ALIENated's tags:

Most Socialists, like Ted Kennedy, think Socialism has never worked because they (the ones that have tried it before) did it wrong. Socialism is a bad idea and it would only work if humans were mindless automatons with no individuality.

Humans are motivated by rewards for their hard work and effort not handouts. Any child knows the difference between winning a medal or trophy and just receiving the same thing as everyone else. Socialism / Communism would only work if people were selfless, altruistic angels, but that is not the case. There are a few Mother Teresas out there, but not many.

Socialism is a childish concept that only an immature mind would accept. Our children are a perfect example of what happens when you are unconditionally provided for. They act like money grows on trees. They have no sense of working for a living or what it takes to make a buck. They do not take care of what they have because they had to expend no effort to get it.

A mature mind can reason out that there is no free lunch. Someone has to pay for everything we get. That someone is the taxpayer. And even the most responsible taxpayer will eventually say "why do I have to provide for all the deadbeats who are unwilling to work?"

Therefore, a Socialist / Communistic state HAS to be a slave state. People have to be MADE to do their work if Socialism / Communism is going to succeed. In the book 1984, by George Orwell, one of the Party's slogans is FREEDOM IS SLAVERY. That is absolutely true of a Socialistic / Communistic state. Everyone has to be a slave to the system in order to keep it going.

Capitalism is far from perfect (few endeavors of Man are perfect), but it better suits the nature of Man than does Socialism or Communism. Capitalism lets people excel. Socialism allows people to fail without consequence.

Only a child would believe that Socialism could work. Ask anyone who ever lived in a commune if Socialism works. If they are honest, their answer will be HELL NO.

I have said many times that I think most Democrats / Socialists live in a childish fantasy world and Mr. Obama tapped into that mentality. His nebulous message of CHANGE was really taken to mean Big Brother (big government) would take care of them, pay all their bills, provide "free" healthcare, give them a free ride. Those same people now claim that Mr. Obama is not liberal enough, not a Socialist, simply because the majority of Americans are now on to him and fighting his efforts (at town hall meetings, etc.) to convert us to Socialism over night. That does not mean he is not trying.

Of course, that is the underlying message of Socialism / Communism. All your needs will be met, no matter what. America was much better off when everyone was expected to work and provide for themselves, and they were also expected to take care of their children and their deadbeat relatives.

I just read an article about the Eight Stages of Democracy .

These eight stages were foreseen in 1787 by Professor Alexander Tyler based on past democracies. He estimated that this process, these eight stages, would take about 200 years. Here are the stages:

  • From Bondage to Spiritual Faith
  • From Spiritual Faith to Great Courage
  • From Courage to Liberty
  • From Liberty to Abundance
  • From Abundance to Complacency
  • From Complacency to Apathy
  • From Apathy to Dependence
  • From Dependence back into Bondage

As the article says, there was a time in our history where people were given jobs, houses, food, and healthcare. It was called SLAVERY!



del.icio.us Digg reddit StumbleUpon

Comments

  • andycox said on Oct 07, 2009....
    Oh dear,oh dear, ALIEN, why this? I thought we were having a pretty grownup debate over at What is Socialism/Communism, and is it a good idea? Still, I suppose I shouldn't be too disappointed because you saying  ''Socialism / Communism would only work if people were selfless, altruistic angels'' seems to suggest,(Am I right?) that at long last you can see that socialism is all about a democratically-run world society in which people would have free access to goods and services, and the means of production would be held in common - rather than the grotesque state capitalist regimes like Cuba, China etc, which bear all of the hallmarks of capitalism; i.e. money, wages. profit etc, and which are run by leaders who are patently NOT ''selfless, altruistic angels''
  • ALIENated said on Oct 07, 2009....

    Yes, we have talked about this. You calling a dog a cat does not make a dog a cat. It just confuses the issue. Free access to goods and services. Are there unicorns and gnomes, as well? Does the Wizard of Oz pay for the goods and services? No need to dump a mile of text. You will never convince me that you know what you are talking about. However, you have convinced me that you cannot read a dictionary.

