My Brand of Socialism

[Mike C]

Define "unneeded" please.

 

Unneeded income (surplus) is money that they do not need to live their luxurious lifestyle.

They use those dollars to expand their dinosaur corporations that result in job reductions, buying government representation and etc

.

And again, is anyone with "unneeded" money to be disallowed the right to free speech? Why? Is it simply that "all rich people are bad?"

My question was not about the "voting system" its about who has the right to speak freely in our society: you seem to be advocating strongly for restrictions on the speech of those who have "unneeded dollars." This might or might not be bad, but *how* you go about doing it could be every bit as evil as that which you rail against.

The question is, what is the meaning of "run the system like it is supposed to."

 

According to the CN that mandates electing government officials that are supposed to serve your needs.

Capitalisms 'bought' advertising is NOT free speech.

 

As mentioned by others above, its easy to say "if we just get rid of the bad people we'd have a great society!" The devil is in the details, and unfortunately you've put your idea out into the marketplace where other's freedom of expression may require you to fill in those details if you want others to take your idea seriously.

So how do issues that the candidate does not want to talk about get to be exposed?

 

The most important issues will always be exposed into the open.

Issues like 'abortion' that are important to me (I support it) to stop these population explosions devastating Nature are an example.

 

I'll repeat the more difficult question though: who gets in the paper *at all*? I posed a critical question about the process of "becoming a candidate" which is a very hard one to deal with in a practical manner. In order for this system of "government publishes the candidates positions, no advertising" you still have to decide who gets in and who does not. Its either a nominating process (thus infinite regression on people "paying" to be made a candidate), or its everyone who feels like it, in which case you end up with an election like the current San Francisco Mayoral election which pretty much guarantees that the incumbent gets re-elected because all the challengers steal each other's potential base.

 

Well, unfortunately, thare are no copywrite laws regarding politics.

Regarding who gets on the ballot? Who gets on nowadays?

The ones that gather petitions to get on the ballots are included.

Incumbents would get reelected when their voting records in government justify their reelection.

 

Mike C

[Buffy]

Unneeded income (surplus) is money that they do not need to live their luxurious lifestyle.

They use those dollars to expand their dinosaur corporations that result in job reductions, buying government representation and etc.

Again, who decides its "unneeded?" I have worked for groups that are seen by some as having "undue" influence on politics. They even have heavy corporate backing but promote issues that you might support (e.g. abortion rights). Are you saying that all such political action should be stopped?

 

Or is there some sort of politburo that will stop speech by "oil companies only seeking to inflate their profits?"

 

What standard do they use?

 

Do you understand why I am asking these questions?

 

Regarding who gets on the ballot? Who gets on nowadays? The ones that gather petitions to get on the ballots are included.

The people that get on the ballot are the ones who can *afford to pay* for petition signature gathering!

 

Because of the problem I mentioned in my previous post--that there is a societal *need* to limit ballots (and that mythical "government paper" that you're advocating) to prevent every Loony Toon who wants to run from being listed--means *someone* needs to pay money to gather them! Otherwise the government would have to then pay anyone who walked in the court house door a "petition gathering fund" so that they could gather signatures unfettered by "unneeded funds."

 

I'm just pointing out the fact that the "problem" you've solved here has just been pushed back a level: requirements for getting on the ballot--which again is identical to "qualifying" to be in your "government paper"--are so high, that you need big bucks to get there. And this can regress almost infinitely.

 

I need funds to support the development of my application for my petition gathering fund to support my campaign to get on the ballot and then support my application for campaign funds to support my run for city dog catcher, :)

Buffy

[Mike C]

Again, who decides its "unneeded?" I have worked for groups that are seen by some as having "undue" influence on politics. They even have heavy corporate backing but promote issues that you might support (e.g. abortion rights). Are you saying that all such political action should be stopped?

 

Or is there some sort of politburo that will stop speech by "oil companies only seeking to inflate their profits?"

 

What standard do they use?

