If I had to point out the characteristic trait that differentiates socialism from [a proper view of the political economy], I should find it here. Socialism includes a countless number of sects. Each one has its own utopia, and we may well say that they are so far from agreement that they wage bitter war upon one another. Between M. Blanc's organized social workshops and M. Proudhon's anarchy, between Fourier's association and M. Cabet's communism, there is certainly all the difference between night and day. What then, is the comon denominator to which all forms of socialism are reducible, and what is the bond that unites them against natural society, or society as planned by Providence? There is none except this: They do not want natural society. What they want is an artificial society, which has come forth full-grown from the brain of its inventor... They quarrel over who will mould the human clay, but they agree that there is human clay to mould. Mankind is not in their eyes a living and harmonious being endowed by God Himself with the power to progress and to survive, but an inert mass that has been waiting for them to give it feeling and life; human nature is not a subject to be studied, but matter on which to perform experiments. -- Frédéric Bastiat
At 10:59 PM 2/27/2011, you wrote:
<Grin>!!
"Date: 1837. From Latin socialis for "friend" or "companion" or "associate". Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods; usually there is no private property; in Marxist theory this is also considered just a transitional stage between capitalism and communism and it is distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done."
The above definition is by Mr. John Spargo, from his work titled: "Socialism, A Summary And Interpretation Of Socialist Principles" (McMillan & Co. 1913).
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 4:05 AM, Jonathan Ashley < jonathanashleyii@lavabit.com> wrote:
- John,
- I know I'm not Sage 2, but you wrote:
- > Making socialist-communist promises to the lazy wasn't nixed by any language of the Constitution.
- Since Robert Owen (in 1817) appears to be the first person to publicly entertain the idea of alleviating poverty through the creation of social communities; and since the term "socialism" itself was first used in early 1830s Britain by the followers of Owen and in France by those of Claude- Henri de Rouvroy comte de Saint-Simon; and since the terms "communism" and "communist" appeared first among the Parisian revolutionists of the 1830s, just how exactly were the authors of the Constitution (adopted in 1787) supposed to nix "by any language" such concepts?
- I'm sure you on the other hand, as brilliant as you have claimed to be, can look into your crystal ball and see (prior to their first existence) concepts and terminology that may appear 20-30 years from now.
- On 2/27/2011 4:14 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
- perfect, how has it been possible that government evolved away from
- the ideals of the Founding Fathers? It did so because that document
- is WEAK! There was an assumption that elected officials would be
- motivated to do what is best for the country (ha!). But everyone
- knows politicians do what they know gives them the best chance of
- getting re elected. Making socialist-communist promises to the lazy
- wasn't nixed by any language of the Constitution. But my New
- Constitution will hang for treason anyone advocating socialism—the
- anti-thesis of the democratic ideals of the Founding Fathers. I
- suspect that you are far more left than the country can tolerate.
- Please give the readers a capsule description of your feelings about
- the free-market capitalist system that made the USA great. And about
- your ideas on the role of government in such an economy. Thanks. —
- John A. Armistead, — Patriot —
- Suffice it to say that OUR Constitution need never be rewritten
- nor changed, but from time to time revisited to it's original intent
- and meaning, less personal interpretation. " It is what it is " and
- was not intended to be anything more nor anything less than that. The
- only true recourse the founding fathers wisely gave us was the "
- amendment " and even they should be rare and few. We should not try to
- fix what ain't broke by breaking that which don't need fixing !
- *************************************************************************** *********************************************************
- On Feb 26, 6:31 am, KeithInSeoul <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
- share it with the group, that is your perogative.
- commentary and opinion, as well as to comment on government, politics, world
- affairs and current events. (And occasionally, pro football and
- baseball!) Your posts I find sometimes interesting and usually thought
- provoking, so therein lied my initial interest in you posting your, "New
- Constitution". It was never my intent to get a shit storm started!
- find that both men are thoughtful, and probably share many of the same
- concerns as you do. I consider myself a conservative libertarian, (not so
- much a capitalist as I am one who beleives in protection of free market
- enterprise, and I believe that there is a distinction between a, "free
- market" versus an economic system such as capitalism, of which I also
- support and subscribe to. Jonathan and Michael are damn near anarchists,
- (and I say that with a smile on my face, I don't think either would agree
- with me!!) but the point being, is that instead of taking the route of many
- of the nasty, hateful rhetorical smear merchants from the far left, (e.g.;
- the Wacko left socialist-elitist Moonbats) who from time to time and on
- occasion chime in here; I would like to think that the thoughtful, well
- reasoned conservative voices of Politicall Forum can have discussion, as
- well as disagreement with a little more civility!
- managed to give your cook-booked quotations of others, and your own
- breakfast-table-written "constitution" of sorts. But you have not
- even gone back into my thread to read about my New Constitution, which
- is detailed in essays that highlight the apt portions of my document.
- And you obviously have no "Regard$" for anyone but yourself. ***
- Since my base philosophy is pro-capitalism and pro minimumist
- government, when you attack me—the author-messenger—you are revealing
- yourself to be a socialist and probably a communist. If it offends
- you that I have figured you out, take your "quotes" and your "regards"
- elsewhere. You are not wanted here! — J. A. A. — Patriot
- Let's see this panacea of yours. What -- exactly
- -- are you afraid of? That it is shit?
- --MJ
- consequences of evading reality" -- Alyssa Rosenbaum
- New Constitution and how such would be apt to events in the news would
- fill several "War and Peace"-size novels. Not a single WORD of what I
- have written supports socialism nor communism! I am in favor of
- having a super-efficient, minimum-size government that has close to
- zero interaction with individual citizens. 'My' government will no
- longer keep records on the law-abiding citizens, because taxes will be
- value-added, only. And I have nixed having the government maintain
- records of criminal investigations of anyone found to be innocent.
- Those on-file records tend to prejudice law enforcement to "convict"
- the person they failed to convict the last time. My corrections of
- corrupt law enforcement practices, alone, should be justification
- enough to ratify my New Constitution! Presently, the USA is a police
- state—with the strings being pulled by corrupt public figures. And
- the courts have done whatever the political leaders dictate. I've put
- them in their place, big time!
- the least having you post your elementary version of "A" constitution
- of some kind. Post your God-damned junk constitution under your name,
- not mine. I am not playing games, here. If you would like to get
- back into anyone's good graces, explain your political philosophy in
- two paragraphs or less. Unless I see the words: "I pro-capitalist
- and anti-socialist"… included, then I will know for sure that you are
- just some HACKER who is back-dooring your socialist-communist ideals.
- Anyone who says anything at all negative about my ideals can only be
- the latter. — J. A. A. —
- see this 'Constitution' ... is labelled as a socialist-communist.
- My guess is that this Constitution upholds,
- endorses and hails ... socialism. THAT is the
- true reason Armistead does not want to post it OR let anyone 'see
- --MJ
- consequences of evading reality" -- Alyssa Rosenbaum
- MY post about MY New Constitution pegs you as a likely socialist-
- communist. You are not wanted here, nor anywhere else in the USA!
- wrote:
- scarcely been commented on. I am NOT wishing to have your nor
- had. That is why my New Constitution will immediately fire or
- President
- himself, who does not respond appropriately for a logical
- single law-abiding citizen for the redress of a grievance. To
- Constitution will indeed be copyrighted. But only those parts
- Founding Fathers) of seeing what has and what hasn't worked
- scarcely been commented on. I am NOT
- read more »
- --
- "Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft"
- --
- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
- For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
- * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
- * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
- * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment