Alcohol & Welfare Programs: Topics on today's show

[Candlepower]

It is hypocritical to laud socialism and then not have the integrity to live in a country where it is the law. It's like a kid who bemoans his dad's system but continues living under his roof, eating his food, and bumming the car. Some folks are all hat and no horse.

[brody196]

Socialism works great! .........................That is, until you run out of spending other peoples money...Then it ain't so great..

Here's a question for you Kauf: How much of the money that I earn am I entitled to keep? 75%? 50%? $10? How much should the government be allowed to take?

[SteveF]

Brody,

I'm curious to know how much you think you should pay?

[SteveF]

Thanks for the reply Jeremiah. You seem to try and view things pragmatically. I guess we can be wrong together.

[kaufmannphillips]

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Yeah, the real problem was that Napoleon had a coordinated and compulsory system for meeting the needs of vulnerable animals. That's what Orwell was pillorying.

Perry wrote:
No, the problem was that, once empowered, Napoleon made all the decisions, and he didn't care a whit for the other animals. If you think that a socialist system is less likely to lead to an empowered elite who control a disenfranchised majority, then you're forgetting that, once he get's the dogs on his side, he does whatever he bloody well wants to do. And the harder Boxer works, the quicker he's rewarded with a trip to the glue factory.

Both socialist and capitalist systems can be forced onto a disenfranchised majority by an empowered elite. But if the broad consensus of a democratic society stands in support of socialist paradigms, then the enfranchised majority of that society can choose an operational construct that is both democratic and socialist.

Orwell himself supported democratic socialism: toward the end of his life, he wrote, "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it." N.b., Animal Farm was written in '43 & '44.

Perry wrote:
Of you can keep bleating that socialism, which does nothing to reward productivity, is good, and the meritocracy of capitalism is baaaaaad, and I expect you will.

I have indicated above that I'm not a purist, and that I am open to considering and trying out different policies that are not utterly socialist. (Not that I should expect you to hang on my every word - but you might be better off for it. )

But socialism and reward for productivity are not exclusive. Indeed, a decent socialistic system will insist on fair compensation for productivity: like I discussed above, a person who spends their life putting in decent labor should - justly - receive compensation adequate to afford a decent life. That threshold of reward is a first-order priority; once it has been satisfied for all decent laborers in society, then further rewards may be implemented to acknowledge and encourage superior levels of performance.

On the other hand - anybody with open eyes can see that meritocracy is frequently betrayed in capitalism. People who perform decently in jobs that are truly useful to society - these people are often rewarded with low wages that are inadequate to meet their reasonable needs. At the same time, people who squander their potential with trivial or even detrimental job-performances (cough - Kardashian) - these may be rewarded astronomically.

[kaufmannphillips]

Candlepower wrote:
It is hypocritical to laud socialism and then not have the integrity to live in a country where it is the law.

So, by analogy, all persons who laud democracy should move to democratic countries; they should not stay in their homelands and be activists for change. Women suffragists should have moved to New Zealand, rather than fighting for the vote. Black activists in the South should have moved north, instead of striving against Jim Crow, etc. Indeed, nobody should ever attempt to transform their society for the better, so long as there is someplace better they can move to.

I am an American. I came by my citizenship as honestly as anybody else, and it is as valid as anybody else's. The constitution of my society protects my ability to hold opinions that are contrary to the status quo; and the same constitution protects my ability to advocate peaceably and lawfully for changes to the status quo.

And the same constitution poses no inherent barrier to my society operating according to socialist paradigms: the legislature is granted unlimited power to levy and collect taxes to provide for the general welfare of the nation; and the legislature is granted unlimited power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and between the various states. These powers are sufficient to afford the establishment of a socialist society, if exercised to such an end.

Of course, I am aware that many constituents in America today are not receptive to socialist policies. That may or may not change within the next fifty years; and I may or may not live to see it change. But it is my protected privilege to advocate for that change, right here in my homeland, right amongst my fellow Americans.

Candlepower wrote:
It's like a kid who bemoans his dad's system but continues living under his roof, eating his food, and bumming the car.

Tory, ca. 1775: See ye these upstart revolutionaries – firing armaments made by British industry! ‘Tis ironic.

Copperhead, ca. 1861: Look at these federal soldiers – with suspenders and undergarments fashioned from cotton! Is it not ironic?

Chauvinist, ca. 1919: Take a gander at these here suffragettes – marching in fine dresses and shoes paid for by their husbands! Ain’t that ironic?

Like many Americans before me, I am willing to use fruits of the current status quo in my pursuit of a better status quo.

Besides - the "kid" helps maintain the roof, helps grow the food, and helps maintain the car. Sometimes "dad" forgets that.

[steve7150]

I am an American. I came by my citizenship as honestly as anybody else, and it is as valid as anybody else's. The constitution of my society protects my ability to hold opinions that are contrary to the status quo; and the same constitution protects my ability to advocate peaceably and lawfully for changes to the status quo.

And the same constitution poses no inherent barrier to my society operating according to socialist paradigms: the legislature is granted unlimited power to levy and collect taxes to provide for the general welfare of the nation; and the legislature is granted unlimited power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and between the various states. These powers are sufficient to afford the establishment of a socialist society, if exercised to such an end.







