Is the US headed towards a socialist government?

[Jester]

Orly? First, I won't break the law, so I won't worry about getting caught. Second, the jack booted thugs already are on the march to a library near you.

ALA Urges Congress To Correct Law That Inadvertently Targets Libraries, Publishers -- CPSC ruling requires children’s books to be removed for safety testing.

Lifted from Etsy, where this is getting quite a bit of concern.

Enforcement is the arm of the law, and my guess is that this law is not going to be enforced to 1/10th the degree it could be, nor 1/100th the degree that people are freaking out about. Raiding libraries across the country, scouring them for childrens' books with too much lead in them? Let's check back once that actually happens.

This is clearly a stupid law, written with vastly more reach than was necessary. However, its implementation is neither socialist (what socialist purpose does this serve, exactly?) nor has it actually happened yet, so the question of enforcement is still on the table. While the US government is more than capable of enforcing stupid laws, it is also capable of simply ignoring them.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Enforcement is the arm of the law, and my guess is that this law is not going to be enforced to 1/10th the degree it could be, nor 1/100th the degree that people are freaking out about. Raiding libraries across the country, scouring them for childrens' books with too much lead in them? Let's check back once that actually happens.

I don't see the SWAT teams hauling the librarians off either, but I do see most people who are "freaking out" as people who want to be 100% law abiding citizens. Otherwise, we have finally attained what I've said before, an anarchy of law where every citizen is guilty of something, and enforcement becomes an arbitrary mechanism of the state to repress the unpopular, to punish the enemies of the state or make political theater to win elections. The other demoralizing aspect to this situation is that "average citizens are expected" to be in knowing violation of the law. This leads to moral ambiguity where behavior is condoned as long as you are not caught, and then eventual moral decline. And, in other words, a police state. So, along with the other "socialist" leanings, we are moving away from liberty and closer to despotism. Or, as Ben Franklin said, "...I think a General Government [is] necessary for us, and there is no Form of Government but what may be a Blessing to the People if well administered; and I believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism as other forms have done before it, when the People shall become so corrupted as to need Despotic Government, being incapable of any other."

Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal well meaning but without understanding. ~ Louis D. Brandeis

Here is an interesting article by a poet from Iowa who agrees with me.

When laws become so numerous and arbitrarily enforced that citizens are faced with contradictory dictates the net result is not a nation of laws but a nation engaged in anarchy. There can be such a thing as too many laws. There can be laws that are not enforced and laws that require being ignored ( such as the black market for goods and services that the government has created shortages for, such as the long lines waiting for health care in Canada). A nation of laws must be by necessity a nation of understandable objective laws that are enforceable and affordable. ~ Dale Netherton, American Chronicle, April 29, 2009

I heard an interesting statement today on CNN, where someone commented that the latest "bail out" bill passed by the House of Representatives is the largest spending bill by any government in all history. It is enough to give every person in poverty in the US, $50,000, or enough to give every man, woman and child, in the US $5,000.

[kandrathe]

I agree here. I don't want to start a Europe vs USA brawl here, but in my opinions many Americans are so 'scared' of socialism that they don't stop and ask themselves if they really know what it is (I don't mean you kandrathe, i know you know what it is).

Like Shadow says, socialism is not an opposite of democracy. Sweden, where I am living now, is a kind of conservative socialist country, but at the same time very capitalistic. It is one of the richest countries in the world, there are smaller differences between rich and poor, and the standard of living is very high. Well that is a price you pay for excellent almost free child and healthcare I guess.

Anyway, pure capitalism leads to overproduction and leads to overvalueing. Take the banking crisis. It was the banks full right to try and profit from the fact that people think that buying a house would make them rich so had no problem taking out a big loan which was difficult to pay off. (this is what you also call a pyramid scheme) If no bailouts were done the (western) world economy could have gone down the drain.

Yes this might sound strange from one of the more leftish lurkers, but the goverments helping out the banks was a good thing, I think. If however the fundamentals of capitalism will not change (I mean how it is implemented) this will happen again. Exactly because overproduction is inherent to capitalism; it doesn't matter if you produce something useful, it matters if you produce something that you can sell.

This has seemed to work for so many years looking from the perspective of somebody that lives in a rich country, that it is hard to figure out that pure capitalism will have to be abandoned. In a world with more people getting a higher standard of living (China, India) and more people in general we simply cannot maintain our lifestyle.

