Socialism is America

Ridiculous.

Education? - Yes, socialism.
Children dying in coal mines? - No, not socialism. Defense of liberties.
Standard of living? - Yes, socialism.
Dangerous machinery? - No, not socialism. Defense of liberties.
Public trash? - Yes. Socialism.
Public water? - Yes. Socialism.
Quality of medicines? - No, not socialism. Defense of liberties.
Fire department? - Yes, socialism ... unless the fire is set deliberately.
Police department? - No, not socialism. Defense of liberties.
Quality of foods? - No, not socialism. Defense of liberties.
Senior citizens? - Yes, socialism.
Public healthcare? - Yes, socialism.

Government's only legitimate responsibility is to guarantee individual liberties - i.e., protect the individual from the initiation of physical force both others and protect them from fraud and predatory practices in the marketplace. Everything else is unwarranted socialist expansion of government.

Just asking. Individual liberties and expansion of government could align in interest. A person, or many people, may find it in the interests of their personal desires and liberty to expand government. What then?

I'm not interested in your Libertarian axiomatic garbage. There's nothing about bullshit voluntarism that equates workers' rights with individual liberties, which is why Libertarian thought is so popular among business elites and plutocrats.

The point is this. The government is, demonstrably, a force for the better in terms of standard of living in a way the private sector cannot or will not be. And it doesn't have to work very hard or use very many tax dollars or limit that much freedom to provide those things.

Fuck whether you call it "Socialism" or "defense of liberties," it's all just philandering nonsense.

If it's a good policy that helps people that has no serious downside, why the fuck do we care what it's called?

Only an ideologue cares more about the philosophy of his politics than its actual ability to make life better for people on this planet.

"Children dying in coal mines? - No, not socialism. Defense of liberties. "

Unless those children are forced into working, and consequently, dying in those coal mines, it would technically be socialism and not defense of liberties since they have the choice to work those coal mines or to not work those coal mines.

"Dangerous machinery? - No, not socialism. Defense of liberties."

Again, socialism. People have the right to choose where they work and if they choose to work in an area with dangerous machines, then they themselves bare the burden of their decision. If they did not want to take the risk, then they could have found employment for a company that does not use dangerous machinery.

"Quality of medicines? - No, not socialism. Defense of liberties."

Nope, socialism. People who use medicines choose what brands they use, and how a pharmaceutical company chooses to make their medicine is their own business. Sure, they might be pawning crap medication, but according to capitalism, that will eventually bite them in the ass and their company will sink. However, forcing them to adhere to specific standards is as much socialism as the other on the list that you qualify as socialism.

"Quality of foods? - No, not socialism. Defense of liberties."

Socialism again. The government is telling companies and businesses what they can and cannot sell. No where in the constitution does it say that people have the right to quality foods, so it is arguably not a defense of liberties.

Keep in mind, socialism is an economic policy, much like capitalism. However, unlike capitalism (which in it's purest form has no regulations and is just a free for all cut throat market) it is a market that is regulated by the government. So, any regulations placed upon any market are arguably, a form of socialism.

If some individuals choose to expand their own government in their own lives, who am I to argue. The issue becomes whether those individuals choose to expand their government to the point their government begins to intrude in my life.

As I say repeatedly, the issue isn't what individuals choose for themselves, it's what some decide to choose for all. In a culture that genuinely respects individual liberty of choice, that situation isn't expected to occur.

Of course, if a culture does not genuinely respect individual liberty of choice, one can expect such liberty not to exist at all. I believe that's what we typically see in the United States.

"Democracy" or "rule of the majority" is simply might makes right. That works great IF the majority view is the most rational and reasonable at all times. History and current events prove it is more often not.

What's complete crap is the thinking that says government can do as it likes "for their own good".

No, it can't. If it genuinely supports the idea of individual liberty essential to any real civilization, it isn't the proper role of government to involve itself in anything outside of guaranteeing you are, in fact, liberated from interference by other human beings AND that they deal with you fairly, i.e., protection against fraud. The role involves principally these things - Police forces or defense against domestic threats to individual liberty, a military to defend against foreign threats to individual liberty and the court system to resolve disputes, i.e., to keep individuals dealing with one another fairly.

Certainly it's a bit more complex than that, but it isn't government's proper role to, as you say, "make life better for people" beyond ensuring their civil behavior.

All of them are defense of liberties.

Whether or not the children are working in the mines voluntarily, if the employer gives no mind to worker safety, the employer is guilty of economic exploitation. The employer is receiving much greater value than they are likely paying for - especially if the job is killing their employees. It isn't a fair exchange of value for value - it's effectively stealing. It is uncivilized because it is predation on the vulnerable. A civilized human being, eve if those they deal with know no better, deals with them fairly anyway.

