Tea Party leader desirous of Property requirement for voting

[GamezRule]

Now now Dom, Nixon was not a Socialist either.

 

[Traitorfish]

Maybe not ideologically, but in practice yes.

Wait, Bismarck handed over control of Germany agriculture and industry to the workers? Did I, uh, did I miss something?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Wait, Bismarck handed over control of Germany agriculture and industry to the workers? Did I, uh, did I miss something?

Actually he socialized medicine and welfare

 

[countrygrl]

Actually he socialized medicine and welfare

Yeah, but that's not socialism. It's called a welfare state.

 

[aneeshm]

Exactly the opposite. Whenever a group is excluded from governance, the government will act to make them worse off to benefit the privileged class. Given how far the US has already gone down that road, and given the many trillions of dollars it has cost us, we can't afford to do more in that direction.

The quality of governance does not have much to do with how many groups are 'included' in it, in exactly the same way that the quality of the iPhone you buy has nothing to do with whether you are 'included' in voting on the management of Apple. This is because the incentive structures of the two are different; the private supplier cannot (except if it is a state-privileged monopolist) gain anything by playing the infantile games elections lead to.

It's simple: if it is in the interests of the individuals constituting a government to govern well - that is, if your interests as a citizen and their interests match - you get good governance. If they don't, you get Somalia.

 

[Traitorfish]

Actually he socialized medicine and welfare

Ah, we're back to this "American usage" nonsense. I though we'd snapped you out of that.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Ah, we're back to this "American usage" nonsense. I though we'd snapped you out of that.

I've already explained this to you, words have different meanings in different places and contexts. Otherwise Marxism fails because it advocates overthrowing the Middle Class (Bourgeoise originally meant middle class.)

Not to mention the hypocricy of saying marriage's definition can be changed to suit the needs of society, but the definition of socialism is monolythic. Sorry but I don't buy it. In American-common use, Socialism means partial government control of the economy. I don't care what a disgrunted worker named Marx who had no idea what he was talking about said the definition was anymore than you care what God said the definition of marriage was.

 

[GamezRule]

Maybe it's the Mushrooms.

 

[countrygrl]

I've already explained this to you, words have different meanings in different places and contexts. Otherwise Marxism fails because it advocates overthrowing the Middle Class (Bourgeoise originally meant middle class.)

Not to mention the hypocricy of saying marriage's definition can be changed to suit the needs of society, but the definition of socialism is monolythic. Sorry but I don't buy it. In American-common use, Socialism means partial government control of the economy. I don't care what a disgrunted worker named Marx who had no idea what he was talking about said the definition was anymore than you care what God said the definition of marriage was.

Nobody with a meaningful education in America believes that socialism is anything other than "labor" controlling the means of production. There are corruptible flat-earthers who feel this way. But the corruptible flat-earthers also believe in lots of other ridiculous dogma. Like: Global Warming isn't happening, Obama isn't American, the world was created 3000 years ago, and the world will end in 2012.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Nobody with a meaningful education in America believes that socialism is anything other than "labor" controlling the means of production. There are corruptible flat-earthers who feel this way. But the corruptible flat-earthers also believe in lots of other ridiculous dogma. Like: Global Warming isn't happening, Obama isn't American, the world was created 3000 years ago, and the world will end in 2012.

Global Warming is a natural cycle. The Earth warms and cools itself, nothing new.

Obama may not be American, but it is a conspiracy theory with little proof. I don't necessarily agree with it.

Nobody believes the Earth is 3,000 years old.

That the Earth will end in 2012 is silly Mayan superstitition.

 

[NYHunter]

Nobody with a meaningful education in America believes that socialism is anything other than "labor" controlling the means of production. There are corruptible flat-earthers who feel this way. But the corruptible flat-earthers also believe in lots of other ridiculous dogma. Like: Global Warming isn't happening, Obama isn't American, the world was created 3000 years ago, and the world will end in 2012.

Exactly. No American high school or college textbook defines socialism as Dommy does. Yet for some reason, he believes his definition is the proper American one.

 

[The_Tyrant]

Why can't voting be a privilege, not a right?

 

[Lord of Elves]

(Bourgeoise originally meant middle class.)

I don't care what a disgrunted worker named Marx who had no idea what he was talking about said the definition was anymore than you care what God said the definition of marriage was.

Thank you for enlightening us, Dommy, we had no idea. Yes, you clearly know more about socialism than the founder of the modern socialist movement, as well as one of its greatest writers and minds.

 

[Traitorfish]

I've already explained this to you, words have different meanings in different places and contexts.

Not in this case; "Socialist" isn't a relative term like "conservative" or "progressive", but an absolute one, referring to a specific strain of political though which advocates the collective ownership and management of the means of production. You can't just use it to refer to whatever vaguely statist program you feel like.

Otherwise Marxism fails because it advocates overthrowing the Middle Class (Bourgeoise originally meant middle class.)

Actually, the Bourgeoise always referred to the same class, the urban merchant-industrialist. What happened was that they came up in the world, not that the term was fundamentally reapplied (albeit rendered more precise).

Not to mention the hypocricy of saying marriage's definition can be changed to suit the needs of society, but the definition of socialism is monolythic. Sorry but I don't buy it. In American-common use, Socialism means partial government control of the economy. I don't care what a disgrunted worker named Marx who had no idea what he was talking about said the definition was anymore than you care what God said the definition of marriage was.