And before skipping directly to communism I think socialism is a good middle road. And no I don't mean like china, I mean like Sweden for example. I don't have to share my car with my neighbor, I have property, I have a TV with many channels, I can choose between 100 different kinds of soft drinks and we have McDonalds. Another great idea would be not to call it socialism......in order not to scare people of.:)
Also I think (I hope) that the crisis can turn out to be a good thing. We hopefully can start building a more sustainable industry......and so this crisis hasn't come one day too late.

As for socialism and democracy, perhaps we can learn from Alexis De Tocqueville where he says, "Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint."

As for socialism and capitalism, the rub for capitalists is the free use of the fruits of their labors. Rather, socialists believe that the success of capital (investment appreciation or earnings) warrants legal banditry in the form of laws designed to separate people from their wealth by force of government. Socialism ends tragically when those with the means are either unable or unwilling to pay. The American people are still duped by their textbooks into believing that FDR and the New Deal was what delivered the USA from the great depression. The great depression, WWI and WWII is what gave the US federal government the impetus and the cause by which to legally take whatever they wanted. Since the end of WWII, they have never given up an ounce of power or returned the nation back to the people. The US spends over a trillion dollars a year (of borrowed money) to maintain an empire built during the past 80 years, and like all empires before us we too will succumb.

[Taem]

As for socialism and democracy, perhaps we can learn from Alexis De Tocqueville where he says, "Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint."

As for socialism and capitalism, the rub for capitalists is the free use of the fruits of their labors. Rather, socialists believe that the success of capital (investment appreciation or earnings) warrants legal banditry in the form of laws designed to separate people from their wealth by force of government. Socialism ends tragically when those with the means are either unable or unwilling to pay. The American people are still duped by their textbooks into believing that FDR and the New Deal was what delivered the USA from the great depression. The great depression, WWI and WWII is what gave the US federal government the impetus and the cause by which to legally take whatever they wanted. Since the end of WWII, they have never given up an ounce of power or returned the nation back to the people. The US spends over a trillion dollars a year (of borrowed money) to maintain an empire built during the past 80 years, and like all empires before us we too will succumb.

I'm reminded of the legacy that was Rome; first they had a Senate that was essentially a Republic (for the people, by the people), then decided having a bunch of leaders didn't work well when dealing with their foreign neighbors so elected to have a head spokesman and became an Autocracy. Over time, the government took on many roles for the people until the Roman Empire became what many consider a socialist nation. Quote taken from Wikipedia.org:

Bruce Bartlett traces the beginning of debasement to the reign of Nero. By the third century the monetary economy had collapsed. Bartlett sees the end result as a form of state socialism. Monetary taxation was replaced with direct requisitioning, for example taking food and cattle from farmers. Individuals were forced to work at their given place of employment and remain in the same occupation. Farmers became tied to the land, as were their children, and similar demands were made on all other workers, producers, and artisans as well. Workers were organized into guilds and businesses into corporations called collegia. Both became de facto organs of the state, controlling and directing their members to work and produce for the state. In the countryside people attached themselves to the estates of the wealthy in order to gain some protection from state officials and tax collectors. These estates, the beginning of feudalism, operated as much as possible as closed systems, providing for all their own needs and not engaging in trade at all.

Now I'm not saying a Socialist society can't work, because when I look at functioning countries centered around such socialist doctrine in today’s day and age, I see a society that fits well together. However, after having viewed the comments made by kandrathe in the Adolf Hitler Cambell thread or more importantly, the views expressed by others non-native to the US, and after having read the comments from Shadow and others in this thread, I now see how much I do appreciate the liberties bestowed upon us here in the US, and sadly how much I took them for granted. I don't think people from other cultures can truly understand or respect our ways of life, and I'm just starting to accept that for what it is.

[eppie]

dia.org[/url]:
I don't think people from other cultures can truly understand or respect our ways of life, and I'm just starting to accept that for what it is.

I think you don't understand. Kandrathe writes as always about a supersocialist state like Cuba.
But let's just get back to Sweden, Holland or Denmark.
Please tell me what you know about the liberties of people in Denmark and compare them to what you know about the liberties in the US.

I mean what do you think? That we don't have freedom of speech? That we cannot choose?

Right, we cannot have guns, and we cannot get our driver licence when we are just starting puberty.

Th only thing socialist about the countries is a better social security system and health care for everybody, less poverty and an average standard of living that is higher.