Dangerous machinery? The same. Sure, there are always risks in any job which cannot be countered by even the best measures of safety. Still, if the employer isn't doing the most that can be done to ensure worker safety, they are guilty of economic exploitation. Never mind that the employee may consciously accept the risk, the civilized employer would refuse to put them in that place of danger.

Quality of medicines? True, one can only do so much to ensure product quality, but let's agree that not every manufacturer does and those who sell poor value for the money they charge or, in fact, sell dangerous product are guilty of economic exploitation - fraud.

Same with the quality of foods. A truly fair human being wouldn't sell a poor product for a high price or perhaps for any price if they're consciously aware that to do so is take more than they give in return. One genuinely respectful of individual liberty deals with others fairly. It isn't a matter of whether they can get away with it or not, it's a matter of personal integrity and respect for another human being.

"Liberty" is liberty from predation by one's fellow man. THAT is its full meaning. No one can guarantee an animal will respect your liberty, but we humans can reach an mutual agreement that we at least ensure the liberty of each other from our own predations. Human beings who do not object to predation have no need of liberties. Liberties are only necessary to human beings who wish to eliminate predation between themselves and others. To give no care to the safety of those you deal with is predatory. It might be acceptable among the savage, but it is unacceptable among the civilized. To sell a product for a price above the genuine value of that product is predatory economics. Also, to expect to receive a product for less than it is truly worth is also predatory. THAT is the nature of theft. That is the nature of socialism - the unfair treatment of one's fellow human being.

It is disregard for individual liberty.

"Whether or not the children are working in the mines voluntarily, if the employer gives no mind to worker safety, the employer is guilty of economic exploitation."

Where are we, as people, guaranteed not to be exploited if we are exploited willingly?

"Liberty is liberty from predation by one's fellow man."

Is it really predation if people willingly go to the slaughter?

"What's complete crap is the thinking that says government can do as it likes "for their own good".

No, it can't. If it genuinely supports the idea of individual liberty essential to any real civilization, it isn't the proper role of government to involve itself in anything outside of guaranteeing you are..."

Blah blah blah, you're refuting something I never talked about.

Look, here's my dogma. If it makes life better for the people on this planet, I don't care what the fuck it is or how you do it.

If you want to pretend like enforcing labor standards is somehow included in Libertarian dogma (it isn't), go ahead.

But at the end of the day, government or private sector, legal force or voluntary or force by violence, legally or illegally, the only thing that concerns me is a high standard of living and comfortable, *meaningful* freedoms for as many people as humanly possible.

Any argument which attempts to assert to me that "liberty" or whatever buzzword is popular these days is more important than peoples' actual lives, you can assume I disagree with it in principle.

And, really, that should be everyone's goal. If, at any point, you're denying people a better way of life because it interferes with your ideology, your ideology should be tossed aside.

"The government is, demonstrably, a force for the better in terms of standard of living in a way the private sector cannot or will not be."

Too bad the people who lived under A LOT of government - in Mao's China, Stalin's Russia, Pol Pot's Cambodia, etc. - did not know that.

Socialists of the early 20th century did not use that name because they knew it would turn off many people, of course. So they often called themselves "Progressives." Under the Progressives we had racism, eugenics, the Palmer raids, and attempts to rid ourselves of Founding principles (mainly under Wilson). These Socialists actually worshipped Mussolini, Lenin, and Stalin. I can post quote after quote after quote from noted leaders who supported these tyrants and monsters.

But what the "Progressives-Socialists" fail to acknowledge is that their very ability to make the demands for better work conditions and such were from the leisure and better conditions brought about by FREE-MARKET CAPITALISM.

It was not the other way around. The Socialism did not lead to prosperity; free-market capitalism led to prosperity, and then people started reflecting more on improving an already dramatically improving situation.

But don't go back a century; just go back a few decades. To the Asian Tigers. Look to South Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia. Only a generation ago, the children worked in the "sweat shops" and life was brutal. Today, the kids are all in school are among the highest achievers in the world. Do you REALLY think it was from socialist policies? Or even unions?

"forcing them to adhere to specific standards is as much socialism as the other on the list that you qualify as socialism"

No. There is a difference between the government controlling the economy and enforcing laws - laws that protect property and person. A tactic of socialists is to make virtually and service paid for, or by, government to be socialist when that is not true at all. By such reasoning, any court in the land is "socialist." Having the military is "socialism." Heck, Congress itself would be a socialist institution. There would be virtually nothing run for, or paid by, the government that such propagandists would NOT call "socialism."

And the socialists propagandists also try to claim anything people or communities do that requires pooling resources is socialist. Like a condo association collecting fees to pay maintainence; according to the propagandists, that is socialist.