Actually, that would be like insisting that "Socialism" referred only to some very narrow, non-universal understanding, e.g. Leninist Socialism. Using it in the fundamental sense- "collective ownership and management of the means production"- is exactly how I use marriage- "a lifelong legal and social bond tying multiple adult people together into a family unit". Details are details.
The difference, you see, is that "Socialism" has always meant what I say it does, while "marriage" has never been as limited as you would have it.

Why can't voting be a privilege, not a right?

Because oligarchies are innately oppressive?

 

[kosiosko 1]

Why can't voting be a privilege, not a right?

why should it not be compulsory for all who qualify ... a civic duty... rather than some privilege

 

[countrygrl]

Global Warming is a natural cycle. The Earth warms and cools itself, nothing new.

Obama may not be American, but it is a conspiracy theory with little proof. I don't necessarily agree with it.

Nobody believes the Earth is 3,000 years old.

That the Earth will end in 2012 is silly Mayan superstitition.

Do you really think agreeing with one point makes it okay to disagree with any other?

 

[Ajidica]

I've already explained this to you, words have different meanings in different places and contexts. Otherwise Marxism fails because it advocates overthrowing the Middle Class (Bourgeoise originally meant middle class.)

And I thought I made it very clear to you in the PM that your defintion fails to take into account the myriad changes in economic relations and looks almost solely on the word itself.

Not to mention the hypocricy of saying marriage's definition can be changed to suit the needs of society, but the definition of socialism is monolythic.

Read: The Aims and Tasks of Democractic Socialism, The Frankfurt Accords. I think that pretty decently lays out what Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy stand for.

I don't care what a disgrunted worker named Marx who had no idea what he was talking about

Marx wasn't a member of the proletariat.

said the definition was anymore than you care what God said the definition of marriage was.

Which God are you talking about and at what time? I find myself partial to the marriage situation of Solomon. Barring that, could I have a polygomous marriage?

EDIT:

Maybe not ideologically, but in practice yes.

Bismarck, working closely with big industry and aiming to head off the Socialists, implemented the world's first welfare state in the 1880s.

Bismarck worried about the growth of the socialist movement — in particular, that of the Social Democratic Party. In 1878, he instituted the Anti-Socialist Laws. Socialist organizations and meetings were forbidden, as was the circulation of socialist literature. Socialist leaders were arrested and tried by police courts.

Then the Chancellor tried to reduce the appeal of socialism to the public by trying to appease the working classes. He enacted a variety of social programs.

Bismarck was such a socialist, forbidding the party and trying to head them off and reduce their appeal.

 

[Dachs]

PROTIP: people who pass Anti-Socialist legislation probably aren't Socialists.

COROLLARY: this applies to both Otto von Bismarck and the Republican Party Cutlass

 

[Brian Shanahan]

The quality of governance does not have much to do with how many groups are 'included' in it, in exactly the same way that the quality of the iPhone you buy has nothing to do with whether you are 'included' in voting on the management of Apple. This is because the incentive structures of the two are different; the private supplier cannot (except if it is a state-privileged monopolist) gain anything by playing the infantile games elections lead to.

It's simple: if it is in the interests of the individuals constituting a government to govern well - that is, if your interests as a citizen and their interests match - you get good governance. If they don't, you get Somalia.

Fallacious allusion, wrongheaded arguement, unwarranted name calling. Way to confirm everything I've said in my last post responding to you.

1) Having more people involved in government is always a good thing. Why? you ask. Well there is a little thing called representation, the greater the share of society represented by government the more likely the government is to be kept honest. An example the recent expenses scandal in the UK, currently they have an electorate and a media with a vested interest in finding out corruption in power, as the power derives from the people, and the media's profits derive also from the people. Back in 1801 a highly corrupt Irish parliament voted itself out of existence. Because the parliament was only answerable to about 1% of Irish society (the Prodestant landowners) it had no interest in doing what was best for Ireland and Ireland had no interest in ensuring that it did so.
2) Comparing a voter for a government to someone who buys a product is just so wrong that I can only assume that you know any proper analogy would only destroy your arguement and so you decided to go with a false one in the hopes of no-one noticing. A better analogy would be the person who buys shares in Apple (as it is the company equivalent of citizen with voting rights). He/She naturally has a vested interest in who the management is, as they are using his/her money to earn a profit which will, eventually, be returned to him/her. Get it?
3) State privaleged monopolies exist for one reason only, to fairly share out a resource which naturally leads itself to a monopoly/cartel situation and to ensure no rent seeking is involved. Case in point the California power scare of a few years back, where deregulation lead to private companies jacking up prices by 999% (and it would have been more if they knew the system would take more numbers). This kind of profiteering on a natural resource doesn't usually happen in state monopolies, except for in the oligopolic kleptocracies you seem to think are so good at running countries.
4) It is never in the interest of a small group who find themselves in power over a majority to rule in the interests of that majority, as it takes power and wealth from their hands and gives it to others, making it more likely that they lose all their power and wealth. Why do you think serfdom was maintained so long in the Russian autocracy.
5) Need I say more?

 

[Cutlass]

You think your both smarter then super-duper ivy-league educated democratic stratigiests? O really?

Yes.