"Democratic Socialist" an Oxymoron?

[TheRightView]

Ever hear of volunteerism, charity, etc? The concept of caring for the less fortunate as an act of individual altruism is not precluded in a NONSOCIALIST system, whether it is a governance or an economic system; the point that charity and volunteerism can be given VOLUNTARILY and not grabbed INVOLUNTARILY by the government and then distributed by how the government sees fit is the issue.

Yes, I have heard of those; but that being the case why then do those students in high school have to have communtiy service as aprt of their cirriculum..I haven't seen you opppose that; however the vast majority are not Mother Teresa and are more like Scrooge. I bet if you had the chance you would have voted for Hoover. I do have to emphasize(sp) that you said can, can means being able not that they will do it. I can choose not to wear clothes that match but will I, no. That is pretty black and white I would say. I'm not saying socialism is the best approach but I'm not saying everyone rallyu against it.....if you really cared about the less fortunate, donate your entire salary to any of the local charities and then I'll believe what you say. ------Because the extreme does make an impression.

[TheRightView]

Ever hear of volunteerism, charity, etc? The concept of caring for the less fortunate as an act of individual altruism is not precluded in a NONSOCIALIST system, whether it is a governance or an economic system; the point that charity and volunteerism can be given VOLUNTARILY and not grabbed INVOLUNTARILY by the government and then distributed by how the government sees fit is the issue.

Yes, I have heard of those; but that being the case why then do those students in high school have to have communtiy service as aprt of their cirriculum..I haven't seen you opppose that; however the vast majority are not Mother Teresa and are more like Scrooge. I bet if you had the chance you would have voted for Hoover. I do have to emphasize(sp) that you said can, can means being able not that they will do it. I can choose not to wear clothes that match but will I, no. That is pretty black and white I would say. I'm not saying socialism is the best approach but I'm not saying everyone rallyu against it.....if you really cared about the less fortunate, donate your entire salary to any of the local charities and then I'll believe what you say. ------Because the extreme does make an impression.

[TheRightView]

There goes trying to be more christian...why care about anybody else but yourself? Why give when you can take....it's like Ebenezer Scrouge said(but i'm paraphrasing) let those without die off and decrease the surplus population. This is a truly sad thing if you believe that way.
That's a real stretch. Did not free market economics lift tons of people out of poverty and provide opportunity and employment for millions upon millions of people? What did Jesus say about teaching a man to fish?

To put in it black and white...no. If you teach a man to fish and there are many men, one using the free market system will build a boat or at least a larger net to catch more fish and once he does that all the others will die off because there are no fish and they have nothing he wants...so they starveand die. Yes the free market is great for those who can afford it, but those that can not will perish.

[TheRightView]

Those who believe in socialism as an answer to the woes of the poor, rarely practice such things in their private lives. They prefer to be removed from contact with those in need and pay someone to do the job. Pay which is derived from the taking of money from those who have earned for themselves.

I have done more for the poor and indigent in the last year out of my pocket, in addition to my taxes, then that which my liberal friends have done in ten.

Taxes are punishment for success and the currant welfare system is a reward for failure and sloth.

You have friends that are liberal? I would have thought you would have disposed of them by now, Perhaps their ( or his or her) charity is staying friends with you and therefore pour all the resouces into you. I who am not a socialist but have friends of all walks of life have seen less help from the right side of the political spectrum then I have seen of the left giving to those in need.

[TheRightView]

Show me a shining example of a socialist country that is doing well for itself and ALL of its' citizenry.

Well show me any shining example of a country that is doing well for itself and ALL of its citizenry. Such a creature does not exist. I can show you those that are proud of their countries government and its policies and their way of life. To that, you would say they are wrong. That is your point of view and they have theirs and both are correct to them and so therefore the other has to be wrong.

[mikewrona]

Another shining example of socialist attitude.
No guns or defense for anyone except the government and criminals.

You where born into or moved into the wrong country mike.
You may find North Korea or Cuba more to your liking. They are about the only two countries left that are not turning towards capitalism.

Show me a shining example of a socialist country that is doing well for itself and ALL of its' citizenry.

"All of it's citizenry?" That's impossible.

England and Canada are Social Democracies.

[CindyLocklear]

Yes, I have heard of those; but that being the case why then do those students in high school have to have communtiy service as aprt of their cirriculum..I haven't seen you opppose that; however the vast majority are not Mother Teresa and are more like Scrooge. I bet if you had the chance you would have voted for Hoover. I do have to emphasize(sp) that you said can, can means being able not that they will do it. I can choose not to wear clothes that match but will I, no. That is pretty black and white I would say. I'm not saying socialism is the best approach but I'm not saying everyone rallyu against it.....if you really cared about the less fortunate, donate your entire salary to any of the local charities and then I'll believe what you say. ------Because the extreme does make an impression.

I didnt realize socialists donate their entire salaries to the less fortunate? That's interesting because MikeWrona (who is a Democratic socialist) invests in the stock market. I guess he's an example of a socialist who hasnt gotten the memo yet from HQ? So you Socialists are required to forego income, property, and investments.. you dont have to worry about your future bec you plan on being a ward of the state? Man, that certainly takes the pressure off. Wow, color me surprised at that one. I guess all those union workers are doing the same? All for one and one for all and all that?

[PBAguy]

Do you think what is happening to the Bflo PBA, regarding their contract is right ? As well, with Delphi paying bonuses while cutting workers wages ? And lastly, with Walmart hiring illegal immigrants. Unions spearheaded that expose.