Nope. It is cooperation. And the government services? Most are just that; services provided by the Constitution. Socialism requires the ownership, maintainence, and/or control of the means of production.

"here's my dogma. If it makes life better for the people on this planet, I don't care what the fuck it is or how you do it."

Problem: That implies that someone, or some "committee," in authority makes the decisions about what is best, rather than individuals.

{Any argument which attempts to assert to me that "liberty" or whatever buzzword is popular these days is more important than peoples' actual lives}

Think of liberty in terms of people being allowed to make their own choices, even if they do not appear to be good choices. Some people do not want material wealth. Some people want to spend their time in church, some working, some trying to amass fortunes, some with family, and others want to spend all of their money on drink, whores and gambling.

There's no point trying to refute what you believe here, you've just had your mind rotted.

A millennium from now you'll be looked at the same way people who defended the Roman Empire are looked at today. Hopelessly brainwashed or uncaring.

"Problem: That implies that someone, or some "committee," in authority makes the decisions about what is best, rather than individuals."

Look at where your mind instantly jumps to even though I provided no examples at all. I could have been talking about private charity there for all you know.

You've abstracted yourself from reality so much that you honestly can't even connect yourself to actual issues. You just live in prejudice and sound bites. It's fucking pathetic.

No, those two words go together in one sentence to describe Left-wingers: YOU are "brainwashed" into parroting the Leftist mantra heard over and over and over: I, a Left-winger, are right because I CARE.

Go turn on MSNBC once again; maybe they have some new lines for you to imitate.

You are very angry. I suggest you calm down.

My Element is ready and willing to run over a few of those archaic reptards :-)!

What is difference between socialism and communism. Socialists said the “good stuff” is socialism, and the bad is communism. Healthcare is socialism and political repression is communism. Pensions – socialism. Gulag – communism.

American Marxist Harvard economist Paul Sweezy, founder of Monthly Review, said “socialism and communism are alike in that both are systems of production for use based on public ownership of the means of production and centralized planning. Socialism grows directly out of capitalism…Communism is a further develop or ‘higher stage’ of socialism…socialism is… the necessary transition stage from capitalism to communism….the Communist parties….have as their goal the establishment of socialism.”

Communists believe the structure of the state must change; socialists want to use the existing capitalist structure. Soviet communism is condemned by the socialists because it did not build the state that they dreamed of.

There are consumer goods – our clothes, furniture – and capital goods – factories, mines, etc. With socialism, the former remain private but the latter, public. Under communism both are abolished as forms of private property.

So, in the deep structural aspects – infrastructure, property rights, capital markets, trade - socialism and communism are the same. Therefore, the political arrangements have to be similar.

Socialism? "The rights of the group outweigh the rights of the individual."

Of course, this ignores the fact that a group is nothing more than a collection of individuals. It also ignores the fact that a "group" is an abstract whereas an individual is a concrete, an absolute. Harm the value of the individual and you harm the value of the group.

"Communism" isn't different from socialism - it is a subcategory. It is a form of socialism, not something different unto itself.

Yes, the group is the abstract like "society" is. I believe that is an essential part of the socialist mentality, or even its core: The society assumes responsibility.

There are many implications in such thought. One big one is determinism and how much we can really make choices. The other, and I believe these socialists stress the most, is that human beings can be molded. John Dewey, for example, believed this.

Therefore, IF - repeat, IF - this were true, it would make sense to control our society and its institutions to create the "new man" and usher in an era of equality, prosperity and safety and peace.

And the 20th century saw a few people who actually believed it could be done. According to whose people, there is a big problem: In order to realize this "dream," one must first eliminate those in the way who would prevent it.

Indeed they do. Both parties will talk of "liberty", but you might notice that it's almost always liberty in only certain areas countered by additional controls in other areas. For the most part, conservatives seek economic liberty but want control over things usually associated the conscience - marriage, abortion, religion, dress, media, etc. Liberals believe one should have maximum liberty of the conscience, but want heavy control over economic liberty, i.e., the idea of "social justice", the idea of penalizing the rich for being rich and promoting the poor at their expense. It's the pursuit of the egalitarian society, or redistribution of wealth.

Neither are genuinely friends of liberty, they simply allow you liberty in areas of which they have no real interest. If they did, there'd be less and less liberty as time goes by.

Sound familiar?

Only those who seek both economic liberty and liberty of the conscience are true friends of the individual and their right to be free of interference in their personal lives. Some would say such persons are libertarians. Perhaps. I'm not entirely convinced that even the libertarians can be trusted to refrain from interfering in our personal lives, but they in the least are the closest by far to the ideal. I tend toward libertarianism but, being cautious, I remain independent on any party and belong to none.

Libertarianism sounds great, but let's not forget we're still talking about human beings vulnerable to all of the same old prejudices and mistakes.

