The Democratic Socialist Platform Echoes the Madness of the Khmer Rouge

No, because your liberty leads to

What do you mean?
You are talking about America where men were dying at the age of 50 from hard labor or from war.
You also conveniently forget that at that time land was free and it was distributed by the government.
We are at the different stage now, all land has been occupied either by the government or by private owners.
How can you be free if nothing is available for free.

I know how you are thinking, you have got a piece of land and money and want other people (who has no money or land) work for you for free (just for the food).
That is your definition of free, I guess.

 

I didn't even bother responding. Anyone who gives those as examples of what they would like is beyond redemption.

 

Yeah even the ones who were lined up and shot.

 

They did a great job for people with AIDS

Got a disease? No problem! Just throw all of them into a prison and separate them from the rest of society.

 

A plan for what? Continuing to support the weight of our current population, and the ability to structure an economic system that produces sufficient resources for them all? Ok, Capitalism. The assertion of "taking away health care" is pure sophistry on your part. A strawman without evidence. Asking for folks to earn something isn't the same as taking the option away from folks. I know, you don't understand that, but it is true none the less.

I don't recall anyone saying on the right side of the aisle that SS was to be "taken away", but it maps back to your previous baseless assertion. That seems to be a trend with you...

 

History demonstrates centuries of white dictatorial rule over black lives, from 1619 thru 1965. Blacks are where they are now because whites forced them there against their will. Every racial ill we're all dealing with today in society was caused by white arrogance & ineptness thru history. And now you want to pretend everything we've tried to do to integrate more blacks into the general society has been wrong? I disagree completely. You're twisting the positive achievements of good legal programs around to make them appear somehow negative &/or destructive to the people they were designed to help. That's completely wrong. You seem happy with the historic racial prejudice that has beset out nation since before its founding. It's been around far too long. I thought we'd defeated it after the Civil Rights Act of 1965, but I was sadly wrong. I guess there will always be racists in this country, and I guess they'll always have a voice & a following. But I WON'T BE ONE OF THEM.

Democrats today are 1. made up of all racial groups, and 2. are trying to help every different group feel they are accepted as equals with every other group under the law. Going back to the old ways before the Civil Rights Act of 1965, would foster an upsurge in public racism that I, & every Democrat I know, never want to see happen.

 

All I can say is this:
"When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money. Not an ocean of tears nor all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor—your claim upon the energy of the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default on that moral principle which is the root of money. Is this what you consider evil?--Ayn Rand, http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/money.html

Nah. I'll pay market wages. Don't like it? See you later, alligator.

 

-- https://www.quora.com/What-was-the-life-expectancy-of-a-medieval-era-knight

Life expectancy before capitalism: "Average life expectancy in the Middle Ages was about 40, but that includes the 50% of the population that died before age 3, and the 30% who died between 3 and 21. Anyone who lived past 21 could easily live for another 40 years, and probably closer to 50."

After the Enlightenment: "Life expectancy has increased rapidly since the Enlightenment. Estimates suggest that in a pre-modern, poor world, life expectancy was around 30 years in all regions of the world. In the early 19th century, life expectancy started to increase in the early industrialized countries while it stayed low in the rest of the world."-- https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy

The Enlightenment comes, America is born, capitalism takes hold; and the miseries, sorrows, and despairs of living recede, and the joys, pleasures, and glory of living flourishes. Go frigging figure.

You know, Mr. "I'm in love with feeding off of my betters" socialist sychophant, reality doesn't lie.

 

Hmmn. If its so frigging great, why are they so GD impoverished? Oh, yeah. Evil Capitalists. Selfish bastards won't give their wealth to thieves, despots, and tyrants.

 

I think you are confused.
The Enlightenment, a philosophical movement of the 18th century, characterized by belief in the power of human reason and by innovations in political, religious, and educational doctrine.
You are an advocate of wild west capitalism, that has nothing to do with Enlightening.

 

Cuba is much better then Haiti even under US blockade.
The problem is a dictatorial power and violation of human rights, that can happen under both economic systems.

 

Are you saying capitalism is based on armed robbery?

 

But those pieces of paper (money) is the government.
You can't do anything without the government.
There is not enough gold on earth to replace the money.

How about market?
Who organize the market?
It is a government.

You can't live without the government.
If you are not against the government, then why government should protect you (one who seized a land earlier) vs me (the one who does not have a land)?

 

Yep, that is exactly right.
The difference between monopolies and gangsters is that monopolies have government protection.

 

Hmmm. Adam Smith? Ricardo?

So let’s say your right, The Enlightement had nothing to do with economics; the stats are still astonishing, and quite literally a gold star on Capitalism’s report card.

 

How silly and ignorant of me—and here I thought it was free men trading freely, that which is theirs in exchange for that which they want. Go figure.

