Watching the Democrats - it's Fun and Macabre!

[regular.joe]

You still have not define socialism. While you are free to do so, giving your opinion is not a definition. So I ask you to please define the word socialism.

Sent from an undisclosed location.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by regular.joe

You still have not define socialism. While you are free to do so, giving your opinion is not a definition. So I ask you to please define the word socialism.

Sent from an undisclosed location.

Unlike liberals, I shy away from redefining words, to suit my POV atm.

Socialism has already been well defined:

Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy,[1] and a political philosophy advocating such a system. "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, or citizen ownership of equity.[2] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.[3] They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets or planning, how management is to be organised within productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.[4]

A socialist economic system would consist of a system of production and distribution organized to directly satisfy economic demands and human needs, so that goods and services would be produced directly for use instead of for private profit[5] driven by the accumulation of capital. Accounting would be based on physical quantities, a common physical magnitude, or a direct measure of labour-time in place of financial calculation.[6][7] Distribution would be based on the principle to each according to his contribution.

As a political movement, socialism includes a diverse array of political philosophies, ranging from reformism to revolutionary socialism. Proponents of state socialism advocate the nationalisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange as a strategy for implementing socialism. In contrast, libertarian socialism proposes the traditional view of direct worker's control of the means of production and opposes the use of state power to achieve such an arrangement, opposing both parliamentary politics and state ownership. Democratic socialism seeks to establish socialism through democratic processes and propagate its ideals within the context of a democratic political system.

All socialism definitions have this in common - your freedoms become less - sometimes MUCH less. The control by the state becomes more - sometimes MUCH more.

When you equate Warren Buffet with his secretary, you're equating Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein, to his receptionist.

I submit to you that their accomplishments and benefit to us, is not the same.

As for the tax law - liberals and politicians under the undue influence of lobbyists, wrote it. Conservative politicians have almost always been in the minority, simply because they don't pander to the groups with the $$$, (unions (AFL-CIO), large corporations (GE), large political blocks (Israel), who will ensure their re-election.

As Representative Charlie Wilson once said:

"I'm Israel's guy on the Hill. I'm elected because I get support from a bunch of Jews in Upstate New York."

Which would be JUST FINE, except Charlie was a Rep. from Texas, which had "2 Jews in my district."

So Charlie wasn't representing his district 99% of the time. $$$Money$$$ was the reason why.

And I believe we should stop that pollution from $$$ into our politics, with a great deal of political reform.

BTW, nothing against the Jews. Just don't like the way $$$ can control politicians. What they've done is the smart play given our corrupt system of politics, and every other special interest group is doing EXACTLY the same thing. The Jews didn't make our problem, at all. We did.

[ZenGum]

Here's a go at defining socialism. It's presented as a spectrum of increasing government responsibility.

Anarchy: no shared government or rules, everyone seeks their own advantage and guards against the depredations of others. Private ownership exists so far as people can keep control of things. Tribal coalitions usually form. Human potential is not developed.

Libertarian Capitalism: private ownership of the means of production, government involvement limited to defense of the nation, and prevention of crimes against person and property. This may include regulations preventing eg very unsafe work practices, dumping toxic waste, etc. It may include critical infrastructure. Specifically, the welfare of individual people in terms of housing, education and health care are not the responsibility of the government.

Socialism: private ownership of the means of production, government involvement includes defense, prevention of crimes against person or property and also includes provision for "the public good", which may include, depending on the strength of the socialism:
(a) infrastructure like roads, sewerage, water, storm drainage etc;
(b) human services like universal education, universal health care, unemployment/poverty relief
(c) economic management such as Keynesian interventions and bailouts
(d) government ownership of utilities like rail, power, etc
(e) etc etc...

Communism: Government control of the means of production and government responsibility for almost all aspects of people's welfare.


Which things are/should be government responsibilities is the core of the debate.
It is often argued that the social provisions that benefit the poor directly (especially education) indirectly benefit the wealthy (eg by creating a well-prepared workforce, thus enabling the economic activity that the wealthy get wealthy from). Likewise, were it not for social security, huge numbers of people would be so desperately poor as to constitute a dangerous menace to the advanced society we have. These are just examples.
Where the line should be drawn is a matter of ongoing debate.

The philosopher John Rawls offers the following general answer. What is "fair" is what rational beings would agree to from the "original position" which is behind the "veil of ignorance". To be in the original position, imagine that you know all the significant facts about your society (say, 1% wealthy plutocrats, 20% upper middle class, 40% working middle class, 20% working poor, 19% very poor) but that you do not know which group you are in. Since you don't know which group you're in, it would be irrational to agree to a law that grossly favors one group over the other.

It is often argued that it is rational to "hedge your bets" in favour of more socialism rather than less. Firstly, you're very unlikely to be one of the very rich, and secondly even if you are very rich, and are paying heavy taxes to support your fellow citizens' health and education, well shucks, you're still very rich. And what well educated employees you can get!

The counter argument is that over burdening the rich will reduce economic growth, cost jobs, cut wages and thus harm the welfare of the working and middle classes. So it is rational to allow wealthy individuals and businesses more freedom to do business, because in the long run the increasing prosperity will benefit everyone more than immediate social support.

Which of these arguments is correct is left as an exercise for the class.

[IamSam]

Nice, Zen. Thanks!