 

Do you understand why I am asking these questions?

 

No. I said 'bought' speech is not free speech. If it is political during an election campaign, then that could require that the ad allow a 'rebuttal' in a pro people view since the people cannot pay for a rebuttal.

 

The people that get on the ballot are the ones who can *afford to pay* for petition signature gathering!

 

Because of the problem I mentioned in my previous post--that there is a societal *need* to limit ballots (and that mythical "government paper" that you're advocating) to prevent every Loony Toon who wants to run from being listed--means *someone* needs to pay money to gather them! Otherwise the government would have to then pay anyone who walked in the court house door a "petition gathering fund" so that they could gather signatures unfettered by "unneeded funds."

 

Ha ha. You sure can come up with problems.

Well, that kind of problem can be outlawed with a law that petition gatherers be by volentary workers only.

That way, they would be supporters of the issue they are working for.

 

I'm just pointing out the fact that the "problem" you've solved here has just been pushed back a level: requirements for getting on the ballot--which again is identical to "qualifying" to be in your "government paper"--are so high, that you need big bucks to get there. And this can regress almost infinitely.

 

I answered this above.

 

Mike C

[charles brough]

Your defeatest attitude is one reason why progress cannot continue.

If the people vote the right people in for political and economic reform, who is there to stop them?

 

Capitalist CORRUPTION is corporate welfare!

Incidentally, I support individual enterprise. But only if there are limits established to create more equality in our country.

 

In My Brand os Socialism, work (jobs) are guaranteed for everyone. So where is the welfare here?

Welfare only goes to those that do no work and that is what capitalism is.

Brains create nothing TANGIBLE.

Only HANDS (workers) can do that.

So the irony here is that the ones that create the REAL WEALTH are reduced to ROBOTS. That is your capitalisms final end product.

GET REAL! Mike C

 

I don't see myself as defeatist! I see a whole new civilization ultimately being built here on Earth! I see the human race colonizing space and living a more moral, loyal and meaninfull life. I see this because all old civilizations eventually die and this one has filled with obesity/starvation, poverty/luxury, selfishness, addiction, immoraity, sex-emphasis, materialism, stress and subdied hostitlity. This dying civilization will be replaced by a better one and I see how. Civilizations are cyclical in nature. Nothing lasts forever and no economic system is ideal.

[Mike C]

I don't see myself as defeatist! I see a whole new civilization ultimately being built here on Earth! I see the human race colonizing space and living a more moral, loyal and meaninfull life. I see this because all old civilizations eventually die and this one has filled with obesity/starvation, poverty/luxury, selfishness, addiction, immoraity, sex-emphasis, materialism, stress and subdied hostitlity. This dying civilization will be replaced by a better one and I see how. Civilizations are cyclical in nature. Nothing lasts forever and no economic system is ideal.

 

Well, as long as you have the 'power' factions governing our lives, then you will have problems.

 

That is why I have promoted My Brand of Socialism to conform to our Constitution as it mandates a government that serves the citizens.

 

We have to recapture our government from the current 'self serving' factions that are now controlling the politicians

 

Mike C

 

.

[C1ay]

Socialist is a form of government that would promote the people issues, such as the following:

 

Guaranteed jobs for all citizens.......... No unemployment!

Guaranteed pensions for all citizens.............For workers, management personnel, government employees and any other responsible citizens.

Guaranteed health care.............For all citizens that should include the ‘alternative’ health care practitioners.

And any other essential needs at a reasonable subsistence level.

 

By what moral right does one take the bread one man hath earned and simply give it to another that hath not earned it? By what right is anyone entitled to the fruits of another man's labor? How do you fund your government without doing this?

[Mike C]

By what moral right does one take the bread one man hath earned and simply give it to another that hath not earned it? By what right is anyone entitled to the fruits of another man's labor? How do you fund your government without doing this?

 

As I said on numerous occasions, the 'workers' create the 'real tangible wealth' that we all enjoy today.