  • ALIENated said on Oct 07, 2009....

    And what I said is Socialism will never work well in a society made up of human beings.

  • SeanRenaud said on Oct 07, 2009....

    Basically +1 to everything ALIENated just said. 

    It's true, the leaders of capitalism are not selfless nor altruistic.  Selfless, altruistic people starve to death very quickly which is why by the by there aren't many of them around.  They kinda self regulate their population.

  • Cussane said on Oct 08, 2009....
    2 thoughts come to mind,
     
    1. if winning doesnt count why do we keep score
    2. god made us all different, unions want to make us all the same
     
    Seriously, can the road you are now going down be a surprise to anyone, Obama during the election made his stance pretty clear that he was left of center in the polictical spectrum, the question should be will people wake up and send him a message during the 2010 elections or will they follow along blindly hoping something changes and if they do just follow along, well then, you get what you deserve
     
    Cussane
  • ALIENated said on Oct 08, 2009....

    If Capitalism was a race, the fastest person, the person that trained the hardest and ran the fastest, would win the trophy. Everyone else in the race would be in tip top shape as well, but no trophy, maybe some second and third place prize. If Socialism was a race, everyone would get a trophy just for showing up. Some of the runners would jog around the track and some would sit on the side lines smoking a cigarette and drinking a beer. Why even pretend to participate? They all get a trophy anyway. If this is hard to imagine in your mind, visit your local welfare office, drive through your local ghetto, or try to make sense of your last doctor's bill. Why did it cost so much? Because the insurance company will pay it ... because the insurance companies can just collect more from you and your employer if the doctors raise their prices. Insurance has ruined our healthcare system. Moving healthcare insurance to government control will only make it worse, and worse, and worse. It would make more sense to just do away with all healthcare insurance and set price controls for healthcare. I think doctors and hospitals could easily live on a fraction of what the insurance companies make. The administrative costs alone would be stupendous. Of course, that will never happen because the real goal is not to reduce healthcare costs. The goal is to grow government. So we can assure that Democrats / Socialists get re-elected. So they can grow government some more.

  • ALIENated said on Oct 08, 2009....

    Seriously, can the road you are now going down be a surprise to anyone, ...

    I think a lot of people heard la la la la CHANGE la la la la la during the presidential campaign, and had no clue what Obama meant by that. Many others just wanted a "Democrat" president and many wanted a "black" president because of its historic significance. And of course, there is the flip flop of parties just because it is time for a change (not to be confused with Obama's nebulous CHANGE). Consequently, Obama and his crew think they have a mandate to do whatever they want, and what they want is to trash our system of government and install a bigger, Socialistic government. I think that is still a surprise to many. They just cannot believe that is what is going on. I am sure many in Nazi Germany denied what was going on even though they could smell burning flesh. I am not comparing Obama to Hitler. Hitler had only good things to say about his country.

  • andycox said on Oct 08, 2009....

    Tell me this then, Alien, if you choose to call state capitalism 'socialism or communism' (no doubt this must be very comforting to the Lenins and Castros of this world), what label would you consider appropriate to attach to what I call 'socialism or communism'? I assume that you can comprehend that there is a crucial difference between a democratically-run world society in which people people have free access to goods and services and an oppressive country where the state plays a leading role in the provision of goods and services, and money, wages and profits exist. It would also be inbteresting to know which of these is 'childish', and why.

     

  • SeanRenaud said on Oct 08, 2009....

    You are oversimplifying.  You're point is solid but you're starting to tear down your own points.  Such as the race anology.  If capitalism was a race a lot of people would sit out and drink beer and smoke because the result is the same either way.  Seriously how many times would you have to race Uwe Bolt before you realized that you can run your ass off and lose or you can sit still and still lose with and not be sore the next day?

    And Obama does have a mandate, one he's failing at which is part of why his support is starting to fade.  Nazis stole an election.  Or rather they are the perfect example of why having more than two parties is a bad idea.  I think there were seven parties that ran that year. 

  • ALIENated said on Oct 08, 2009....

    I will admit, my race analogy was questionable. I was trying to say capitalism is about competition and motivation to do a better job, about small and large businesses starting up to provide jobs for a few or many people. Socialism is about the government taking away our hard-earned money and our freedom in order to provide entitements. And that is OK depending on who is getting the entitlements. Giving away stuff to flood victims is not the same as just giving away stuff to everyone. I do not want to point any fingers because broad generalizations are usually bad ... but ... I think the main problem we are having these days is the work ethic of years gone by is no longer there. And that is probably because of government giveaway programs like Medicare, Social Security, and Welfare. More often than not, when government sets out to solve a problem, it just makes it worse. I remember George Bush senior driving through LA, I believe it was. A black guy, standing on a street corner, yelled "look what your great society has done for us". It was obvious that he meant nothing, or worse than nothing. Of course, he was referring to LBJ's great society and welfare.

  • SeanRenaud said on Oct 08, 2009....

    A black guy was probably raised by parents who were poor and poorly educated (and depending on their age it had nothing to do with their ability or inspiration but rather the opportunities afforded to them.  And that anger passed on to their child who because social mobility is a myth he's also lower class and angry.  That's gonna take a while to work through.

    I disagree that the work ethic is gone but I also wasn't around to see it.  It seems that at some point America became America not a third world country and people realized they deserved compensation for their hard work and that has been translated by many into a loss of work ethic but it's not.

    Finally I have stated three places (Water, Power and subsistance food) that we should strive towards socializing.

  • ALIENated said on Oct 12, 2009....

    Yes, we should give the government absolute power over us, and those three things, along with healthcare, would pretty much make us all slaves on the government plantation. It is ironic that the first president thought to be black wants to lead all Americans into slavery to the government. That tells me he is either very stupid (because Republicans will be in control again soon) or that he assumes he will be in power for a long time (even beyond eight years). I wonder if Democrats / Socialists will continue to support Obama when he attempts to change the Constitution or simply throws it out. He already flys his flag and puts his seal on everything similar to another leader in the last century.

  • SeanRenaud said on Oct 12, 2009....

    Why do you think that socializing the three things that I listed would lead us to be slaves?  We already had two of those things before we let capitalism run amok.  It turns out we can produce more power than we can use, and realitively easily.  We can't do it yet with water but it should be a goal. 

    This is where I don't really think that you, or most people are truly Capitalists.  A major component (for me anyway) of being a capitalist is that you produce something that is of value to others.  It could be you make cars, hell it could be that you make people smile but you create something and that something must already be in limited supply.  Obviously our techniques for growing food (at least certain kinds of food) are so advanced that it made food worthless.  So as a result we actually pay farmers NOT TO FARM.  It's lunacy.  We allow monopolies on certain spices (and notably salt) because again we can produce more of it than we can even use in theory. 

    You've proven in the past to be somewhat knowledgable in alternative energy.  So I don't need to bore you with the details of how much energy is here that we aren't able to harness.  If we can harness enough that it stops making sense to charge people should the government step in and say no more building Solar Panels because Edison is going out of business? 

    Anytime the government has to step in (rather than out) so that people can make money something is terribly wrong. 

    I'm trying to ask very specific questions about very specific points because I don't believe we should socialize everything or even most things.  I don't even really believe that we have a responsibility to look out for the weak.  I kinda believe that looking out for the weak causes damage to the whole.  That said if we can free up some of the energy we are currently using X (we'll say that X is water and power) that it gives more people more time and energy to work on other things. 

    So again to be specific.  Do you have a reason why we should not strive both as a country and as individuals (Imagine the guy who figures out how to desalinate water cheaply will be so set his name will be immortal like Trump, Ford and Rockafeller) to produce enough water that we simply don't need to worry about it anymore?  Just period?  Any reason (aside from Global Warming thatyou don't belive in anyway) why we shouldn't strive to produce so much electricity that we just have it? 