The labels are not important, even though I frequently use the term "Left-winger."

But there is something in common, and your sister-in-law actually IS correct. Rather than those terms, the better one would be "statism," but most people cannot relate to that at all.

There are two forces struggling: Centralism and decentralism. The former wants to centralize power. The latter to decentralize it. Those who comprise what most know as the "Left" or "Liberals" today are of the former, of course. To even use the word "communism" seems to have fallen out of sophisticated "fashions," but it is essentially what we call "liberalism" or "leftism" today drives toward.

My sister-in-law is, like most strong conservatives, single-issue protective. In her case, guns. The use of "communist" is for most older Americans, a direct connection to consummate evil; anihilation, not just a different economic system. It is not lost on them that CCCP included the word "socialist". Whatever correctness might be in that statement is a deep dive into idealogy and way beyond her intent.
Statism is a given. Almost all of us accept a need for governance. We are discussing the overlaying mechanisms.
I can accept that centralism and the opposite are struggling, but not that centralism is a lefty requirement. You express the unimportance of labels yet you return there. We here are, in fact, more concerned with the issue at hand rather than ideological driven solution. Yes, we believe that centralization is better for certain issues, mostly related to consistency of assuring basic needs. On the other hand, decentralization is where we lean - financial control being the current issue; alternative energy sourcing being another.

No, the "balance" has to be turned toward renewing what made us great - Our Constitution and its Founding principles. This is the heart of Conservatism, of course.

As you know, our viewpoints are like oil and water. I don't believe we were so great until the great ideas of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were actually implemented, rather than just written down and talked about. I would say the Civil War was the beginning of both moral and industrial might. We started living up to our big talk. Up till then, at least on the world stage, we could talk the talk but we couldn't walk the walk.

We were always great, even BEFORE our Constitution was written.

I find this nostalgia towards the 'greatness' of America both interesting and worthy of inquiry. I wonder, exactly how you define greatness, or even if you've thought about it.

Was it GNP that made the US great?
Was it the US prowess in WWII?
Was it the fact that the US enjoyed freedom of religion?

I am curious how people who define America as having been great actually constitute that greatness....in a historical context. Do the things you use to define greatness reflect your own system of values, or a shared system of values? How do you define greatness?

Thank-you, Incredulous, I was going to respond to Mishima, but I see you already have, and said everything I was going to say.

my pleasure ;-)

This is one of the arguments many posters here use -- returning to the Constitution and its founding principles -- and yet, the people who came up with this meme are totally against it ... somewhere in the beginning of the use of this phrase the Koch brothers had a hand in it, which makes it totally ludicrous since they are part of the John Birch Society and want to do away with everything that EVER made America great. They landed on this 'talking point' because it would be easy for the 'unwashed hordes' to understand and get behind -- they have no intention of actually 'returning' to the Constitution, etc.

Pwr 2 the real American 99%! OUR American Spring can't come soon enough!

Start at the beginning. England. During our colonial period, England did not have the peasantry like the rest of Europe which was more centralist and feudal. The colonies were not burdened with the “ancien regime,” and especially no hatred for commerce as the Continent did. The few remnants that remained – primogeniture, state churches – were soon gone. As Seymour Marten Lipset noted, the colonies had the spirit of liberty, equality and laissez-faire economics.

We were the first truly classless society.

We were the first nation to really put Adam Smith’s ideas into practice.

Our Founders went as far as possible to RESTRICT and LIMIT our government. We had NEGATIVE rights; Europe had POSITIVE rights. Our Constitution was what the government CAN NOT DO; Europe’s was what the government IS EMPOWERED TO DO.

From its inception, everyone was getting richer. Americans were taller, owning land, eating better, earning more money, and having more children. Franklin was the archetypical American: The self-made man, inventive and rich.

Today, 70% of Americans report pride in their country, much more than Europeans. Americans are more religious, and this is from our religious freedom – Religion, like our capitalist spirit, became competitive! 73% believe in God, compared to 27% of Frogs and 35% of Limeys.

Americans love liberty so much and have so much faith in its goodness, that we want to export it.

This is largely a bunch of total bullshit.

"The few remnants that remained – primogeniture, state churches – were soon gone."

If by soon you mean after the revolution. Your shit about peasants and the Continent being hostile to commerce is mostly garbage too.

"We were the first truly classless society."

Except for, you know, all the slaves.

There is no classless society, wake the fuck up.

"We were the first nation to really put Adam Smith’s ideas into practice."

No, we weren't. And our economy was practically non-existent until the Industrial age.

"Our Founders went as far as possible to RESTRICT and LIMIT our government. We had NEGATIVE rights; Europe had POSITIVE rights. Our Constitution was what the government CAN NOT DO; Europe’s was what the government IS EMPOWERED TO DO."