Furthermore if we talk about Holland. We are allowed to smoke soft drugs....maybe for you it is a good thing that in the US you are not allowed (like for me it is a good thing we cannot carry firearms) but both things are a liberty. Also to be able and to go and drink in a bar before at the same time the government thinks you are old enough to go fight a war abroad. Again, you can agree with these things, but don't say we have less liberties than you.


To stress it again (because this is often misunderstood here) I am not talking about Cuba, I am talking about western europe).



ps, of course you started this thread, so maybe the topic IS real hard core socialism.......but that seems not a very likely scenario to me. So if you really meant that the US starts looking like Cuba, please tell me and I will stop posting in this thread.

[Jester]

I don't see the SWAT teams hauling the librarians off either, but I do see most people who are "freaking out" as people who want to be 100% law abiding citizens. Otherwise, we have finally attained what I've said before, an anarchy of law where every citizen is guilty of something, and enforcement becomes an arbitrary mechanism of the state to repress the unpopular, to punish the enemies of the state or make political theater to win elections. The other demoralizing aspect to this situation is that "average citizens are expected" to be in knowing violation of the law.

This is a danger. I suspect the law will be modified, repealed, clarified, or struck down before this becomes a large problem, but you're right, it's not a good situation where enforcement gives the appearance of being arbitrary. France, for instance, suffers mightily from this. However, where you lost me is here...

This leads to moral ambiguity where behavior is condoned as long as you are not caught, and then eventual moral decline. And, in other words, a police state. So, along with the other "socialist" leanings, we are moving away from liberty and closer to despotism.

It's just not that dire. Rudy Giuliani was not right; one day's turnstile jumping is not the next day's murder spree. The law and morality are not so closely bound that people need to obey the one in a perfect straight line to not all into "moral decline". And, of course, the idea that socialism is inherently "despotic" might have seemed sensible in the 1940s, but we now have more than half a century of experience with social democracies, many of which are ranked as the most free countries in the world.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Rudy Giuliani was not right; one day's turnstile jumping is not the next day's murder spree. The law and morality are not so closely bound that people need to obey the one in a perfect straight line to not all into "moral decline".

Well, sure. It's a far leap from cheating the subway system to cold blooded murder. I'm looking within law constructs, for example, the propensity of people who break traffic laws, or the propensity for people to cheat on paying their taxes. A legal system requires that its people have a notion of obedience, and are willing to succumb to the law.

And, of course, the idea that socialism is inherently "despotic" might have seemed sensible in the 1940s, but we now have more than half a century of experience with social democracies, many of which are ranked as the most free countries in the world.

Well, free, by redefining freedom. Just as "social liberals" have redefine liberty. As long as the nanny state (despotic or not) provides all our succor, we are deemed to be free. I'd say its the golden shackles of state subservience. Just as the elephant is trained to a tether, so too are the people habituated to their mental cage. I think only when the bars become real, will people rise up in rebellion. On the news this morning I watched a story on an Ohio congresswoman who's communicated to the residents in her district to stay (squat) in your homes even if they are foreclosed upon.

[eppie]

Well, free, by redefining freedom. Just as "social liberals" have redefine liberty. As long as the nanny state (despotic or not) provides all our succor, we are deemed to be free. I'd say its the golden shackles of state subservience.

I think it is just a question of defenitions. America has always presented itsself as the home of the free, the first true democracy etc. But as I wrote in my previous post you have some liberties, other countries have others.
I remember that in the 50's communists were persecuted, and in the 20's lynching was a common practice. Now in many senses all religions and races can live together better than in any other country maybe, while mariuana is still prohibited and the drinking age is 21, however a 16 year old can buy a gun. Abortion is however not your own choice but the choice of the majority of the people in your state and the same goes for euthanasia.....your government tells you you don't have the right to die if you want to. If you happen to be gay and you want to get married, tough luck you can't. You at least don't have to pay for the misfortune or mistakes of your fellow country man and choose yourself if you want to help somebody financially.

All these points can give us hours of discussion here on the lounge, but the point is, I don't think you are more free than an inhabitant of say France, Holland, Switzerland or Ireland. The point is, if you regard having a gun as the pinnacle of freedom, you for sure want to live in the USA or Finland (or Ruanda of course) if however you want to be sure you can decide to have an abortion you will probably choose for another country.

But saying that one of these countries is more free than another I don't know? Saying over and over again that you are the land of the free doesn't make it true, just as saying that a communist is inherently evil doesn't make that true.