Not quite as the legislature's power to tax is subject to a President's veto and to the Supreme Court's interpretation of exactly what it's power is, and what rights States may have. For example the Obamacare plan is still not finished as the States are required to fund the Medicade portion but many refuse to. Eventually the Supreme Court will end up ruling on this too.
Fortunately here we have a constitution that can't be changed by a powerful centralized govt to increase it's power like for example Hugo Chavez who has changed their constitution so he can be president for life.
You have your rights and freedoms because of this constitution which becomes more endangered as the centralized govt grows in power and one day may change it "for the good of the people."

[brody196]

Brody,

I'm curious to know how much you think you should pay?

Not much at all. Less is best.

[Candlepower]

Oh! So you recognized yourself. Nice hat! Where’s the horse?

Here’s a recap of what you said, kaufmannphillips: blah, blah, blah. Claptrap. All hat.

I contend that if you were a man of integrity, you would go live (like the masses) for a decade in an openly socialist country, and stand in line to ride their nags. Perhaps then you would return singing a different economic tune. Instead, you sit comfortably under the umbrella of a free market* and gripe. Cheap talk. All hat.

Of course you have the right to espouse any foolishness you wish. Duh. Unlike countries suffering under advanced socialism, our open culture tolerates any number of clowns. I’m just saying you are a hypocrite.

History has proven (for those with eyes to see and ears to hear) that the economic system you champion, socialism, has always been a failure. Foolish and naive people argue otherwise. The only other people who advocate socialism are oligarchic elitists who seek total control over humanity…tyrants. And tyrants just adore all those naive socialists who don't know what they're talking about, but who eagerly help sweep them into power.

Imagining that socialism can right the wrongs of the market is akin to imagining leprosy is a good cure for skin cancer. How idiotic is that?! The correct way to correct flaws in a "free market" is by enforcing laws like, don’t steal, don’t kill, don’t lie, etc. You know, God’s laws?

Fixing the free market system by replacing it with the oligarchic tyranny of socialism only transfers economic crimes from the free market to the state, and then calls them legal. But whereas crimes committed in a free market are sporadic and occasional, Socialism is economic crime institutionalized. Socialism turns the proper role of government on its head, and has been accurately labeled, "Legalized Plunder." And that’s exactly why socialism results in economic misery for the masses, but economic bliss for the oligarchs.

Socialism is a crime against humanity. It is a multifaceted violation of God’s law. Fools (and the tyrants who exploit those fools) advocate Socialism. Socialism is economically and morally indefensible, and socialists, whether they intend it or not, are the enemies of God and man.

Here is a short list of some recent infamous socialists: Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Mao Tse-tung, Idi Amin, Robert Mugabe, Hugo Chávez, and Fidel Castro & his brother, Raul. Their ilk goes back through the centuries. Being responsible for the murders of scores of millions, they are socialism's "Poster Boys."

How can anyone associate with such scum? If I were a socialist, I wouldn’t admit it. By the way, do you know the nickname "Nazi" is short for Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers' Party)? A Nazi is a socialist. So is a communist.


* We certainly don’t have a very free market in America any more. Virulent socialism has been on the ascent here for more than a generation. The economic collapse that we are on the verge of is not the result of having too little socialism. Instead, it’s the result of having too much socialism. A nation's wealth is inversely proportional to the degree it is socialistic. The socialists have been successful in advancing their ungodly, inhumane dogma.

But there is a problem deeper than socialism. Socialism is only a symptom of a sick society. Any culture's basic problem is spiritual. An ungodly people will bring upon themselves a socialistic government. They will believe the “bread and circus” lies of those advocating socialism. They will lust for slavery, and God will give them the desires of their hearts. Read the book of Judges. And read Proverbs 28:2.

[kaufmannphillips]

kaufmannphillips wrote:
I am an American. I came by my citizenship as honestly as anybody else, and it is as valid as anybody else's. The constitution of my society protects my ability to hold opinions that are contrary to the status quo; and the same constitution protects my ability to advocate peaceably and lawfully for changes to the status quo.

And the same constitution poses no inherent barrier to my society operating according to socialist paradigms: the legislature is granted unlimited power to levy and collect taxes to provide for the general welfare of the nation; and the legislature is granted unlimited power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and between the various states. These powers are sufficient to afford the establishment of a socialist society, if exercised to such an end.

steve7150 wrote:
Not quite as the legislature's power to tax is subject to a President's veto and to the Supreme Court's interpretation of exactly what it's power is, and what rights States may have.

Fair enough - although the legislature can override a presidential veto, and can pass amendments that (if ratified) bind the interpretation of the Court. But even taking into account the checks-and-balances, there is nothing that precludes the application of Congress' powers to establish a socialist society.

steve7150 wrote:
Fortunately here we have a constitution that can't be changed by a powerful centralized govt to increase it's power like for example Hugo Chavez who has changed their constitution so he can be president for life.
You have your rights and freedoms because of this constitution which becomes more endangered as the centralized govt grows in power and one day may change it "for the good of the people."

There is value to being cautious about centralization of power.

The challenge is to develop enough centralized power to be advantageous for society, while not allowing it to develop in a way that is disadvantageous for society. People will have different opinions about where the desirable balance lies. And so, people may become incensed about centralized power when it comes to policies they don't like, yet push for it when it comes to policies they do like. In our country, this manifests on both the left and the right.