PanCog said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

And there we go again.  "It sucks to have the things I need provided to me, I'd rather be "free" and risk going without healthcare, etc."

Most likely you'll end up in a job where your employer fucks you over for his own benefit.  Not everyone can be a business owner.

---

Freedom isn't about being given a happy pill and sat in a corner with all the other smiling, government educated pets. Freedom is the opportunity to pursue happiness, happiness is not guaranteed.

---

Quote:

There is definitely the idea with the DSA in regards to health care that if health care is provided no matter your employment you are much more free to take risks in the business sector. I.e. you aren't risking your literal health and financial future

---

The Ecstatic said:

Capitalism is only a few hundred years old bucko. Its not the natural state of things.

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

So a job, house, healthcare, and good education is a "happy pill", while someone working 60 hours a week to barely get by with no healthcare is truly happy and free?  Is that because he knows all his hard work is making billionaires better off?  I'm not following your logic.  Yes, I'm being a bit facetious, but you need to do a better job explaining your position.

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

Specifically, what rights don't communists have?  The right not to get healthcare if they don't want it?  Nobody's going to force anyone to see a doctor if they don't want to.

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

Actually, it's your education that appears biased and manipulated, where you fight for the right of billionaires to screw people over in the name of "freedom", while you still haven't made clear what freedoms communists lack.

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

You're saying people should be pissed if they have a house, healthcare, etc?  You need to do a better job explaining why that's bad, and what SPECIFIC freedoms socialists don't have.

---

christopera said:

As far as the debate on socialists, communists, etc. There isn't a single purely socialist nation state in existence, nor is there a purely communists, or capitalist nation state at this point. They all share systems from many different conceptual models. What the DSA is trying to do is the slide the scale a bit, and if you look around the world that model is certainly more successful than the USA's current model across many different aspects.

---

PanCog said:

The ability to pursue one's happiness is the American Dream. By developing a new product, starting a business or investing in a friend, one can pursue wealth.

---

PanCog said:

The economy in this country is not in bad shape due to capitalism, it has been under socialist influence ever since Income Tax...

---

PanCog said:

...and Social Security were taken from people

---

PanCog said:

...Medical freedom was taken away from people

---

PanCog said:

..and children were forced from houses and into government indoctrination centers (which are dominated by leftist/socialist dogma and lessons.)

---

PanCog said:

You seem to be concerned that billionaires exist. Money isn't everything in life, being envious is not a reason to forbid the possibility for other people to make a good living.

---

PanCog said:

What I don't understand is how anyone can rationalize the theft of freedom from people who don't want to be communists.

---

PanCog said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

Specifically, what rights don't communists have?  The right not to get healthcare if they don't want it?  Nobody's going to force anyone to see a doctor if they don't want to.

---

Communists don't have any rights that the government doesn't let them have. Therefore they have no rights at all.

---

PanCog said:

Parsing my words from the sentences and reading them without full context is why you don't understand them. I explained it as clearly as I could, try reading them again, it shouldn't take too much work.
One point I will clarify is the social security tax that is taking out of someones check, involuntarily, goes into the general spending fund. It is not earmarked and saved for that person. The current workers are paying for those drawing on social security now. The previous generations social security money was spent years ago.

Communists Don't have the right to be anything other than communists. Enslaved to the totalitarian dictates of their ruler. Famous Socialists Mao, Hitler, Stalin. Each responsible for the deaths of millions and millions of their citizens. How many times does history need to repeat itself before people take responsibility for their own life?

Americans have rights from the Creator, untouchable by government.

In Congress, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

---

ballsalsa said:

What makes you think that a government which practices under a capitalist economic system has less power over its inhabitants than a government that operates under a socialist one?

---

PanCog said:

One point I will clarify is the social security tax that is taking out of someones check, involuntarily, goes into the general spending fund. It is not earmarked and saved for that person. The current workers are paying for those drawing on social security now. The previous generations social security money was spent years ago.

---

PanCog said:

Communists Don't have the right to be anything other than communists. Enslaved to the totalitarian dictates of their ruler. Famous Socialists Mao, Hitler, Stalin. Each responsible for the deaths of millions and millions of their citizens. How many times does history need to repeat itself before people take responsibility for their own life?

---

I see.  You only look at the worse examples in history and ignore all the good ones because those don't count, and you look at the best examples of capitalism in history and ignore all the bad ones because those don't count either. 

Edit:  Christopera already called you out on this.