But back to your social point. Freedom might be the fact that if you have some misfortune like an accident, losing your job or getting a handicapped baby you can anyway depend on the state to help you take care of life, freedom might also mean that you can earn your own money, don't pay taxes and decide 100% of what you want to do with it. It might also mean that if you don't feel like working or feel like working very slowly your government still gives you welfare.
Well, I think both the USA and most european states are somewhere in between these last two statements and more close to the first. We are talking about small differences.


If you really want to complain about lack of freedom I think socical pressure to belong to a certain religion is a far greater problem in many countries in the world (also in different orders of magnitude of course)

[Jester]

Well, free, by redefining freedom. Just as "social liberals" have redefine liberty. As long as the nanny state (despotic or not) provides all our succor, we are deemed to be free. I'd say its the golden shackles of state subservience. Just as the elephant is trained to a tether, so too are the people habituated to their mental cage. I think only when the bars become real, will people rise up in rebellion. On the news this morning I watched a story on an Ohio congresswoman who's communicated to the residents in her district to stay (squat) in your homes even if they are foreclosed upon.

No, free in terms of being able to do what you want when and how you want to, so long as it doesn't infringe on others' rights. Want to do drugs? Better off in the Netherlands than the US. Want to have an abortion? Almost certainly better off in Canada. Don't want to have other peoples' religious values forced on you, or your children? I'd take Sweden over the US any day. These are not issues of people "redefining" their liberty in terms of obedience to state power. They're classic liberal issues of freedom, and they're doing as well, if not better, in many of the socialist countries of the world as they are in the US.

The "mental cage" stuff is an argument that can't be refuted. "Kandrathe is trapped by the invisible bars of a mental cage! He believes what he does, not because he is a freethinking individual, but because he's an elephant trained to his tether!" If you can honestly show that people are being indoctrinated, fine, but it sounds like you're just assuming, Ayn Rand style, that anyone who disagrees with you must be crazy, blind, or stupid.

-Jester

[Jester]

Over time, the government took on many roles for the people until the Roman Empire became what many consider a socialist nation.

Would it be nitpicky of me to point out that the Western Roman Empire collapsed over twelve hundred years before the emergence of anything even resembling either capitalism or socialism?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

No, free in terms of being able to do what you want when and how you want to, so long as it doesn't infringe on others' rights.

I'm not sure how things are where you live, but I'm really not free to do whatever I want with my property even when it does not infringe on other people. And, most importantly, I would like to keep more of my income without the government siphoning off half of it to pay for things that do not benefit me or my community.

Want to do drugs? Better off in the Netherlands than the US. Want to have an abortion? Almost certainly better off in Canada. Don't want to have other peoples' religious values forced on you, or your children? I'd take Sweden over the US any day. These are not issues of people "redefining" their liberty in terms of obedience to state power. They're classic liberal issues of freedom, and they're doing as well, if not better, in many of the socialist countries of the world as they are in the US.

200 years ago in the US people had more liberty than they have now, however, abortion was not discussed and laws did not appear until the 1820's. The liberties I'm speaking against are the governments imposition of positive rights, such as the right to affordable housing, the right to a living wage, the right to have free public education, the right to social security, the right to a minimum standard of living, etc. In order to secure these types of socialist "rights", actual liberty is sacrificed "for the common good". Now, anytime someone argues against these socialist rights, the automatic knee-jerk reaction is to assume the opposition is against the notions of affordable housing, a living wage, free public education, social security or a minimum standard of living. This is not true. These societal boons can be arrived upon without putting every citizen at the end of the bayonet of governmental force.

The "mental cage" stuff is an argument that can't be refuted. "Kandrathe is trapped by the invisible bars of a mental cage! He believes what he does, not because he is a freethinking individual, but because he's an elephant trained to his tether!" If you can honestly show that people are being indoctrinated, fine, but it sounds like you're just assuming, Ayn Rand style, that anyone who disagrees with you must be crazy, blind, or stupid.

Of course people are being indoctrinated! Some of us who persevere (like you and I, and others here) have learned to question everything and require real proof, and even then sometimes doubt they have the whole truth. I would still say that the vast majority of people in the world subscribe to a world view they've been indoctrinated into, rather than one they arrived upon through any objective critical thinking.

