I say Im a Socialist and people dig it

I didn't say that. I'm just saying that I'm never going to realize that I'm a Keynesian capitalist, because I'm not.

Except I have.

I'm pretty sure I pointed to Publix.

I don't think I'll always be a socialist. I'm always willing to accept new information. But at the present, I believe socialism (after extensive in-depth study) is the best economic system out there, so that is what I will follow.

 

Because that is the purpose of taxes. The purpose of taxes is 100% to fund the government, most of that funding being for the government to protect the lives and freedoms of its citizens.

Whether or not they currently do that is not my point.

 

Seems you have no sympathy for anyone in America (but yourself, of course).

 

I have college degrees, do you? Didn't think so.

 

"Real" poverty depends on where you live. Just because the poor in America might not be as bad off as the poor in Africa or India does not invalidate the fact that they are poor and need help.

 

It's not like realizing you have a thing for redheads. It's more like right now you are perhaps someone who cannot integrate properly around singularities or who thinks that most food stamp money is spenty on raw ingredients that are cooked lovingly from scratch into healthy meals.

Depending on the course you take in life those two things and your socialists leanings might never change. But I think you might manage at least working out two out of three.

mmm hmmmm.

No, though perhaps you did to some other poster in some other thread. But getting back to the thinking things through and your extensive research business, if you're willing to hold up Publix as your example of how your brand of socialism should work, how much do you really know about them? Do you know the manner in which they are employee owned? Do you know whether or not they have of have had a president, a CEO, a board of directors, a single individual owning a majority of the stock and controll even if the rest is owned by employees, or none of the above?

I'm betting that unless you've worked for the company you don't know those answers while you're reading this. And having browsed about their website a bit just now, I think the other "socialists" would disown you and your Publixalism.

 

Yes, I am aware that this is one of the justifications offered by our wise overlords for their violent behavior.

 

Sure you do, this is the Internet, you can be anybody you want too.

 

Any female who would seek out a male mate who "digs" the idea of someone else providing for their future family
has serious self esteem problems, or has had her evolutionary instincts indoctrinated away.

 

But unfortunately, the socialists have also warped the females into digging pieces of sh*t. They don't leave anything untainted.

 

I love when folks get me!

 

You know the old saying about one being born every minute.

 

People like it when you tell them your socialist?? Who are you hanging out with anyway!!

Maybe they think you said you're on the social list. hmmm?

 

I would bet college students that have yet to experience reality outside of a liberal institution.

 

Violent behavior? What are you talking about?

 

Or, unlike you, they might have actually studied socialism.

 

Unlike you, some of us were alive when the Soviet Union existed. Enjoy your books, kid...

 

Sorry, but the Soviet Union was state capitalism, not socialism, and even if it was socialism there are about six different models and seventeen variants, the Soviet Union would have been only one. One bad road does not invalidate all travel to Los Angeles.

 

The initiation of aggression against people and property undertaken by the State. Actions that would be considered criminal by anyone but our wise overlords.

 

Oh, great. You're one of the radical ones.

*sigh* Taxation is not theft, buddy, violent or otherwise.

 

Yes, I am aware that this is the opinion of those who believe in the ideology of State. Yet the act is still the same: one person takes the property of another through violence. You believe that this act is allowable for some people, whereas I think the same rules of morality apply to all people. That is where we differ.

EDIT: Also, I am not only referring to taxes. The state initiates many forms of aggression against people that would be regarded as criminal if undertaken by anyone other than our wise overlords.

 

Yet another double post.

 

I do NOT believe in the State. I believe in shredding the State to near extinction. Even then I would like to go further. But I am a realist more than an ideologue, so I understand that a stateless society is impossible.

What violence?

And that property goes to YOUR benefit. Or, rather, it's supposed to.

On the contrary, we don't differ on that at all.

 

It seems we agree.

Or maybe we don't.

EDIT - I'm curious as to why do you think a stateless society is impossible. What societal functions do you see as only being able to be performed by a coercive, monopoly state?

The violence the state will use to collect its taxes.

Doesn't effect whether or not the taking is a moral act. A mugger can't make up for his crime by spending his loot on others, or even the victim himself.

So then you don't think it's okay for some people to take the property of others? Now I'm confused.

 

Man requires near perfection for a stateless society to work. We have nothing close to near perfection.

Where is it?

i'm saying we do not differ in that I think the same morality applies to everyone.