Socialism is as American as Apple Pie

Socialism is every bit as American as apple pie.

Apples originated in Asia. The idea of making them into pies is of European origin.

I am in agreement with you on this.

Doug

http://www.enotes.com/salem-history/johnny-appleseed

How can you love what you don't know?

Horses, (a symbol of the American west) were imported from Spain.

An attempt at a cute comment and no real substance.

You don't have a clue to what socialism means. the dictionary defines:
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

Now roads enable distribution but are not the means of distribution which is the trucks and trains and ships.

And while only a government can effectively run the military even that is not administerd well. Do you want the same Military system that pays hundreds of dollars for hammers to be responsible for your healtyh care? The military is successful because of great men and women who scrifice to be Soldiers, Airman Sailors and Marines.
I do not trust the bureaucrats that would run a health care system. My wife is German and her family is amazed at the quality of care we get in the US. I have lived 7 years in countries with socialized medicine and it is a big difference then roads.

And by the way, roads are built and maintained by LOCAL gov not large central organizations and they often have cost overruns, problems and potholes. Not exactly the QUALITY i want on something as important on healthcare!

Look up the meaning of that word. It is appropriate here.

Tinsldr2 an system or organization is only as good as the people running it.

The Founding Fathers tried socialism and found that it didn't work. Try doing some research on it moron.

1. Governor Bradford's diary bears it out.

2. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/11/the_trag edy_of_the_commons.html

Now stick it where the sun don't shine tool.

One more item nitwit. When you refer to Conservatism, try getting the basic tenets of it correct.

http://noliberalspin.blogtownhall.com/2008/01/11/the_basic_ tenets_of_conservatism.thtml

You have the writing and debating skills of child.

You obviously are not comprehending what I wrote.


My point was.. oh never mind.

Doug ,
It might be time to get that perscription updated buddy. Do you see spots, does Elvis talk to you. Your posts are way off on the facts and your smears will one day be accounted for.

Jess
aka two pound radio.

Do you have anything to say about what I wrote?

Elvis... spots? Very funny stuff.

Did you think of that yourself, or do you have a writer?

I would appreciate a serious debate from anyone.

I find it odd that those who promote socialism in the form of healthcare, housing affordability and wage disparity are often a product of capitalistic ingenuity. Take Barack Obama, he relishes his simple roots and look where he is today. Would this be likely in a socialistic regime? Maybe. How about Bill Clinton's rise from poverty to the White House.

Are you confusing opportunity with equality? Ofcourse, there are elements of socialism in our society; just look at affirmative action, welfare, medicare, or social security. These programs constantly need broad support from our economic capitalistic society in the form of tax revenues and taxes.

I lived in a socialist country for a while. A whopping 35% was taken right off the top of our paycheck. When unemployment rose, the government went belly up. Our country constantly borrowed money from our capitalistic neighbors.

The altruistic ideal of socialism seems attractive to those with no creativity or little ambition. Unfortunately the by-product of socialism is failure. It is unsustainable and has the potential for complete corruption. Yes. capitalism has it's corrupt side also, but it is usually exposed in time and hopefully rectified.

This is not an attack on you and your ideas, but please research this very carefully. Karl Marx predicted capitalism would fail, but who is still standing (USA) and who has fallen (USSR).

Thank you for your intelligent response.


One of the points I was trying to make is that it is not really an "either-or" choice.

We should be adaptable enough to use what works, and I gave plenty of examples of things that work, and discard what does not.

But this programmed response, by republicans, is idiocy.


Another point. Any system is only as good as the people running it. Skill-wise and quality of character.

This country was blessed by the quality of people who founded it. From what I've read the people running the Soviet Union were destined ot fail.

If we continue to elect people the caliber of Bush and McCain we will fail. Just look at our situation now.


The fact remains Socialism works here, and always will, hand in hand with capitalism.

...and so do socialists

That means YOU blow... Bob.