No, only at the Federal level. States would remain, consistently, the greatest violators of personal liberties until they were reigned in by the 14th amendment. Even then,it took over a century for basic civil liberties to become consistent across states.

"From its inception, everyone was getting richer. Americans were taller, owning land, eating better, earning more money, and having more children. Franklin was the archetypical American: The self-made man, inventive and rich."

No, most Americans were poor and rural for the vast majority of our history. We didn't become "self-made" men who were inventive and rich until the Industrial era, post-Civil War.

Even then, that prosperity didn't reach most people until after the Great Depression.

"Today, 70% of Americans report pride in their country, much more than Europeans. Americans are more religious, and this is from our religious freedom – Religion, like our capitalist spirit, became competitive! 73% believe in God, compared to 27% of Frogs and 35% of Limeys."

Woopty doo, you say that as if it's a benefit and not a sign that just means Americans are dumber and more gullible.

National pride is lower in Europe because they fought a couple dozen wars and lost hundreds of millions of people to the forces of nationalism. America hasn't gotten over nationalism yet because it hasn't had enough people die to the disease to realize how retarded it is.

It's good that European countries don't believe in god, it's correlated with higher education and is probably a sign that they don't indoctrinate their children like we do. The U.S.'s religious spirit is both bizarre and damaging. We're the only civilized country in the world that performs exorcisms on children and regularly has people die because they seek faith healing rather than hospitals. That's not even considering all the damage it does to intellect and education, all the parasites that steal money from the gullible and how frequently religion is used as a justification for violence and bigotry and other stupidity.

"Americans love liberty so much and have so much faith in its goodness, that we want to export it."

Is that a cute way of saying we like to invade weaker nations under the guise of freedom?

Besides, Americans hate liberty. They just love using it as a buzzword to justify bad behavior.

They hate free speech, they hate free ideas, they hate non-Christian religions, they really hate respecting other peoples' rights, they regularly give up civil liberties for false security, the majority of housing in this country has private contracts forbidding you to make your house look different, censorship of art or media of any kind is regularly brought up as an issue, etc. etc. etc.

But they'll leap to the defense of liberty to defend the right of business owners to kick out races they don't like, or to let employers hire children, etc. How noble of us.

You, like many conservatives, just live in some alternate reality where what America has actually done is ignored if it doesn't fit with your rosy nostalgia.

It's just tribalism, pure and simple. Any objective examination of the facts disproves most of what you claim here.

"Today, 70% of Americans report pride in their country, much more than Europeans. Americans are more religious, and this is from our religious freedom – Religion, like our capitalist spirit, became competitive! 73% believe in God, compared to 27% of Frogs and 35% of Limeys."

Today roughly 40% of Americans believe in the theory of evolution, compared to roughly 80% of the French believe in the theory of evolution and the roughly 78% of the U.K. But that's ok. After all, evolution is only a theory, like gravity, or the shape of the Earth. Whereas, God is a fairly tale like concept most likely created by nomadic tribesmen who for some reason knew more about the laws that govern the universe than modern science does today. Sure, God could be real, but is it more of an accomplishment to believe in an ancient tradition that has never been proven more than to believe in a scientific theory that is one of the most basic foundation pieces of modern biology and medicine?

Long story short, us American's tend to be kinda not good at makin' smart when compared to other first world nations. So who would you rather be, a dumb guy who is proud of a nation in a similar way that a guy from Seattle is likely proud of the Sea Hawks (meaning the person who is proud just for living there) or a guy who isn't full of his own nation just because he happens to live there?

You do not understand human nature at all.

And what is the purpose of these inane questions? Why not state what you want to state?

In your last paragraph, there were two major flaws in the premises. Clean them up and get back.

Of course we were basically a classless society. Too bad you do not know history very well.

{Your shit about peasants and the Continent being hostile to commerce is mostly garbage too.}

Never wrote that, of course. I wrote about class and hierarchial structure in your utopian Europe's past compared to that of the greatest country in the world.

{most Americans were poor and rural for the vast majority of our history.}

I wrote about the turn of the century when there was massive migration to the cities and an influx of immigrants.

{prosperity didn't reach most people until after the Great Depression.}

It dramatically increased from the end of the 19th century until the GD, of course. Took longer in the south. Why do you think America became just about the most prosperous nation in the world? And it was from free-market capitalism!

{National pride is lower in Europe because they fought a couple dozen wars and lost hundreds of millions of people to the forces of nationalism}

Yes, they are nihilistic and only interested now in hedonism. Because of STATISM - which Leftists like YOU are trying to foist on America - they became that way. What else can one expect to come out of the COLLECTIVE that you people want?