 

Can you tell me what RTW the capitalists create?

I am not criticizing all capitalists, just the ones that are inflicted with a 'dollar stuffing craving' that deprives the workers with a fair share of the wealth they create.

 

If you are referring to the government taxes on the wealthy, well our Constitution mandates these taxes that serve a purpose for various government functions and that means, people issues.

 

Most capitalists DO NOT do any real physical work that creates the real goods.

 

Mike C

[C1ay]

Try again. You avoided and dodged all of the questions. It doesn't matter what "real physical work" anyone does. By what right do you take anything that one man has earned, by any legal means, and give it to another that sat on his ***?

[modest]

By what right do you take anything that one man has earned, by any legal means, and give it to another that sat on his ***?

In a socialist state the government has every right, no?

 

Would you rather the government share its poverty and freedoms with you, or its wealth and cruelty? Or, like Cuba, you could get poverty and cruelty - that's no fun.

 

Did they ever find out what happened to the tiananmen square guy in front of the tank? I wonder what happened to him.

 

-modest

[C1ay]

In a socialist state the government has every right, no?

 

No. Taking what one has earned of his own labor is theft. Cuba is a good example of communism's success. So is North Korea. Capitalist America is not perfect but it sure is feeding a much larger percentage of it's people that these rat hole countries are...

[HydrogenBond]

Socialism could work at the level of tribal sized cultures. This group is small enough to be an extended family, willing to share and take care of each other. In a family, the parents don't mind sharing with any of their children, even if the children don't want to do anything, but play. The close neighbor may not be quite as generous. While the people in the next neighborhood, who don't even know you, may be even less so.

 

Try this socialist's experiment. If you live in a dorm, put up a sign saying this is a socialist room and everyone is allowed to share everything you have. If you have some money, make all $1, and say they can share that too. What would happen is you would be looted by everyone.

 

Next, scale up the experiment so the entire dorm is socialist. Everyone can use or have whatever anyone else has. If you have the best stuff, you will be looted by those trying to upgrade. People gaining better stuff, will then be looted by others, so they might decide to hide the best stuff. Or since they didn't have to work for it , they may not give it the same care, causing it to get broken.

 

Nobody will go to the store, to upgrade their room once again, since it will end up in someone's room. The best strategy going into this experiment would be to take all our favorite stuff out of the game and begin with bare bones. If everyone used this strategy nobody would have anything to loot. Many people would feel deprived, not being able to use their new toys, out of fear someone will see it and loot it. There would be hoarding.

 

Part of the problem with socialism is although the culture may not be capitalistic, humans will still behave with a capitalist attitude. Rather than compete in the free market, one competes with others tryng to gather the best community resources possible for their family and close friends. This may require getting up at 4AM to stand in the front of the long line for some rationed product. Once you get it, the neighbors, who didn't bother to get up early, may want you to share. If there is only enough for the family, you may have to say, they ran out. Or one might have to be firm and tell them to be more competitive in the next rationing cycle.

[modest]

No. Taking what one has earned of his own labor is theft. Cuba is a good example of communism's success. So is North Korea. Capitalist America is not perfect but it sure is feeding a much larger percentage of it's people that these rat hole countries are...

 

I don’t know what you mean by “Cuba is a good example of communism’s success” if you think it is theft and a "rat hole country" Probably being sarcastic. But, other than that - I agree in principle. When a government takes your freedom that is one kind of theft that is usually preceded by the theft of your compensation for labor. It seems like a very short jump from a government that feels entitled to curtail individual assets to a government that feels entitled to curtail individual choice and behavior. It’s the whole “Animal Farm” thing.

 

Democratic socialists (which I guess Mike C would identify himself) think that the economy can be socialistic while the governing principles can be democratic. I think (for reasons I went into in previous posts) this tends not to work.

 

Would you consider any taxation theft, or is there a limit beyond which government goes too far?

 

-modest

[C1ay]

I don’t know what you mean by “Cuba is a good example of communism’s success” if you think it is theft and a "rat hole country" Probably being sarcastic.

