Who cares about the poor the most?

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by montra, Dec 21, 2013.

  1. Mr. Swedish Guy

    Mr. Swedish Guy New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2012
    Messages:
    11,688
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    0
    But alas, the US wasn't socialistic, so how can they've gotten it right if you tihnk they meant for it to be socialist?

    Absent.

    And the government didn't own the labour, machines, tools or raw materials. Those were in private hands, and thus the system was capitalist. Infrastructure is a part of the means of production, but to say the government owns the means of production because it provides infrastructure, whilst the rest are in private hands, is misleading.

    The current government yes, but I'm speaking of the US at its founding. There was no federal reserve, nor did the government take any active role in trying to steer the economy, like presidents are doing nowadays.

    I'm speaking of the contitution and the founder's vision for america, which wasn't socialist. The current government is irrelevant.
     
  2. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Did you know that non sequiturs are usually considered fallacies? And, not only that, give the impression that you really are experiencing a "market failure" in valid arguments and sound lines of reasoning.

    Where is the capitalism Part in ceding our natural rights in favor of a Social, State enabled by a Social Contract?
     
  3. Mr. Swedish Guy

    Mr. Swedish Guy New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2012
    Messages:
    11,688
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Talking about non sequiturs and logical fallacies only makes you look smart if you apply them correctly. You have not.

    I already told you. Absent.
     
  4. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    They are applied correctly; it is you who are failing to provide a valid rebuttal and valid argument:

    Where is the capitalism Part in ceding our natural rights in favor of a Social, State enabled by a Social Contract?
     
  5. Mr. Swedish Guy

    Mr. Swedish Guy New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2012
    Messages:
    11,688
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No they are not. I'll let the internet be the judge of that.

    I've already answered you twice: it's absent.
     
  6. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Sorry about that; I guess I missed the point of your answer; it could have been based on some fallacy. Thanks for pointing that out.
     
  7. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,649
    Likes Received:
    1,741
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Like I pointed out before and as the definition you posted clearly states, socialism may exist in degrees.
    I don't believe anyone here is claiming that our democratic government does or has ever owned all the means of production,
    but that it owns some of the tools (such as money), some of the raw materials, and some of the infrastructure and machinery,
    means our system is not 100% capitalist and is in fact partially socialistic.

    So you agree that the U.S. as it exists now is socialistic, but you're saying it wasn't at its founding?
    Well certainly it has only gotten more socialistic over the years, and maybe you're right, maybe the country itself was not socialistic at all at founding.
    But to that I say that while there my not have been any socialism in practice at the time of its drafting, it was basically our constitution which not only allowed but even encouraged our country to become what it is today. As soon as the founding fathers added in the following, it was only a matter of time...

    “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

    "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;"

    "Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."

    -Meta
     
  8. Mr. Swedish Guy

    Mr. Swedish Guy New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2012
    Messages:
    11,688
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I am saying that currently the US is a mix of capitalism and socialism, but that it wasn't socialist in any meaningful way at it's founding, and that the founders weren't socialists. Those quotes can be interpreted as socialist, but are not necessarily so, and doing so would require a very vague definition of socialism which would include so much as to make it a near-useless word, and being very far from the common usage. It also true that historically, they weren't interpreted in a socialist manner, and something resembling socialism wasn't around in the US until the progressive movement (iirc).
     

Share This Page