I tend to be a person who questions everything, and so I get branded as some crazy radical. :) For example, I ask frequently, "Why does everyone need to get to work at 8am?" It seems to me that if we really wanted to optimize our infrastructure for a minimal cost we would order our society so that expectations of when a work day began would range from 6am to 10am, thereby alleviating rush hours and road congestion. And, also, why the industrial focus on 40 hours of time spent on the job, when what we really pay people for in the information age are the results of their labor whether that result took 10 hours or 60 hours to complete. If two people do the same amount of work in different amounts of time, then I reward the faster worker by giving them a bit more free time, not by giving them vastly more work or requiring them to slow down. Does a necktie really make you look more professional, or does it constrict the flow of blood to the brain? Why do we still run our lives as if we all still either live on a farm, or work in a factory?

I really think the downfall of mankind is their propensity to be habituated, and their inability to think outside their box (or cubical). Our constant social struggle is the perpetual belief of people that they can control things (and each other). Order is glorified, and chaos (as well as change usually) is abhorred.

[kandrathe]

I think it is just a question of definitions. America has always presented itself as the home of the free, the first true democracy etc. But as I wrote in my previous post you have some liberties, other countries have others.

America used to be the land of liberty. I doubt it is so unique anymore. We've had lawyers in Washington DC (correction: and New York) these past 200 years mucking it all up.

I remember that in the 50's communists were persecuted, and in the 20's lynching was a common practice. Now in many senses all religions and races can live together better than in any other country maybe, while marijuana is still prohibited and the drinking age is 21, however a 16 year old can buy a gun. Abortion is however not your own choice but the choice of the majority of the people in your state and the same goes for euthanasia.....your government tells you you don't have the right to die if you want to. If you happen to be gay and you want to get married, tough luck you can't. You at least don't have to pay for the misfortune or mistakes of your fellow country man and choose yourself if you want to help somebody financially.

Well, to start with we'd need to review the "Bill of Rights" in the context of why these rights help to guarantee liberty. I believe you know where I stand on the potpourri of rights you listed above, but fundamental for me in every limitation on my freedom is "why" the government is the instrument of denying me that freedom. So, yes, I ask why my government a) spends money trying to police them, and b) what right they have in trying to keep my fellow citizens from smoking some weed, sleeping with a prostitute, ending their life with dignity, being gay, or holding unpopular political or religious beliefs. I believe most people are entirely clueless about the differences of freedom experienced by those people living in the American colonies in the 1790's, and that experienced by people today.

All these points can give us hours of discussion here on the lounge, but the point is, I don't think you are more free than an inhabitant of say France, Holland, Switzerland or Ireland. The point is, if you regard having a gun as the pinnacle of freedom, you for sure want to live in the USA or Finland (or Rwanda of course) if however you want to be sure you can decide to have an abortion you will probably choose for another country. But saying that one of these countries is more free than another I don't know? Saying over and over again that you are the land of the free doesn't make it true, just as saying that a communist is inherently evil doesn't make that true.

I don't think we are the land of the free, but I think we should be. The right to own a gun is focusing on the wrong notion. The proper notion is that citizens should have the right to defend themselves from even their own government if necessary. Now, about communism... Did you know that the first Americans, the pilgrims, practiced the collectivist approach of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need", but it was soon abandoned because they were dying. I would say that Governor William Bradford learned first hand the evils of collectivism.

But back to your social point. Freedom might be the fact that if you have some misfortune like an accident, losing your job or getting a handicapped baby you can anyway depend on the state to help you take care of life, freedom might also mean that you can earn your own money, don't pay taxes and decide 100% of what you want to do with it. It might also mean that if you don't feel like working or feel like working very slowly your government still gives you welfare. Well, I think both the USA and most European states are somewhere in between these last two statements and more close to the first. We are talking about small differences.

Did you happen to catch this story about the single, bankrupt, mother of six children with no means of support having IVF (invitro fertilization) of eight eggs, with the result now of her having a new set of octuplets? If people were responsible for their own messes, and successes, they wouldn't do stupid stuff like this which would be suicidal in all but the most socialist of nations. There are only small differences between Europe and the USA, however the biggest is that Europe freely declares itself socialist. Here we pretend we live in the land of capitalist free markets, and have the exclusive on human rights. I think there is a striking difference between asking citizens to pay their "fair" share of necessary government, and asking citizens to pay for a global Empire, or participate in various schemes to redistribute(balance) their wealth.