[Ibby]

I was about to be all shocked and pleased that even YOU admit that a magazine size limit is necessary...
right up until you proposed that anyone but an air marshall should have a gun on a plane.





edit: what is the deal with attached gifs not animating?

[Adak]

@Ibby, I don't suffer from your fear about guns in the hands of our citizens. All CCW's require a special permit, training, and screening.

You have to accept that you can't get guns out of the hands of criminals - and if you did, they'd just use the next available weapon.

So, given that truth, do you want to be afraid or be prepared? Sheeple, or People?

There is risk, either way.

[Ibby]

fuck that "sheeple" bullshit, I don't want guns on airplanes, i don't want them in schools, i don't want them on public transport, I don't want them at sporting events, I don't want them in bars, I don't want them in civic institutions, unless they're being held by trained officials with complex systems of oversight and accountability.

And the notion that "all CCW's require a special permit training and screening" is flat out FALSE in many parts of the country, including here in Vermont where ABSOLUTELY anybody who can legally own a firearm, and passes the five-minute background check, with no waiting period, can conceal-carry.

If they didn't close at 7:00 (and I wasn't a pint of guinness and a shot of local Smuggler's Notch vodka (HIGHLY recommend it!) into the evening) i could drive myself to the local gun shop and walk out conceal-carrying it before Rachel Maddow comes on at 9:00. That might not be a huge problem here in Vermont, but it'd be a hell of a problem on a damn airplane.

[Ibby]

it says a lot that all the groups most susceptible to violence - people of color, city-dwellers, queers, and women - are almost always the loudest voices calling for tighter gun control, and those least likely to encounter violence are the loudest at saying they need to defend themselves from it.

More guns, more places, might be the solution to your paranoid self-defense fantasies, but it is NOT the solution to the hundreds and hundreds of gun deaths in this country every month.

[classicman]

..

[classicman]

...

[Ibby]

*snort*

holy false equivalency, batman!

[Adak]

We've focused on guns for illegal uses, but what about for their legal use?

Let's give the city folk a try at this one:

The gov't has employees to (usually) kill predators that keep killing/maiming livestock. [A species that is rare or protected will be trapped if possible.]

So here's the question:

How many coyotes did the gov't hunters kill last year?

(If you know the answer, give the liberals time to guess first. They are slow with factual, real life matters like this, so be patient.)

[IamSam]

Originally Posted by Adak

We've focused on guns for illegal uses, but what about for their legal use?

Let's give the city folk a try at this one:

The gov't has employees to (usually) kill predators that keep killing/maiming livestock. [A species that is rare or protected will be trapped if possible.]

So here's the question:

How many coyotes did the gov't hunters kill last year?

(If you know the answer, give the liberals time to guess first. They are slow with factual, real life matters like this, so be patient.)

How many coyotes must a fool gun down
Before you call him a fool ?
How many ears must one man have
Before he can hear coyote song?
How many deaths till he knows
That too many coyotes have died?
The answer my friend is blowing in the western wind
The answer is blowing in the Colorado wind.



Idiot!










Sent via howls from a thousand outraged coyotes, armed with Bushmasters

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Ibby

*snort*

holy false equivalency, batman!

Yes, those plastic stocks really add a TREMENDOUS ferocity to the rifle, don't they? People just fall down dead when they see plastic, don't ya know?

Same bullet
Same barrel
Same firing mechanism
Same ejector mechanism
Same breech
Sights can be the same, or different, depending on the type of game it's intended for.

The longer stock on the long rifle, allows a better "float" system to be used, if ultra accuracy is desired.

The carbine (shorter stocked rifle), has a banana clip on it. I haven't seen a high capacity clip for the longer rifle, but they may be out there.

The longer barreled rifle will give the bullet more speed than the shorter barreled versions, increasing it's range and energy.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Adak

The longer barreled rifle will give the bullet more speed than the shorter barreled versions, increasing it's range and energy.

So that bullet will go miles and kill someone. Nobody needs such assault weapons for defense, protection, or hunting.

Problem created by high power rifles was even discussed years ago. An Allentown pregnant woman shot by a lawyer using an illegal high powered rifle. Because the lawyer needed to appease his penis - not his brain. The lawyer was convicted of multiple crimes. And still refused to apologize to the pregnant woman who was only standing in her driveway. He was typical of the ignorant who who even need grenades and howitzers.

Why did the lawyer shoot her? He was firing a rifle with a high velocity bullet - that went almost a mile. But he needed big guns for the same reason other wackos need big guns. A bullet that goes far beyond the shooters vision. A bullet intended only to kill other humans. We need those longer guns because we all need weapons (and hollow point bullets) to hunt big game: other humans.

What do patriots - moderates - need? A perfect example that does not inspire 'big dic' thoughts in extremists. When guns were sold for protection and hunting, that was more than sufficient. Nobody needed hollow point bullets that only the naive, dumb, and dangerous have advocated (even here). Yes, only a liar would advocate hollow point bullets for hunting and target practice.

Today, only extremists really need weapons to hunt other people. A bullet must never go farther than what the shooter can see. Therefore a shorter barrel is what any educated person would need. Only the dumbest among us need guns that shoot farther. Who are so extreme as to even shoot a pregnant lady in her driveway. And even refuse to apologize AFTER being convicted. Only liars would insist that is necessary for personal defense or deer hunting.