{Americans hate liberty. They just love using it as a buzzword to justify bad behavior.}

Typical utterance of a Left-winger. When reflecting on our history andactions, Real Americans assume our country is acting in a moral, decent and upright way. Left-wingers, of course, always ASSUME THE WORST of America. It is how they have been indoctrinated.

I think I'll refrain from use of the term "great" when it comes to europeans in america. Being at least part native, I can't rightly ignore how much this "greatness" cost the people who were here before they arrived - and what is cost people stolen from their homes and brought here forcibly. Whatever "greatness" is contained in this nation, it must always come with that caveat to remain honest.

Hmm, what is the purpose of these inane questions? The potential irony of asking me the purpose of asking an inane question that is not really inane by using a truly inane question is pretty amusing. Kind of like using asking someone who has spoken English for 40 years "You think me stupid?" with all seriousness and anger after they have implied your lack of intellect. The question denies the accusation while simultaneously denying it.

What I find most amusing is that you have ignored the bulk of the statement and went to the question, which was a rhetorical question. Granted, determining what is sarcastic and what is not is not as clear cut when dealing with written words as it is when dealing with spoken words, because there is no tone or body language to provide the subtle cues. However, the purpose of the first question, being rhetorical, is to reinforce the statement previous.

You claimed, "Today, 70% of Americans report pride in their country, much more than Europeans, " like it was something to actually be proud of. It is similar to being proud of the fact that one is white, black, hispanic, male, female... the point is that if one is proud of what one is by the virtue that they were born into it, then it is not really an accomplishment and it brings into question why someone is proud of it.

You went on to claim, "Americans are more religious, and this is from our religious freedom – Religion, like our capitalist spirit, became competitive!." This claim is bullshit. Yes, American's are, as a whole, more religious than the examples you gave, France and England; however it is not because we possess freedoms of religion that they do not. France and England do indeed have freedom of religion and religious organizations are competitive in those nations (though not to the same extent as door to door religious solicitors like J.W.'s, but that is because over there the religious organizations aren't passive aggressive assholes to the same extent as over here). You might have had something if you used Germany as an example, but the only religion they have banned is Scientology.

The final statement of yours that I addressed, "73% believe in God, compared to 27% of Frogs and 35% of Limeys."

I countered this with the statement, "Today roughly 40% of Americans believe in the theory of evolution, compared to roughly 80% of the French believe in the theory of evolution and the roughly 78% of the U.K." and then followed that statement with reasoning, however sarcastic in was, that points out how sad it is that more Americans believe in something that is in no way shape or form provable than believe in a scientific theory. For emphasis on what the word THEORY actually is, I threw in a couple of other scientific theories as examples. Those being gravity and the shape of the Earth.

"Of course we were basically a classless society. Too bad you do not know history very well."

Oh wow, a society in which roughly 30% or more of its population is held in bondage for half of its history is TOTALLY classless, you're right!

And were is an interesting choice of words here. Are we a class society now?

Unless we're referring to literal legal status (and not de jour reality for people), saying *any* society is classless is stupid. Factually, there are no classless societies by basically any definition you could come up with.

"Never wrote that, of course. I wrote about class and hierarchial structure in your utopian Europe's past compared to that of the greatest country in the world."

Why do you think you can lie about what you literally just wrote?

"During our colonial period, England did not have the peasantry like the rest of Europe which was more centralist and feudal. The colonies were not burdened with the “ancien regime,” and especially no hatred for commerce as the Continent did."

Those were your words, and they're largely bullshit. Not the last bit because, unlike what you claimed, it's not even clear what era of time you're referring to here. The colonies from the 16-19th centuries were essentially radically different places from generation to generation.

"I wrote about the turn of the century when there was massive migration to the cities and an influx of immigrants."

No, no you didn't. You didn't specify *any* time period, and the way you wrote it I was forced to assume you were talking about early America.

"It dramatically increased from the end of the 19th century until the GD, of course. Took longer in the south. Why do you think America became just about the most prosperous nation in the world? And it was from free-market capitalism!"

No, it was from the Industrial Revolution. It had been a "free market economy" since its inception. Capitalism really isn't that special. It's technology and productivity that creates wealth.

Moreover, increases in wealth do not translate to increases in wealth for everyone. Indeed, when prosperity is lopsided, as it was for much of our history, the economy becomes deformed and hugely inefficient.

It was a plague in early Industrial Capitalism. In a nation with only poor and rich (and a tiny middle class of lawyers or strange professionals), products wouldn't move off shelves. Warehouses would be stacked with shit no one could by.

It's why Industrialists like Ford, later in the 20th century, realized that it was far more profitable to pay your workers a high wage. Because lower class people spend almost all of what they make.

It's not an accident that our periods of greatest growth are correlated with high equality and vice versa.