Alas, it is apparent that you haven’t a clue what the definition of “socialism” is and it’s complete opposition to the principles on which this country was founded. Socialism is, by definition, state ownership of the means of production either directly or via governmental regulatory fiat. Thus, right at the outset, functions directly reserved to the state – national defense, police powers, a judicial system - are expressly NOT socialism by any definition. It makes no difference that no “bill” is proffered directly for these services or that they are paid for via taxation; these are state activities as opposed to productive ones. Likewise, the development and maintenance of roads (and tunnels and bridges) is a task ordinarily reserved to the state under sovereign power (and often eminent domain) and is, thus, not socialism, per se. That the private sector is quite capable of providing adequate roadway service is a given (the same may, in fact, be true for police services) but that does not magically make it socialistic in nature. It must be remembered that “socialism” is a socio-economic term with a very specific meaning.

America’s parks, in many cases, DO meet the definition of socialism, but many do not. In fact, there are quite a number of privately owned parklands – many operated under trusts – and they overwhelmingly have proven to be at least as successful (typically more so) at maintaining the properties for future generations. The case of libraries is almost identical, with every indication that private libraries, often operated with no usage fees, operating at least as efficiently as public facilities.

“Free” zoos and museums were always a rarity (and still exist today to a certain extent, maintained by private donations). Practically none of them are priced outside the reach of children – often their most reliable customers. In fact, some of the best zoos in the world are associated with theme parks (admittance often included in the park rate) who cater to families and include these attractions as an inducement to get people to come to their parks. The notion that people are willing to pay for the benefits received is neither new nor somehow unsavory. The concept that “free” services can be provided indefinitely has long been recognized as inherently unworkable.

The postal service simply cannot compete with the private sector. It is the very model of gross inefficiency. The only reason it continues to operate as it has is because private enterprise is prohibited by law from competing with the postal service. Fire departments BEGAN as an entirely private enterprise and still often operate entirely in a private sector capacity. The chief reason that most do not is because the private sector cannot compete with subsidized public facilities.

Dams and levies are demonstrably better operated by the private sector. Look at New Orleans – a catastrophe due in equal parts to the crumbling levies and the moronic incentives that subsidized flood insurance gave to people to live below sea level on the coast.

The most blatant form of socialism, however, is the redistribution of wealth in the name of public charity. These failed measures have caused vastly more harm than good in each and every case that they have been tried. Capitalism has raised the standard of living (especially for the poor) than any other force in all of human history. Socialism has been a disaster: the Wlefare state in the US has cost more than $7 TRILLION and, if anything, has substantially INCREASED poverty.

You also have some misconceptions about capitalism and economic reality. Enron, while unfortunate, represents a microscopic percentage of business practices under a capitalist system and the mortgage crisis was the direct result of GOVERNMENT failure – not, in any way, capitalism. Capitalism has demonstrably provided better healthcare (if you get sick with a major illness you’d better pray you are in the US and you are as likely to die waiting for care in a country with socialized medicine as you are from any lack of insurance in this one), better education (our university system is the envy of the world while our public school system is a disaster). And “social issues” are societal and non-economic in nature on which neither capitalism nor socialism have any direct bearing.

The very essence of democracy itself is ANTI-socialistic. One man, one vote is not the same as ONE STATE, one vote, which is the essence of socialism.

Here's another word you've been misled about. Liberal, in the political context is emphatically and obviously NOT as simple as a dictionary definition (the same obvious fact applies to conservatism in the political context). Classical liberalism refers to a political ideology in which the freedom of the individual is paramount. This is in contrast to modern liberalism which operates under the fallacy that “positive liberty” exists – that is, that someone is not free even if they are not constrained by others if they are not provided with some minimum standard of living.

Such a construct is inherently unworkable because it requires a third party to provide that minimum standard, if necessary, against his will and is thus, by definition, an infringement on that person's liberty. Such an inherent contradiction renders the entire construct invalid.