If you really want to complain about lack of freedom I think social pressure to belong to a certain religion is a far greater problem in many countries in the world (also in different orders of magnitude of course)

I agree. Religion is a hot button issue in many cultures, including the USA. Here, the tyranny of the majority (Judeo-Christian) has often run rough shod over many various minority groups, which should not happen in a society dedicated to secular law. Often the courts are the last resort to protect these minorities, and most often make the right decision.

Edit: I remembered that the Capital used to be New York before the darned British (Canadians) came south and burned it.

[Taem]

Please tell me what you know about the liberties of people in Denmark and compare them to what you know about the liberties in the US.

Honestly, I don't know much in-depth information on any of the countries you mentioned other than what type of government they declare themselves as; I really don't. Am I making too many assumptions about other countries here? It would seem I have, and did.

As was pointed out before, America has always touted itself as a Democracy that was the land of the free, with freedoms afforded to all. When kandrathe made his points known about naming a child Adolf Hitler, almost everyone on these boards thought CPS had the right to take the children away from the parents if they saw a real threat present (some even if they didn’t), while kandrathe made the point that there was no known threat, yet most of the other posters shown a "cry me a river" attitude which leads me to believe this is one freedom (the freedom to choose any name you want for your child) most posters on these boards either don't agree with, or don't have in their own country so simply can't sympathize. On this thread, I was pointing out specific issues of foreseeable change to a more socialistic attitude, and a trend for this movement, yet again heard the "cry me a river" song from most posters, which again leads me to believe most posters on these boards either don't agree with this, or don't have the same freedoms in their own country so simply can't sympathize. This is what I meant when I said “I don't think people from other cultures can truly understand or respect our ways of life.”

Don’t get me wrong, having our banks ran by the government and our health care system completely redone and also government ran could be a good thing for us, but also terrifying at the same time. For most of you in countries where this is the normal way of life, I can see you sitting back saying, "Stop whining! We've lived like that for as long as I can remember and have been doing fine all this time! Now look at you in the US crying a river, all the while having lived in luxury, now you have to wallow in what you built!" Call me cynical, but that’s the way I see it. But please, I am probably reading far too much into this and will only end up sticking my whole foot in my mouth (lord knows it wouldn't be the first time, and definitely not the last time), so forgive me if I offended you with that statement.

[Jester]

200 years ago in the US people had more liberty than they have now, however, abortion was not discussed and laws did not appear until the 1820's.

Definitely not.

Now, anytime someone argues against these socialist rights, the automatic knee-jerk reaction is to assume the opposition is against the notions of affordable housing, a living wage, free public education, social security or a minimum standard of living. This is not true. These societal boons can be arrived upon without putting every citizen at the end of the bayonet of governmental force.

You know of a place where everyone has these things without the government, or as you so colourfully put it, "the bayonet of government force"? I don't. Everywhere that there is social security, even broadly speaking, there is a government involved. Everywhere there is widespread education even for the poorest, there is a government involved. Everywhere that people can be assured of some measure of health care, or of a minimum standard of living, there is a government involved. Perhaps you might believe that these things are possible without governments, and perhaps you are right. But this is not our experience so far, unless you have some examples to the contrary.

I think liberty is an emergent property. Nature is implacable, and our collective ability to live lives of meaningful choice depends on our ability to overcome those inherent obstacles in a way that helps everyone spend their time on this planet how they choose. Governments, as one of our few effective tools for collective action, give us the ability to make that happen. They also give us the power to do the opposite, and against that, we have to be vigilant. However, as I see it, without the intervention of government, we'd all be a lot less free, not more.

-Jester

[Jester]

. This is what I meant when I said “I don't think people from other cultures can truly understand or respect our ways of life.”

Are you being intentionally obtuse about the difference between someone disagreeing, and someone failing to understand? Or are you really such a jingoist that you assume that they must be the same thing in the case of the US way of life?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Definitely not.

Granted, equal rights for all races and for women have been a huge positive step. What I'm talking about is the lifting up of all people without dragging down others.

You know of a place where everyone has these things without the government, or as you so colorfully put it, "the bayonet of government force"? I don't. Everywhere that there is social security, even broadly speaking, there is a government involved. Everywhere there is widespread education even for the poorest, there is a government involved. Everywhere that people can be assured of some measure of health care, or of a minimum standard of living, there is a government involved. Perhaps you might believe that these things are possible without governments, and perhaps you are right. But this is not our experience so far, unless you have some examples to the contrary.