PanCog said:

Americans have rights from the Creator, untouchable by government.

In Congress, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

---

As I've said before, the Declaration of Independence has no force of law and is rather meaningless to how our Government works. 

PanCog said:

Parsing my words from the sentences and reading them without full context is why you don't understand them. I explained it as clearly as I could, try reading them again, it shouldn't take too much work.

---

SirTripAlot said:

Private property ownership is one of the top of my head, Fal. What do you think?

---

ballsalsa said:

Why did they need the constitution if the government has no hand in determining the rights of citizens?
You do realize that there are mechanisms for infringing your inalienable rights, right?
What makes you think that a government which practices under a capitalist economic system has less power over its inhabitants than a government that operates under a socialist one?

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

As I've said before, the Declaration of Independence has no force of law and is rather meaningless to how our Government works. 

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

Other than the opportunity for a small number of business owners to get lucky and get very wealthy (while the majority of business owners fail), what freedoms do capitalists have that communists don't have?

Again, please be specific - no more generic "DURRRRR FREEDOM!" answers.

---

Quote:

The job of socialists is to put radical ideas in people’s heads. Then they become mainstream, then they get taken for granted, and finally everybody insists they believed them all along.

---

PanCog said:

ballsalsa said:

Why did they need the constitution if the government has no hand in determining the rights of citizens?
You do realize that there are mechanisms for infringing your inalienable rights, right?
What makes you think that a government which practices under a capitalist economic system has less power over its inhabitants than a government that operates under a socialist one?

---

The Constitution was formed to ensure the protection of those rights from others that would try and destroy them, like socialists and kings.
The mechanisms that infringe on those rights are unavoidable.
We can sign contracts that let others do things we may not like because at the time of signing we thought we were getting a good deal. Part of pursuing one's happiness is that we are likely to make mistakes. There are many con artists out there, even ones who work by legal means.
Besides contracts, by recognizing freedom, we have to let anti-freedom activists spread their propaganda.
So it isn't really an infringement, more of a freedom to give away our freedom.
A government that operates under capitalism has just as much power over its inhabitants as a socialist one. It is called imposed difference in relative strength of arms. A government that recognizes the unalienable rights of it's citizens is the only way to ensure freedom from those that would take it by force.

---

I don't think you understand what i meant.
First off, the bill of rights are amendments to the constitution, hence, not the purpose of the document.  The constitution primarily establishes the specific powers and limitations of the federal government.
The government can enslave you, as an example, if you are convicted of a crime.  That doesn't sound inalienable to me.  That sounds like the government taking away freedom by force. 

PanCog said:

This is a bit complicated and as I said previously studying the law is needed the specifics. But in a general way I will attempt to explain.
The Federal Government is instituted by the States and is set up to negotiate with them. It is not set up to treat with citizens of the States. By taking advantage of our freedom to enter into contract, we have been duped to identify with a Social(socialist) Security Number, which we then use to form contracts with the Federal Government. These contracts are extra-Constituional. In other words, the relationships most people have with the government is not based on Unalienable Rights but on a contracted socialist one. When you sign a contract declaring that you are a citizen of the United States (A corporation, as opposed to a citizen of one of the States of the United States of America as is on the Constitution), you are freely agreeing to their rule over you. In effect, there are two systems of government at work, the United States and The United States of America.

One person is sovereign, the other is a slave. One is under Federal jurisdiction, the other only is when conducting interstate commerce. Understanding common law and jurisdiction will show that it is not anarchy and it may help you understand governmental role. Do not confuse the Socialist system that people are enslaved to (by deception) as the True Government of this land.

---

PanCog said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

Other than the opportunity for a small number of business owners to get lucky and get very wealthy (while the majority of business owners fail), what freedoms do capitalists have that communists don't have?

Again, please be specific - no more generic answers.

---

The difference is freedom, I don't understand how that is not specific.

---

So you're telling us we should want capitalism, because capitalism gives us all the freedom to live under a bridge if we can't afford a home, to die early if we can't afford good healthcare, to be ignorant if we can't afford college, to go bankrupt if our business doesn't succeed?

You're the worst salesman for capitalism I've ever known.  The ONLY specific thing you could come up with is the freedom to gamble your life away for the small chance of becoming wealthy if your business gets lucky?

Seriously dude, I thought you'd do a lot better than that.  I've always told people I prefer capitalism to communism, as I am in the 2%, but you've just sold me on communism.