So, Smith, Mises, Bastiat, Rand, and many others, have no clue to the true nature of capitalism. Astonishing.

So what do you call the system of free men trading freely? A delusion?

 

True, You need a government, but not a governmental money printing press. In other words, a seperation of state and economics.

Plus, neither paper nor gold is the value, it represents the value.

Ayn Rand: “Money is a tool of exchange; it represents wealth only so long as it can be traded for material goods and services. Wealth does not grow in nature; it has to be produced by men. Nature gives us only the raw materials, but it is man’s mind that has to discover the knowledge of how to use them. It is man’s thinking and labor that transform the materials into food, clothing, shelter or television sets—into all the goods that men require for their survival, comfort and pleasure.” http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/money.html

 

But majority of slaves were black because European had colonized the Africa. It has noting to do with racism.
Slavery was a part of human kind for thousands of years, there were white slaves, brown slaves, red slaves etc etc etc.
In US corporate slavery is booming, and majority of slaves are white.
Why it is necessary to divide people by race, don't you understand it is counterproductive to pit people against each other?

 

That is an old theory, that theory is not working anymore, because all means of production already divided among monopolies.
We have to fight back to break monopolies.
The only way to get back is to implement progressive tax where monopolies will pay greater tax as they get richer.

 

Let's see, wherever there's capitalism, there's prosperity; but wherever there's progressivism there's... there's..well, hell, there's desolation. Yet, you want more progressiveness. Why? Humans not dying fast enough for you? 100 million plus slaughtered is insufficient? You don't like watching "Elementary" on a hot summer day, in an air-conditioned home, on 72 inch 4K TV, while drinking a Pina Colada, with your woman dressed in a Hawaiian kimono grilling steaks for you? You're some kind of a masochist? (Do your best not to get stuck in the concrete and miss the abstraction, i.e., life is great if you give it your best and don't demand others live it for you).

Progressive taxation is taking the wealth created by men's best, giving it to the undeserving, in the name of the useless. It starts out by stealing a man's yacht, progresses to yanking the shirt of a man's back, and ends up ripping out his heart as the Mayans use to--though the Mayans did it out of superstitious fear, Progressives do it out of hatred for the good. Nice policy. You aren't Mayan, are you? You're a Progressive, right?

One question: How do you propose to keep feeding the fleas, if you drain all the blood from the dog?

Why Progressive Tax is Morally Wrong--By Yaron Brook

 

Yaron Brook lives in the past or he is presumably stupid.
We can't do that anymore.
Currently the prosperity is decreasing tremendously, as a result of outsourcing a capitalism to the socialism and slave labor.
All the blood has been used up, there is nothing for "capitalists" to suck.
Sorry man, it is time for Socialism, no matter how bad it is.
It is 100% your fault because it is a result of your glorified predatory "capitalist" policies.

 

Damn. And here I am richer than any king who ever lived. Maybe you've accidentally slipped into an alternate universe?

 

Socialism: The Reality

Seattle Is Dying



The Progressives call it compassion, the reasoning mind calls it a cancer eating the living alive.

It is the end result of the practicing altruist mentality; it is the worst of mankind devouring its best.

Is there a solution? Yes. Objectivism. Read Atlas Shrugged.

 

1. Actually black slavery was going strong long before Europeans began colonizing Africa. The slave trade began in the late 1500s, and started in what is now the U.S. in 1619. European colonization of Africa began in the 1800s. And, black slavery had EVERYTHING to do with racism.
2. Yes, slavery was. In those days it was based on tribal or regional or national dominance over neighbors. The stronger societies enslaved the weaker ones, based on strength rather than race. But slavery is an inhumane thing regardless of what it's based on, and one humanity as a whole should have out grown long ago.
3. I agree with you on this point. Corporate slavery is more akin to the older cultural dominance slavery of the ancient world & middle ages than racist basis between the late 1500s to 1865, but is still debilitating on a personal level.
4. It shouldn't be. But we live in a world molded by past events & leaders. Most of us form part of our personal identity by which groups we are member of. Those groups can be based on a myriad of themes. . .race, religion, national origin, gender, political persuasion, social class, etc. The list goes on & on. Democrats simply accept the reality of this situation & try to work within it to help everyone in any group to feel OK about themselves & each other, and learn to work together as a member of the nation & the world. Cooperation within a society is always more beneficial & rewarding to everyone in that society than competition. Democrats aren't pitting one group against another. They are trying to work with all groups as one, and teach those within each group to see other groups as having more in common with themselves and each other than they have as differences. That would hopefully help unify them as Americans. Conservative Republicans are the ones dividing us--NOT DEMOCRATS.

 

How can you blame Republicans if Democrats divide people by groups and pit them against white males.