Uhh buddy? You can't just take words and give them the definitions you want them to have.

They have these things called dictionaries.

Dictionaries are books that have definitions that we all agree on.

So we can communicate.

Uhh buddy? You can't just take words that have specific meanings in one context and simply pretend that they mean what is in the dictionary simply because you want them to.

The jargon of ideology and economics is both very specific and if often very much at odds with what is in the dictionary. The definition of "money" in the dictionary discusses its use as medium of exchange and a store of value but in economics there are very specific uses for the term that may or may not include savings deposits, time deposits, money market funds and other liquid investments. Obviously, in that context, using the simple dictionary definition is entirely useless.

The definitions you use for "liberal" and "conservative" have the same problem. You can easily look online for discussiond of what "classical liberalism", "modern liberalism" and "modern conservatism" mean in the socio-political context or you can continue to misuse them in ignorance - the choice is entirely yours.

The definition of "socialism" that you have used is not only completely contrary to that used in bothe economic and political theory, but it bears no resemblance to the one in the dictionary.

I am well aware of the proper use of dictionaries and language in general. You can glibly pretend that my usage is improper or you can educate yourself. The choice is, again, entirely yours.

I must warn you though: if you choose to undertake a real effort to educate yourself, your endorsement of modern liberalism and/or socialism must ultimately vanish.

You should write your own dictionary maybe.

You posts are filled with untruths.

First of all my blog's main point is that socialism and capitalism are not inopposition to each other.

They work well together.

I also showed capitalism is important to the health of our society.

So is socialism:

Federal Highway Act of 1921 was to provide funding to help state highway agencies construct a paved system of two-lane interstate highways. During the 1930s, BPR helped state and local governments create Depression-era road projects that would employ as many workers as possible. When America entered World War II in 1941, the focus turned toward providing roads that the military needed. After the war, the nation's roads were in disrepair, and congestion had become a problem in major cities. In 1944, President Franklin D. Roosevelt had signed legislation authorizing a network of rural and urban express highways called the "National System of Interstate Highways." Unfortunately, the legislation lacked funding. It was only after President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 that the Interstate program got under way.

Why fight history dude?

Private police? That's nuts!

Justice system? Socialist.

Public schools? Some are good some are bad, but EVERYONE can attend.

That's American.


I can tell you haven't been to a zoo or museum lately.

It cost over 100 bucks easy to take a family their.

And in case you missed it Fletch.

We own AIG, Fannie & Freddie, Lehman, and McCain just proposed we buy everyone's bad mortgage.

So you live in a socialist country buddy.

I needn’t write my own dictionary. My use of language is completely consistent with the definitions of these words when used IN CONTEXT as can be easily verified by anyone willing to put, say, a full 12 seconds into actual research into the matter. Even Wikipedia’s entries on socialism, classical liberalism, modern liberalism, etc., while not perfect, should set you straight.

By definition, again – even the dictionary one, capitalism and socialism are in DIRECT opposition. Socialism is the state control of economic activity (ownership of the means of production). Capitalism is the free exchange of individuals in a free market, which precludes governmental interference. Those are the ONLY definitions for these concepts that exist.

Your continued insistence on confusing activities that are either historically or unavoidably the purview of government (national defense, policing, courts, road building) with socialism is completely contrary to the definition of the term in common usage. Thus, your argument that I am “fight[ing] history” suffers from the fact that your historical assertions do not support your contention of the viability of socialism.

As a side note, it is now recognized by REAL historians and economists, alike, that the efforts by FDR to create make-work jobs, bolster wages and interfere with the economy INCREASED unemployment and prolonged the Depression for years. Educate yourself.

“Private police? That’s nuts!”

It has not only worked historically, but is still practiced in some areas, most notably San Francisco where a private force works in concert with state troopers.

“Justice system? Socialist.”

Again, absolutely no definition or even application of the term “socialism” made by ANYONE (else) includes a justice system.