[mikewrona]

I didnt realize socialists donate their entire salaries to the less fortunate? That's interesting because MikeWrona (who is a Democratic socialist) invests in the stock market. I guess he's an example of a socialist who hasnt gotten the memo yet from HQ? So you Socialists are required to forego income, property, and investments.. you dont have to worry about your future bec you plan on being a ward of the state? Man, that certainly takes the pressure off. Wow, color me surprised at that one. I guess all those union workers are doing the same? All for one and one for all and all that?

And what memo was that Cindy?

[CindyLocklear]

And what memo was that Cindy?

In a previous post RView was taking the morally higher ground in the capitalist vs. socialist debate. I referred to your stock investments as indicative that a active Democratic socialist still will also nurture his own personal wealth, as would a capitalist.

[steven]

Cindy I do belive you have stalkers

[TheRightView]

I didnt realize socialists donate their entire salaries to the less fortunate? That's interesting because MikeWrona (who is a Democratic socialist) invests in the stock market. I guess he's an example of a socialist who hasnt gotten the memo yet from HQ? So you Socialists are required to forego income, property, and investments.. you dont have to worry about your future bec you plan on being a ward of the state? Man, that certainly takes the pressure off. Wow, color me surprised at that one. I guess all those union workers are doing the same? All for one and one for all and all that?

No, but thank you for totally going off base. But following your lead, since you are being the altruistic and giving person you are, I expect to see you donating all your income for the leg. to the poor because you are are not a socialist.
I still see you not willing to take on the school curicullum(sp) on either.

All I was saying is that if left to one's own devices and making just enough to live on and if you were to remove the excess gov't deductions most people would keep the money. Trickle-down economy looks great on paper but does not work in real life. For instance, are you paying less for gas after the billions of dollars profit the gas companies made? I know I'm not.

[tronix75]

Ever hear of volunteerism, charity, etc? The concept of caring for the less fortunate as an act of individual altruism is not precluded in a NONSOCIALIST system, whether it is a governance or an economic system; the point that charity and volunteerism can be given VOLUNTARILY and not grabbed INVOLUNTARILY by the government and then distributed by how the government sees fit is the issue.

Bravo! I think you are starting to see through the smoke and mirrors of Social Democracy Cindy.
Volunteerism and charity are concepts of us radical individualists. Altruism to us is having the freedom to make personal choices as too which charitable organizations we wish to help with our money or our time.
The social democrat concept is quite different; all charity to them is a duty of the collective, where the collective wisdom of society is superior to the individual and somehow able show through by the mere act of voting for some high-sounding law or another.
Of course to accomplish this charity at the point a gun concept, you have to break the rights of the individual, you have to do away with nasty inconveniences like property rights and equal protection under the law, for those things would interfere with passing laws to forcibly take someone else’s earnings without their consent.
Since no bad laws will be enshrined into the law books without giving precedent to further bad laws, the same concept of unbridled democratic collective wisdom overruling individual rights becomes a system of legalized thievery where it then becomes justified to hand out corporate welfare, or public union welfare and privileges, sold as some kind of benefits for the common good of all.

A Social Democrat might even go as far as telling you that the principles of social democracy is enshrined in our Constitution itself.

[mikewrona]

In a previous post RView was taking the morally higher ground in the capitalist vs. socialist debate. I referred to your stock investments as indicative that a active Democratic socialist still will also nurture his own personal wealth, as would a capitalist.

I've read other stuff by RV, he's not a Socialist. He's more a middle of the roader. Uses religious thems a bit. He's a Christian Moderate I suppose. But, he can label himself if he wants.

But, as I said before you view a Social Democracy as being part of sometype of monolithic structure. As a matter of fact Tronix, Delaware, Batman, etc. all do the same thing. It makes thinking a lot easier to have only two view points to contend with.

England has been a Social Democracy for a long time. The current leader of Great Britain belongs to the Labor Party, which is Social Democrat.

That's OK for you to believe otherwise. You are a victim of the American political practice of having only two parties and therfore two points of view.
You may complain about it, but, you fully accept it the notion of dualism.

As for the comment that you are being stalked, I just want to mention that you started this thread. Not me. Maybe I'm the one being stalked since there are more of you against me then vice versa. And that also is OK. I believe in diversity.

[Batman]

England has been a Social Democracy for a long time
Yes, and England had to back off on a lot of it to get their economy moving again.
This whole thread boils down to the age old battle of collectivism vs individualism.
Now, it seems to me (and this is my opinion) that collectivism, especially when it's taken to extremes, has a pretty poor record throughout human history.
On the other hand, when you see instances where collectivist control is loosened, you see a lot of progress. Check out India and China as recent examples.
I'm talking about economic progress. When people have more money and they're busy accomplishing things you take care of a lot of other kinds of problems, too.
Free-market economics is a powerful tool for wealth creation. It is only a tool but it's the most powerful one known at this time for stimulating economic growth and wealth creation. The whole world is embracing it and that's what globalization is all about really.
Collectivist/socialist programs throw a monkey wrench into this. You have to remember one important thing and that's the fact that the government does not create wealth, the market does. Every penny government spends comes in the form of taxes taken directly or indirectly from the private sector. Every government program has some effect on the economy and needs to be scutinized as to what effects they will have and whether it's a positive or negative result.
From everything I've seen, collectivist programs just lead to economic stagnation. I just don't see any evidence to the contrary.