Just because government domination of society is ubiquitous on this planet does not mean it is correct. I would offer that the US was an experiment heading toward that purpose of proving that prosperity was not a function of a benevolent (or malevolent) ruler that has eventually gradually degenerated back into the despotic model they were more familiar with. I think the original founders of America were very intellectual, scholarly and had the historically unique case of being able to try to build a better Republic. Most of the citizens and statesman since that time have not upheld that original vision. So, that original idea that American labor should not be taxed to be used at the whim of an uncaring ruler to run his empire has been long lost. Now the empire is run from Washington DC. We citizens are again taxed to pad the massive bonus checks of the same greedy Wall Street tycoons who helped to destroy our economy, and our rulers in Congress get massive boons which propel them into the American aristocracy. The main difference from the situation in 1776 is that the aristocratic lords who pull our strings are not an ocean away.

I think liberty is an emergent property. Nature is implacable, and our collective ability to live lives of meaningful choice depends on our ability to overcome those inherent obstacles in a way that helps everyone spend their time on this planet how they choose. Governments, as one of our few effective tools for collective action, give us the ability to make that happen. They also give us the power to do the opposite, and against that, we have to be vigilant. However, as I see it, without the intervention of government, we'd all be a lot less free, not more.

I would agree. Government is necessary to protect individual and collective liberty, but it seems that we have developed a "ruling class" of politicians who believe government is the instrument of their will (and control). Liberty has become a 2nd class concern, trumped by anything deemed to be for the common good.

[Hammerskjold]

edited for mangled quote tags.

As was pointed out before, America has always touted itself as a Democracy that was the land of the free, with freedoms afforded to all. When kandrathe made his points known about naming a child Adolf Hitler, almost everyone on these boards thought CPS had the right to take the children away from the parents if they saw a real threat present (some even if they didn’t), while kandrathe made the point that there was no known threat, yet most of the other posters shown a "cry me a river" attitude which leads me to believe this is one freedom (the freedom to choose any name you want for your child) most posters on these boards either don't agree with, or don't have in their own country so simply can't sympathize.

Again with this? Some folks seems to be mesmerized by the 'freedom to name your kid' angle of the story. And if anyone says differently, well they don't understand freedom gets trotted out. Might as well say anyone who isn't American can't understand the concept of freedom because the very notion burns their skin like so much sunlight on dracula.

Fine, whatever. I'll try this one instead. Let's play the potential fast forward game. (Like that Aston Kutcher cinematic magnum opus, The Butterfly Effect.) What could happen if a kid gets thrown into a group with a reputation for violence, that's despised by most people (for good reasons), with the parents practically giving him away to the ' righteous cause'?

Hmm, Alex, who is...Omar Khadr?
http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/463466

Any takers on defending the group who trained Khadr to be a child 'soldier' as only an 'unpopular minority political' viewpoint?

Call me cynical, but that’s the way I see it. But please, I am probably reading far too much into this and will only end up sticking my whole foot in my mouth (lord knows it wouldn't be the first time, and definitely not the last time), so forgive me if I offended you with that statement.

MEAT, I say this with no ill will towards you. I'm not USofA-rican. But I got relatives who are. I spent some great times in various places in the States. I got nothing but the warmest feelings for it's people in general. Most Americans I've met are one of the friendliest, and most generous people both in material and in spirit.

When it comes down to the nitty gritty, most folks are not that different. They're not identical, and everyone's got their own stories. The relatives I have who are US citizens did not sell most of their belongings at a loss, to go start all over again in the US, just so they can go 'not understand and respect' the American way of life.

If you really believe that people who aren't native born to the US can't 'get it', even if they took an oath to become citizens. (Some even risking life and limb to just get a chance at a greencard.) Try saying that to their face. You'll probably find those words real hollow real fast when measured against reality.

Whatever else this is worth, let's at least try to differentiate between a country's government and it's policies, and it's people. Sometimes the 2 have vast differences of opinions. And that's just in the same country! I mean, if you get 10 people in a room, I doubt they'll agree on which 2 toppings are best for a pizza. That's just 10 people. Even if the FDA comes out and says which toppings it considers to be valid for pizzas, would everyone really treat it as gospel?

What is this thread about again? Oh yeah. No, the US isn't headed towards a socialist gov't, at least not in the way you think 'socialist' seems to mean. As long as there's still KFC buffets in the USofA, the smell of freedom is still pretty strong and tasty. The fact that this http://www.kfc.com/menu/bowls.asp even exists in America, should be a resounding answer.