“Public schools? Some are good some are bad, but EVERYONE can attend. That’s American.”

While some public schools are good, on the whole private education in this country is universally superior than public education (based on actual results) and actually costs LESS than the amount squandered in public schools. Public schools bar disruptive elements from attendance every year and the notion that private schools can not meet that need is absurd on its face. BTW, public education did not exist at the beginning of this country. It grew as a very successful PRIVATE system and remained so until at least the 1840s (at which time the first national census indicated national literacy of 97%). The notion that public education is an American right might be more persuasive if you’d actually made the effort to LEARN history.

I never argued that the US has not undertaken socialist measures. The bailout is another stupid move that will only harm the economy and the citizenry.

BTW, I visit museums quite frequently (particularly Civil War museums) and visited the zoo just a couple of months ago (in Baltimore). Unless you have a family of 10 – hardly the average - you will not pay 100 bucks to take your family there (which you can easily look up). So yes, I live in a country that, while more capitalistic than most other countries (which is demonstrably why we are substantially more prosperous), we have a number of socialist elements. You, on the other hand, seem to live in a world completely disconnected from reality.

https://www.brookfieldzoo.org/shell/?nSection=2&pageid=111& nLinkID=2


You can eaisly spend 11 bucks on a family of four.


You seem to overtype to make what I see as simple.

There are things that are common to us all. Things that everyone in society finds beneficial.

For instance let's say a Police force.

Rich, poor, young & old recieve protection from the police and never see a bill. Money or Capital is not their motivation, society is.

We pay for this out of taxes, vote for people to run the organization, etc. as a GROUP.

This is a socialist endeavor, period.


All that typing you are doing about terminolgy and ideology is just that a lot of typing.

Simple stuff.

That should say "you can easily spend 100 bucks."

Since it is clear that you cannot grasp even the most basic nuances of language, attempting to continue is pointless. As a classic example, you argued that a trip to the zoo could easily cost a family of four $100, and then posted a link to a zoo where the cost of admission is $11 a head - by some strange coincidence that equates to a family of 10 to exceed the $100 threshhold.

Maybe it isn't just English that you can't grasp but math as well.

Admisson 11.00 adult
7.00 kid


Family of 4 36.00

petting zoo 3.00
x4
12.00

48.00


parking 8.00
food drinks 30.00
ballons, toys 20.00

106.00

But I live in the real world.




The zoo is cheap any way. Museums are 100.00 just walking in.



http://www.msichicago.org/visit-the-museum/museum-info/admi ssion/prices/

Why are Democrats Chris Dodd and Barack Obama #1 and #2 on the Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac donation list?

Fannie and Freddy didn't want to be regulated.

That's why they were in bed with the Democrats -- who consistently opposed all efforts to regulate them.

The Republicans wanted to regulate Fannie and Freddy.

The Democrats did not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RZVw3no2A4

See the Democrats on C-Span in 2004 fighting against efforts to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs&feature=related

Read the New York Times article from 2003 about the Republicans attempt to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac and the Democrats refusal to do so!

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123B F932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

This really is a Democrat-created mess!

Clearly, truth is not on the side of king Obama, but empty rhetoric.

It hasn't failed here.

Fannie and Freddie is off topic, but it took a lot of people and a lot of time to screw up like that.

Socialism is that process by which Governments take from some individuals and give to other individuals. Theft is a process by which some individuals cut out the middle man.

Moreover, our police forces, court systems, military forces and many element of inter-state commerce programs (postal system, federal highways, national parks, etc.,) are not socialistic. Such programs are mandated by the Constitutional provisions of the "general welfare and the common good". General welfare means (or meant at the time of the Constitution's adoption) that which pertains to the welfare of all citizens in general; common good means that which is good for all the citizens in common. This would include all of the above referenced tax supported programs.