"Yes, they are nihilistic and only interested now in hedonism. Because of STATISM - which Leftists like YOU are trying to foist on America - they became that way. What else can one expect to come out of the COLLECTIVE that you people want?"

Blah blah blah, Libertarian bullshit.

Come back when you have a more substantive argument. You might as well be calling me "bourgeois" as far as I'm concerned.

You're just throwing a useless label at me. And it means nothing since I don't agree with the basic assumptions behind that label.

"Typical utterance of a Left-winger. When reflecting on our history andactions, Real Americans assume our country is acting in a moral, decent and upright way. Left-wingers, of course, always ASSUME THE WORST of America. It is how they have been indoctrinated."

"Real Americans." Fuck conservatives are lame. Because everyone else is "fake" right? Who divides America again?

Real intellectuals, people who know how to think, don't assume *anything.* You read into things as they are with the information that's available. Assuming people have decent intentions is retarded, not unless the information already suggests that.

In that sense, no, it's not about assuming the worst. It's an accurate assessment of the majority of legal practice in this country prior to about the 1960's or 70's.

Be it religious law, segregation laws, obscenity laws, anti-drug and prohibition laws, sedition laws, anti-due practice laws, denying trials by jury, denying rights to protest, anti-contraception laws, anti-abortion or prostitution laws, etc. etc.

It's just a fact. Any simple freedoms in this country almost all had to be fought for, and they often had to be done in the Supreme Court because the people regularly refuse rights to one another.

"Assuming" that we believe in freedom is the definition of being stupid.If you're going to make a claim like that, fucking back it up. Calling me a "leftist" is both not an argument and, in addition, it's incorrect.

My posts to the other people are not intended to dismiss the sufferings of the Native Americans or ignore that there was slavery.

I have Irish ancestry (and citizenship), and I could start complaining and whining about how 1/3 of my people were starved to death (there was a deliberate withholding of food), 1/3 fled the nation, and their original religions, culture and language have been utterly wiped out.

But that would be juvenile and idiotic, and it would be to ignore realities and start making excuses for something else.

Rather, it is to get at the core of WHY these people EMPHASIZE it. Notice the context in which it appears. It is not as part of a homage with caveats or relating it as part of a story. I hope you can see what I mean. I aim to get at their motives.

They claim it is to seek "truth" and not to "whitewash" history, but I contend that is an outright, blatant LIE, and I intend to call them on it every time.

YOUR post, in contrast, refers to those times, but it has another intention: Do not overlook it. It's intention is apparently not to use it as a method to disparage and attack Western Civilization and our Founding. There is a huge difference.

{You claimed, "Today, 70% of Americans report pride in their country, much more than Europeans, " like it was something to actually be proud of}

No claim. I reported that fact. You may not like it, you may not think they should feel pride. The fact that they do remains.

And it is important, of course. It is a motivating factor. Put it this way: Would most people make sacrifices or exert effort for something of which they have no pride?

It does not matter if it is by mere accident. It does not matter at all, of course.

Please study American history. Our religion was kind of "free market" religion. The state did not fund and support it, so people had to get followers in most cases by exerting effort, convincing people, entertaining them, appealing to their beliefs and so on. The reasons for each person who did this is not important. The fact that there were basically "traveling religion salesmen" during the Great Awakenings is what is important.

And the traditions took firm root in the greatest country in the world like nowhere else.

Sorry.

We waste more money of corporate welfare and welfare for the rich, than we do for programs that help actual needy people.

Many times over...as a nation built on democratic principles we are a disgrace to the world...

Need to rid ourselves of both, of course. And more government is not the solution.

Better government is the solution, but that does not mean we should go down the libertarian path. Social programs where necessary will come from people that feel that they have something to gain by helping their fellow American. We are stronger together. When people align their interests, as Dylan Rattigan put it, we will be a better country; more prosperous, healthy and happy.

The Left has managed to foist the mindset that the purpose of government is to manage the economy - distribute wealth, pick winners and losers, change the concepts of private property and so on. People actually expect something impossible: They expect government to solve all economic problems, eliminate poverty, and stop ups and downs and the inevitable "creative destruction" as time passes.

When it does not happen - when government cannot control all of these forces as the Left claims it could do - the Left tries to lead the people into demanding yet more control. The only way to do that is with more, not 'better," government. Less government is almost always better.

The government should be starved, starved to the point that it HAS TO limit what it can do and buy and spend. Then maybe, just maybe, it will start to get "better."

I'm sorry, you're just not in touch with reality making those assumptions. What are your credentials... and the evidence, facts, history, for those assertions? Flawed ideology and speculation do not equal enlightenment. You're 'status quo', not a problem solver. 'Greatness', comes from seeing past flawed ideology, and taking a step in a better direction, a direction not obvious to all, as it would have already been taken.

