Posted on 02/12/2021 3:05:22 AM PST by Jonty30
In a nutshell, the definition of socialism is not tax and regulation policies, but whether the government says it is a socialist government. As long as it doesn't use those words, it is not socialist. 100% taxation and 100% regulatory policies and it's not socialist, because it hasn't called itself that.
Question: Is it true that it is okay in USA if someone said that they love the US healthcare system because they derive immense pleasure/gratification from seeing low income people suffer, but saying this is taboo in Europe, Canada, Australia and New Zealand?
Me: No, but it is more likely true that liberals derive pleasure from driving people into poverty and not give them a chance to establish themselves economically while liberals financially benefit from driving people into poverty.
Liberal: Very confusing at times, in the UK the Liberals are a Party towards the left of the middle ground (yes they are an official party with elected representatives), it appears that in the USA “Liberal” has quite different connotations.
Me: The term liberal, in the States, has been taken over by the progressives. Whatever connotation that it may have had is dead. However, liberals aren't quite honest about that because they deny they are socialists while pushing socialist policies.
Liberal: Socialist agenda like what? Public healthcare? Damn then out of 27 developed nations 26 are socialist. Makes you think.
Me: Yeah, like healthcare. I’ve paid over$200,000 in my working life paying for something I don’t use.
If that money had been invested, it would have been worth almost $700,000 and I could have then retired. It cost me my retirement, so users of men like yourself would have healthcare and I don’t benefit … (more)
Liberal: ohhh were all the way down there. I would wager that you could sue your prior schools for lackluster schooling.
Socialism has nothing to do with taxation, it has nothing to do with free healthcare, socialism is when the means of production has been fully nationalized, if someone doesn’t advocate that … (more)
Me: So, by your measure, the government can tax 100% of your business income and it’s not socialism because the government hasn’t called it that. You’re very easy to fool, you know that. Right?
Taxation represents how much of the economy the government owns. 0% - anarchy and 100% communism. Typically, so … (more)
Liberal: Then It’s not socialism.
Socialism has one definition, that it’s outside your ability to comprehend isn’t my fault, anarchy is by no means when the government doesn’t tax, anarchy is when the government doesn’t exist, and for your interest taxation doesn’t exist in North Korea, does that make it an a … (more)
Me: It used to have one definiton, a representation of government control of the economy. Now it has two, the government has to say it is socialist before it is socialist. According to you, anyway. The government can have 100% of the financial controls of your business and it can have 100% control as to how you run your business. It can redistribute the money all across society. It can do everything that a socialist government will do. However, unless it calls itself a socialist government, then it is not a socialist government. According to you anyway.
Taxation doesn’t exist in North Korea, because there is nothing to tax. Private business does not exist in any meaningful sense in North Korea.
This is why liberals are guilty of murdering 250 million people, enslaving a billion and starting 4 world wars. They were simply told that they were not doing bad, but good. So, it was good. As long as it was called good, then murdering 250 million people, starting four world wars, enslaving a billion people was good.
Is that why liberals don’t call themselves socialists, to hide the fact that they want socialism so they proceed to do everything that socialists do, except call themselves that?
He just told me that you can have 90% and it’s still not socialism. It’s capitalism.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated: but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. . . . This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be ‘cured’ against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.” —C.S. Lewis
No kidding. We are seeing that out in the open.
Liberals think they can install totalitarianism, without it being totalitarianism. As long as it is not called that.
The conversation continues.
Liberal: Socialism has nothing to do with taxation, let’s get that out of the way. The US has two major parties, one reactionary and one conservative/progressive.
Progressivism is just the idea that for the society to improve new ideas need to be tried.
The difference between socialism and communism is that the state still exists in socialism while in communism it’s been removed along with money.
A world war isn’t something that includes the whole world but fighting in the whole war, the one that came closest was the Vietnam war as some fighting was done in Laos. Furthermore the Vietnam war was between Vietnam and foreign invaders a effectively, south Vietnam was only a puppet government on the hands of France first and then The US. WW2 wasn’t started by a communist or socialist, but by a Nazi, the republicans are closer to Nazism than the democrats are to even socialism.
Communism and socialism was simply a reaction to the failures of laize-faire capitalism, along with fascism and Nazism that is. Same way laizes-faire was a reaction to mercantilism.
“Liberals think they can install totalitarianism, without it being totalitarianism”
You can’t refer to “totalitarianism, without it being totalitarianism” or you’ll be deplatformed.
/s
the amount of divergence between word and action is always a pretty good estimate of ability an good will
I completely agree. They want to keep their intentions hidden until they can’t be stopped.
I socialist is a patient communist.
I like the scene in Fury (Brad Pitt tank movie). Brad is the war-wise veteran who tells the FNG to shoot any SS Nazis they see. The reason is the SS are brainwashed beyond redemption.
As the old Italians say, "when the donkey brays, don't answer it."
A brainwashed mind is a terrible thing. I have had a leftist call me brainwashed. A free mind must be intellectually honest and yearn for Truth.
AMEN...and I wish that was easy. I worked with a braying liberal who would walk into my office and throw CNN talking points around. I got to where I would just look at him and say "Please get out of that lying bubble. There's a whole world of information out there you ought to look at before you open your mouth". His usual response was to throw both middle fingers in the air and stomp out. Being an adult is not their strong suit.
>>WW2 wasn’t started by a communist or socialist, but by a Nazi,
The response to that is “You mean the National Socialists? And make no mistake about it, the NSDAP platform has many elements in common with that of the Democrats.”
I always tell them that nazism is nothing more than a distilled form of fascism, a subset of socialism. Fascism tied the love of one’s country and Nazism distilled it further to the love of one’s race.
You should explain to him that means of production is being Nationalized through regulation and taxation. No one is going to make an official announcement and if he thinks that's what happens, he's not paying attention.
WWII was started by the Poles, they were asking for it. /sarc
It’s official.
Liberals/leftists/demoncrats are no longer our political “opponents.” They now are the mortal enemies of everyone who supports the ideals of a Constitutional Republic and individual liberty.
Amazing, how you could hold a conversation with a liberal for more than 5 minutes without losing your composure. LOL
Kudos to you!
The best response to this wooden-headed loon is “ i hAve found yout an argument, sir. I am not obliged to find you an understanding.”
The problem with socialism is that it never works.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.