulating systems that can be put in place to help end corruption. An effective one for several several years was checks and balances. Term limits for congresspersons would be a huge step up for ending a lot of political corruption. Also capping campaigner money.

They just get placed in some non-elected official capacity. It's probably a better position than having you actions scrutinized by the public.

However I don't see how a purely capitalistic system with no socialistic tendencies would effectively create a police, fire department, effective education or regulatory system. Even if there were no corruption.

Ideally, they are regulated through payment. If they don't perform, they lose the business because people are free to seek these services from whomever preforms the best at the lowest cost. Organization with poor service who don't live up to their contracted obligation don't survive. So only the most efficient best performing services prosper. With the government, they just increase taxes, which you are forced to pay regardless of how shoddy the service is.

Because we as sentient beings can deduce the fairer and more just thing to do. We can choose to create a society in which this is not tolerated because it is desirable by nature. I don't see how this has anything to do with socialist or non-socialist issues.

Or not, because we are sentient beings. There's no necessary causation there. Human greed is a problem with any system. It is easy to use people's desires to manipulate them. That more than anything else gives a few people control over any system. Because of that, socialism can be manipulated to allow power in the hands of the few who end up controlling the many.

The system doesn't matter, it's the people in power who run it. There's no system of governance that's going to prevent the corruption of power.

You have to put power into the hands of someone regardless of the system. Believers, especially Christians believe in the corruption of man. If there is no higher power that man answers to then the system will ultimately be corrupted.

That's really just supporting my view that socialism is no better than capitalism. The system doesn't matter.

Why Christians seem to support capitalism over socialism? I don't know. Maybe it is just a matter of cultural conditioning. Capitalism is the American way the way of liberty. Socialism leads to government control and the government will always be corrupt...

I honestly don't see what prevents the corruption of capitalism either though. I guess protection of individual property and individual rights.

The government is corrupt but it's a necessary evil. Capitalism limits government control by limiting the government ability to intrude on individual property and individual rights.

 

[Nakosis]

What do you mean by 'voluntary'? Can you give me an example of what would be 'voluntary' ?

The argument for capitalism is that is is a system that protects individual rights. Vs socialism which allows a governmental entity to decide everything for you.

 

[Koldo]

The argument for capitalism is that is is a system that protects individual rights. Vs socialism which allows a governmental entity to decide everything for you.

There is no such thing as protection to individual rights in Capitalism itself.

 

[icehorse]

I should have thought that would have been clear from what I said. Anyway, with the exception of an interstate system of highways, all of the things you mentioned should be handled by individual states. In that context, those are legitimate functions of state governments. My concern is with the federal government being out of control, and it being out of control, there is no way to escape it. If state governments attempt overstepping reasonable restrictions to power, people can vote with their feet and move to a more just state.

Hi ether-ore,

What I'm not understanding is the principle you're using to decide what's a federal level task and what's a state level task? For example, how about auto-safety standards? Where would you place this task, and why?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

They just get placed in some non-elected official capacity. It's probably a better position than having you actions scrutinized by the public.

Such as?

Ideally, they are regulated through payment. If they don't perform, they lose the business because people are free to seek these services from whomever preforms the best at the lowest cost. Organization with poor service who don't live up to their contracted obligation don't survive. So only the most efficient best performing services prosper. With the government, they just increase taxes, which you are forced to pay regardless of how shoddy the service is.

But how does it function? How would a private police force be any different than private security is now? If I am poor and being robbed do I get a bill in the mail if I call the police? Do they not come if I have an outstanding debt? Who holds the police accountable if there is an issue with brutality? Would the people who have money and are able to hire the police automatically be allowed to have greatest say in what laws are enforced? Do they provide basic services such as scouting the areas and public for crime and catch offenders of that crime? If so then who pays them for that service? Is someone just going to have to be kind and donate the money?

The problem with a police force that is private rather than public is that they do the job for a client. A public police force does not have a clientele but a designated area in which they enforce laws.

Can you explain to me how a private company could preform an area based task with equal time and effort spent on crime rather than private services to specific paying individuals?

Or not, because we are sentient beings. There's no necessary causation there. Human greed is a problem with any system. It is easy to use people's desires to manipulate them. That more than anything else gives a few people control over any system. Because of that, socialism can be manipulated to allow power in the hands of the few who end up controlling the many.

The system doesn't matter, it's the people in power who run it. There's no system of governance that's going to prevent the corruption of power.

You have to put power into the hands of someone regardless of the system. Believers, especially Christians believe in the corruption of man. If there is no higher power that man answers to then the system will ultimately be corrupted.

That's really just supporting my view that socialism is no better than capitalism. The system doesn't matter.

Why Christians seem to support capitalism over socialism? I don't know. Maybe it is just a matter of cultural conditioning. Capitalism is the American way the way of liberty. Socialism leads to government control and the government will always be corrupt...

I honestly don't see what prevents the corruption of capitalism either though. I guess protection of individual property and individual rights.

The government is corrupt but it's a necessary evil. Capitalism limits government control by limiting the government ability to intrude on individual property and individual rights.

I was listing the reasons why we can and often do promote systems of governance that isn't might makes right. No system is without its flaws and systematic and constant weeding of corruption is required. For a system to work well, not perfectly but well, it needs a level of transparency and public accountability.

Christians often support the republican hard right concept of government because this political party has been taken over by religious fanatics that have very elegantly and skillfully tacked on god and Jesus to everything they wish to represent. They do this so well in fact that people can't see the difference anymore between fiscal conservatism and social conservatism. Being against gay marriage and being against high taxes have absolutely nothing to do with each other. However the concept of the two have been fused in the minds of the public. Its another causality of the two party system.

 

[Nakosis]

There is no such thing as protection to individual rights in Capitalism itself.

Individual control of property is the basis of capitalism. The right to control that property. If I own a building, if I own equipment, I have the right to decide who gets to use it and what it is used for. If you own a house and have a right to be secure in that ownership, that's capitalism.