Less government is almost always better.
That is certainly true for corporations (and the people who run them) b/c the last I heard corporations are still receiving an outstanding amount of government welfare. If you truly believe this country would be better without any form of government hand-out then it is time you insist (as we 'lefties' have) that the gov't subsidies that oil companies, etc get be stopped. Until you are willing to admit -- in writing -- that you truly believe that to be right, you are nothing but an empty puppet for those that have done the MOST damage to this country over the last 30 years.

Pwr 2 the true American 99%! OUR American Spring can't come soon enough!

"What are your credentials"

Six PhDs, and part of the Red Brigade. Does that mean my posts are now acceptable?

"If you truly believe this country would be better without any form of government hand-out then it is time you insist (as we 'lefties' have) that the gov't subsidies that oil companies, etc get be stopped."

In one way, that is a point of agreement, but the Left-wingers are not for less government. Left-wingers want MORE government: Regulations, taxes, bureaucracies, oversight, management.

Those who self-label themselves the "99%" are almost all simply a bunch of degenerates, thrill-seekers, anarchists, communists and degenerate criminals.

Provided people are not forced to align their interests. Sadly, compulsory taxation does that. This foolish belief in "rule of the majority" does that. If a good many americans volunteered to pool their resources to the benefit of all who volunteered, if they volunteered to be charitable to those who needed it, I'd sign up gladly.

If americans wish to make such things compulsory, we have a problem. I would desire that cooperation be voluntary. I would desire that charity be voluntary. Both must be voluntary to be genuine. To make them compulsory is to destroy them both.

Liberals are simply the other side of the conservative coin. Both are control freaks but of an opposite sort.

No, conservatives do not want control. They want to decentralize; that is the ultimate - in the real sense, in the practical sense - of letting go of control. If one leaves things more to states' rights, then the results are unpredictable. It is likely that one would have a very divergent nation.

Same in the economy: The free market is unpredictable, and that is the precise opposite of the control - via management and ownership - of the Left.

I have to disagree. I don't believe conservatives give a damn about the ebbs and flows of the marketplace because what they really want is control over morality. Get everyone on that particular page and the marketplace falls into line naturally. I see the liberals thinking the same thing - control the behavior of the marketplace and everyone's likely to fall into line morally.

They both ignore basic human psychology which is nothing more than an extension of basic facts of all living things - put boundaries on life and it finds a way to get around them. In other words, life wants to be free.

Human beings are no different. Whatever obstacles you put in their way forces them to adapt, improvise and find a way around them. Obstacles make human beings stronger than they were before.

Those in love with control are their own worst enemy. If you wish to control humanity, stop putting them to the test.

Of course, then you have to contend with our basic insatiable curiosity. I see no way for control freaks to ever actually win more than temporary gains.

"I have to disagree. I don't believe conservatives give a damn about the ebbs and flows of the marketplace because what they really want is control over morality. "

I disagree - for the most part. There are some in the conservative camp who want people to ascribe to a certain moral principles. However, keep something in mind: Are there conservatives of note that are pushing for direct legislation of any kind of morality? They may press for the government to include private charities in allowing funds for the poor, or they fight against the right to have abortions, but those things are not the legislation of morality.

I suppose, however, one could make a case for something like pornography: Many conservatives might want to make certain types illegal. However, real conservatives would simply let communities make those decisions through such things as their zoning laws, for example.

Our Founders were right in that we need virtue to survive as a republic. One cannot "legislate" virtue - make people virtuous by decree or law, but a government can support policies that can promote good values or leave communities to decide. For example, the government can give more tax breaks for families with children: This implies a recognition of the worth of families and parenting. Or preference to veterans - or the encouragement of such - in hiring; this implies that service to one's country is valued.

"put boundaries on life and it finds a way to get around them. In other words, life wants to be free."

In some ways. In economics we see this in the stifling socialist economies: A black market appears. I actually used a black market in Western Europe for medical care and house repairs.

But human nature also craves social pressures pushing for limits. Take adultery: Virtually every culture throughout history frowns on it. There are many reasons that one can give for this nearly universal trait, but the fact is that it exists. So, there are laws and social prescriptions and pressures surrounding this. They can be from legal penalties to simple social rejection of the adulterer. This is not restricting or restraiing or suppressing: It is for the health of a society both as an individual and as part of the whole.

"Those in love with control are their own worst enemy. If you wish to control humanity, stop putting them to the test."

Again, I see conservatives as letting people be the most free if responsibility is present. I think of the contrast of Conservatives and Liberals as this:

We have a highway. We set up rules and enforce them - stop at lights, can't speed over a certain limit, etc. Conservatives would set up the laws and enforce them, and let people go where they please. Liberals would not worry about the enforcement, but dictate where the people GO.