Though what that says about responsibility, that might be another thread.

[Jester]

Granted, equal rights for all races and for women have been a huge positive step. What I'm talking about is the lifting up of all people without dragging down others.

Dragging down others like in... slavery? The "scholarly" founding fathers you so praise were, in the main, slave owners. Their wives and daughters had only slightly more rights than their slaves did. Religion was so free they chased the Mormons halfway across a continent. You can admire the founding fathers for their vision, and for the enduring country they created, and in that we are agreed. But to pretend that the US has fallen from some libertarian grace by eating the forbidden fruit of government is nothing but mythmaking. Alexander Hamilton killed that idea in the cradle, if it was ever more than just dreaming.

So, that original idea that American labor should not be taxed to be used at the whim of an uncaring ruler to run his empire has been long lost. Now the empire is run from Washington DC.

I believe the slogan was "No taxation without representation." Is it your contention that the government of the US is not elected by the people? I'm as suspicious as anyone of beltway interests and gigantic corporations having undue sway over the American government. But the idea that the original idea of America was "no taxes" is simply incorrect. The idea was representative democracy, and that you still have.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Dragging down others like in... slavery?

Well, yes. A slave loses all freedom and income. Since I have only lost 1/2 my income and freedom, then I am 1/2 a slave.

The "scholarly" founding fathers you so praise were, in the main, slave owners. Their wives and daughters had only slightly more rights than their slaves did.

Right, and as I said before people are habituated to maintain the status quo. People are no different today.

Religion was so free they chased the Mormons halfway across a continent.

Yes, and as I also said, there are small minded people who don't understand what the founders intended. Which of the founding fathers chased Brigham Young to Utah?

You can admire the founding fathers for their vision, and for the enduring country they created, and in that we are agreed. But to pretend that the US has fallen from some libertarian grace by eating the forbidden fruit of government is nothing but myth making. Alexander Hamilton killed that idea in the cradle, if it was ever more than just dreaming.

How exactly?

I believe the slogan was "No taxation without representation."

Correct, but it also meant that the representatives were "of the people" rather than a privileged class beholden to special interests.

Is it your contention that the government of the US is not elected by the people? I'm as suspicious as anyone of beltway interests and gigantic corporations having undue sway over the American government. But the idea that the original idea of America was "no taxes" is simply incorrect. The idea was representative democracy, and that you still have.

The argument that the colonists had was that they felt their wealth was being siphoned away to be spent frivolously as King George decided. Is it any different now, with rampant redistribution programs, excessive pork and earmarks?

[Jester]

Well, yes. A slave loses all freedom and income. Since I have only lost 1/2 my income and freedom, then I am 1/2 a slave.

We've been here before, and anyone interested can certainly look up the old argument. Needless to say, I find this to be not only ridiculous, but insulting to the brutal historical experience of slavery, which is so many times more horrifying than income taxes that it seems a cruel joke to even suggest it.

Right, and as I said before people are habituated to maintain the status quo.

A status quo where the vast majority of people were vastly less free than today.

Which of the founding fathers chased Brigham Young to Utah?

Obviously, none of them. However, my point is that the history of the US has trended strongly from less liberty for all to more, not the other way around, as you seem to believe, or at least imply on a regular basis.

How exactly?

By establishing a strong executive, with an army, a banking system, a public debt, and all the pragmatic trappings of real government, including the powers of taxation and regulation that you complain so loudly about. That is to say, he (and many others, of course) diverted the course of US government from a Jeffersonian experiment to the nation you see before you.

Correct, but it also meant that the representatives were "of the people" rather than a privileged class beholden to special interests.

I'm all for the argument that politicians in the US are "beholden" to special interests, but they are not a privileged class, at least not most of them. They are elected representatives.

The argument that the colonists had was that they felt their wealth was being siphoned away to be spent frivolously as King George decided. Is it any different now, with rampant redistribution programs, excessive pork and earmarks?

Yes. As I already said, you *elect* your government. What it does, it does with the sovereignty of the people of the United States, not of a monarch, not of another country's parliament, nothing but Americans deciding for Americans. It's your collective choice, and if you don't like it, elect better people, and if that isn't enough, your freedom of exit is unfettered.

(This is, of course, leaving aside the argument that King George, and Parliament, were not "siphoning" particularily much, were offering the world's best free military protection, and were not "frivolously" spending on anything in particular. However, that particular piece of American mythology is the topic of a whole other thread.)

-Jester