It would exclude all those program which provide for the welfare of individuals in particular or to the good of individuals in particular such as food stamps, health care, social security, farm subsidies, Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac type schemes.

In short: Any program which goes directly to the direct benefit of some but-not-all citizens is socialistic.

Do I have to contribute to the food stamp program? Yes. May I receive food stamps? No.
You call it socialism. I call it what it is--theft.

Our government was founded as a Republic with the purpose of protecting my life, liberty, and property. It has become a modern day Robin Hood determined to redistribute the honest earnings of the citizenry as it see fit.

...are of very little value in your discussion. The conservative party of Australia is called the Liberal party. Walter Williams considers himself a Liberal. (As do I, but I don't really matter).

Socialism is government ownership of the means of production and government planning of the economy. What it means according to Webster's is not relevant when one considers that since Marx, the preceding is what has defined socialism. To claim that that was an integral part of the founders' vision is completely off the reservation.

I hate to say it, but, get back on your meds. Or alternatively, lose your pseudo-intellectualism and actually attempt to educate yourself. Nothing wrong with an autodidact.

Small and selfish sounding arguement. You don't think you benefit from food stamps because you don't get them?

Well, I don't get food stamps either but I definately understand the benefit of not having starving or desperate people in the community.

Plus food stamps in particular are an excellent investment into the ecomony. You actually recieve more value for every dollar spent welfare than most conventional methods.

In this country the People own the government. So yes while the government controls, regulates, etc. it is the peoples job to control who is running the government.

This anti-government, Reagan crap is just that. Crap.

We need a competant government as big or as small as it needs to be.

We need to check toys for lead, provide healcare, educate ourselves, care for the weak, and markets don't do that. And the wealthy ripped this country off in the biggest loss of money in history.

Still you dimbulbs won't flick on your switches.

Shut up. Pay your taxes. And participate.


Or sit on the sidelines whining an antiquated, and failed arguement.

Mr heavydoug is that our federal government is not Constitutionally empowered to do those things that you say it needs to do. Even if it were Constitutionally empowered, it is not competent to do those things, such as provide provide "health care, educate ourselves, care for the weak".

Section one of the U.S. Constitution provides a list of what Congress may do--ensure interstate co-operation, common currency, weights/measures, maintain post roads, provide for the national defense--while reserving the remaining tasks of government to the several States.

Section one does discuss providing for the "general welfare". Providing health care is not general, but rather "specific welfare". Large bureaucracies are incapable of treating people as individuals--that is why the federal government is limited to providing for general welfare, such as maintaining roads, establishing entities to ensure product safety even, but to provide health care is to specifically target individuals. This is unConstitutional.

Education, until NCLB, was always the province of local entities. Why is this? Because they are the ones best able to determine what works. The federal government may place over-arching standards in the name of general welfare, but to tell the States how to achieve those standards is unConstitutional.

Caring for the weak is self-evidently "specific welfare" so I hardly need to restate my position here.

For the record, I pay my taxes--except when I'm deployed to a war zone in order to defend this country--and I donate 12-15% of my income to local, national, and international charities.

I also put my a$$ on the line every day for this country. It is hardly just that I should have to pay to support the Congressional boondoggles to maintain the positions of some self-appointed nobility. It is hardly just that I should pay for the upkeep of those too lazy to work. That is the proper function of charities, and I support them with my time and finances.

In answer to your inevitable question concerning my competence to discuss Constitutional law, I studied Criminal Justice as an undergrad before entering law school. I earned two scholarships for my studies in Constitutional Law.

Is blowhards that have no ability to adapt and solve problems rather than wave their hands while not realizing none of this stuff is impossible and some of it is not even that difficult.

Many of our problems are of our own design, and bolstered by the ignorant.

For instance, the whole beauty of the Constitution is that it is a living document. Design by geniuses to allow us to grow and adapt to acheive the goals set forth in it.