 

Oops, I forgot the sarcasm tags. Yes, I was being sarcastic. Cuba and North Korea are good examples of the injustice that communism can lead to. OTOH, Sweden is an example of a socialist leaning ideology. Technically a Constitutional Monarchy, it rates the highest on the Democracy Index and is more capitalist than other European countries.

 

Would you consider any taxation theft, or is there a limit beyond which government goes too far?

 

No. The able citizens should each pay their share of the common expenses and those expenses should include support for citizens unable to support themselves as a result of physical or mental limitations. It becomes theft though when the government seizes money from one able citizen and gives it to another able citizen. Able citizens that choose not to do their part should not have any entitlements funded by others.

[Buffy]

OTOH, Sweden is an example of a socialist leaning ideology. Technically a Constitutional Monarchy, it rates the highest on the Democracy Index and is more capitalist than other European countries.

Sweden has a couple of minor parties with Socialist in their names, but only American wingnut conservatives would call Sweden a "Socialist Country."

 

There is a huge difference between a "Socialist" governmental structure--which most often is either a direct democracy or a "dictatorship of the proletariat" (i.e. Communism transitioning "someday" to "real Socialism")--and a government that emphasizes programs that "promote the social welfare."

 

Its been a very useful to confuse the two for right-wing parties to call anyone who supports government programs that "promote the General welfare" through "social services" must be a dirty pinko Commie.

 

As far as the political system goes, Sweden is no more Socialist than the US.

 

We should have had socialism already, but for the socialists, :)

Buffy

[C1ay]

Sweden has a couple of minor parties with Socialist in their names, but only American wingnut conservatives would call Sweden a "Socialist Country."

 

Yes. For me Communism and Marxism come to mind when someone uses the Socialist label. I would consider Sweden as neither if these.

[CraigD]

By what moral right does one take the bread one man hath earned and simply give it to another that hath not earned it?

For the US Congress, by the rights granted by the 16th Amendment to the Constitution.

 

The language of this amendment is very broad, entitling Congress to take the income of any person and give it to any other however they see fit. The radically progressive tax proposed by Mike C is Constitutional per this Amendment, as is the current tax code, which, with its exemption of sources of income more common among the wealthy than among the poor, such as dividends on investments and capital gains, I would describe as a regressive tax.

 

We US voters have the power to elect Congresses that exercise their 16th Amendment powers as we collectively wish them to. We can even elect a Congress that repeals the Amendment, dramatically reducing the income of the federal government – though I think this very unlikely to occur in the next few decades.

 

Although many point to the beneficial effects of the past decades’ increasingly regressive tax codes, I believe that public opinion is changing. I expect the coming decades to bring a return to moderately progressive US tax policies and increased entitlement programs, principally in the form of assured high quality health care for all US residents.

[Mike C]

Try again. You avoided and dodged all of the questions. It doesn't matter what "real physical work" anyone does. By what right do you take anything that one man has earned, by any legal means, and give it to another that sat on his ***?

 

Like Craig says, by the law that has given us the freedom to enjoy a more

freer and 'equitable' life that currently does not seem to be working as it should.

 

Several decades back in time, the spread between the top earners and the working Americans was about 25 to one. Then the war against the unions that our Constitution mandates as a reprentative union nation (Lincoln was a Union man) started to emerge condemning the unions as socialist communist organiztions.

So now with the decline of unions and the rise of capitalism and its partnership with the Roman church, they have established themselves as the 'new world order'.

So with their corruptive influence into the government and our politics, the spread now between the top earners and working Americans has INFLATED to about 500(?) to one. Now billionaires are ballooning by the hundreds, while workers wages and jobs are shrinking by the hundreds.

 

Is this the kind of dollars you are referring to as earned by these top earners?

I wonder how many CEO's died in office like the workers that sacrificed their lives in the mines and skyscrapers and other dangerous work places to make these people billionaires?

 

Mike C