It is in no way an obstacle. The obstacle is selfish, greedy, lazy mostly conservative thinking idiots who are trying to hold and protect wealth they didn't earn. Most not even really understanding what money is. Or what life is about.

But like you, they are loud but yet not even addressing any of my points about socialism as a instrument to move mankind into the future.

You are scared of a concept that is essential to the development of your own species, Mr. Scholar.

The Constitution is only a living document under the standards set by those geniuses who gave us the Constitution. Article V to the Constitution provides the means to alter the Constitution. Any alteration not following that rigorous standard is unConstitutional and therefore, illegal.

For you, it appears, the ends justify the means. The righteousness of your cause allows you to cast aside the wisdom and laws of the past so that you can achieve your "heaven on earth", "erehwon", "utopia" or whatever it is that you seek.

Conservativism seeks to consult the wisdom of the past and consider the wisdom of proposed courses of action, prior to taking action. Sometimes the past can be rejected, but other times its traditions must be honored.

No doubt I've failed to reach you, as you've failed to reach me. One thing before I go, however. Scholar does not begin to tell the tale: just a few short weeks ago I was walking through markets in East Baghdad, and leading troops on convoys through East Baghdad. When I say that I put my life on the line for this country, I was not speaking in hyperbole.

I swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. If I were to leave your ignorance uncorrected, I would be derelict in my duties.

I have done my duty, so well as I am able.

Thank you for putting your life on the line for me and the rest of us. However, as commendable and indispensable a sacrifice, it does not give you a pass on logic.

I presented several examples of how socialism has benefited this country and asserted that it is not the system but the people implementing it that decides the outcome of the policies they decide to adopt.

How can you refute anything in my blog?

Your constitution stuff is a smokescreen and you are not addressing my points in my blog.

Can you? If you read the other comments no one else can either.

I'm waiting.

You seem to not understand that socialism is an economic system. Socialism is when government controls the economy. Public goods are manifestly not socialism.

Stephen has pointed this out.

Another trite pogrom post from a little mind. Don't these fools with their idiotology ever learn?

There are so many lies and shards of smug ignorance here that I can't address them all without exceeding comment limits. But as many of them have already been addressed by others, let me point out the obvious.

THIS is Conservatism:

"Be not the first by which the new is tried,
Nor the last to set the old aside."

By the way, idiot, this corresponds with "moderate, cautious" from your posted definition. Notice that neither thing has to do with not making needed changes or making progress. Conservatives aren't practicing Luddites, now are they, jackass? Another way of saying "moderate, cautious" is REFLECTIVE. That is, Conservatives tend to think about things, research things, ponder things, before arriving at decisions--you mad Libs might like to try that sometime...if you have the brains to do that.

THIS is Liberalism:

The PRECISE POLAR OPPOSITE of the dictionary definition posted by this moron.

Liberalism is as Liberalism does, jackass. And there is not one single thing in your dictionary definition that anyone of your kind lives out or practices. You all do and believe the opposite. You are the most bigoted people anywhere, and you are always supportive of other bigots. You are extremely easy to sway by any tyrannical fool with a god complex--like our current Emperior Dumbo. There's not a one of you who isn't a dancing puppet.

We all know that Liberals twist language in perfect Newspeak fashion. They're so sick with it that they even, obviously, pervert their own chosen label's definition.

In observation, Liberalism is simply doing the polar opposite of what someone who is wiser or more intelligent than you tells you to do. It's purely, mindlessly reactionary--the hallmark of cowardice.

You sound like a real venomous pr#ck. I'm glad I don't know you. And I'm glad haters like you lost. Sympathies to all who must interact with you.

You Wrote:

THIS is Conservatism:

"Be not the first by which the new is tried,
Nor the last to set the old aside."



THAT sounds cowardly to me. You follow the footsteps of liberals who lead... then weigh us down with your dogma.

America is a country for people who are not afraid to be first.

Plus, it sounds like your beef is with the people who write dictionaries. LOL.