    In a single sentence.  Should we not strive for overabundance?

  • ALIENated said on Oct 13, 2009....

    I am really not sure what you are talking about. I pay the city for water, so I have to assume they control that already. And I pay an electric company big bucks for electricity (especially in the summer). If that could be made more cheaply, I would be all for it. I honestly doubt that solar, wind, and grain energy is going to make that big of an impact in our lifetimes. We should be drilling for our own oil as far as I am concerned. My whole deal is limited government control. Every dictator was just a front man for a group that took over their country. I just do not want a group, like the one that Obama leads, getting too much power and taking over our country. Even with all the criticism of Bush, I think he did the things he did to protect our country, not to suspend our rights. I just do not think that was his nature. However, I do think Obama has the potental to suspend our rights and even change our constitution. Obama THINKS he has a mandate to do whatever he wants in the name of CHANGE. He has demonstrated that and is feeling the backlash of it. Most do not want gays openly serving in the military (especially the leaders of the military), but Obama will no doubt go down that path sooner or later. As I have said, it will take years to clean up the mess he is making.

  • SeanRenaud said on Oct 13, 2009....
    You may be right about alternative power (and I've never once said we shouldn't drill) but I also think nuclear could have had an impact in your time if people had balls.  Hell the French did it and again pay almost nothing for their electricity. 
  • ALIENated said on Oct 13, 2009....

    Maybe they will invent the other kind of nuclear energy (fusion? fission? I forget which is which). Hollywood keeps creeping people out about nuclear energy (The China Syndrome, etc.). More proof that Arab money is probably running Hollywood these days.

  • SeanRenaud said on Oct 14, 2009....
    You need to drop the paranoia and just face facts.  the fear of nuclear is simply fear.  Its not Hollywood or the media it's just plain old fear.  Sure there might be the occasional push from Hollywood or the oil industry but the fact is Chernobyl and 3 mile Island are still very real.
  • ALIENated said on Oct 14, 2009....

    I am not paranoid, but I would not want to be anywhere near a nuclear plant, sorry. I do not want to be near a wind generator farm either (neither do the Kennedys). We just need to drill for our own oil and start selling it to create jobs and start paying off some of our national debt. This is one of the main reasons I would never vote Democrat / Socialist even if they were not morally bankrupt. Just about every idea they have is ass backward from common sense. They always want to tax the rich and give handouts to the most worthless among us. They fall for the global warming idiocy and listen to turds like Al Gwhore. Yadda yadda yadda.

  • SeanRenaud said on Oct 14, 2009....

    See and this is my point about Republicans.  There are alternatives and rather than exploit them we should just stick with oil.  Oil oil oil.  From your statement I assume you wouldn't mind living next to an oil derrick?

  • ALIENated said on Oct 14, 2009....

    Nope, I would not want to live by an oil field, unless I owned it, of course. I am not against alternative energy sources. I just do not think they are the answer. How you gonna run a car on wind energy? I looked into getting a wind turbine for my home. I think most will generate enough power in a month to run an average home for a day. Even so, the question is, why not use oil until it runs out? As I understand it, the earth makes new oil and it may never run out. We just need to figure out how to clean it up and use less of it by telecommuting and that sort of thing. You know, we can have these discussions all day and Al Gwhore can run around and make his millions talking about global warming, but at the end of the day, we are going to be using oil for a long time. If they try to do away with it, there will be a negative reaction ... things will not get done and the economy will go to pot (more to pot?). So why not use our oil and get some cash for it?

  • SeanRenaud said on Oct 14, 2009....

    There is a very small group of scientist who belive the earth constantly creates oil.  That isn't the majority of them however.  The idea is that oil isn't actually made of dead matter it's actually something earth creates, there are just so many fossils in the earth that all the oil we find is contaiminated.  It would be nice if they were right but I doubt it.

    The obvious reason why you don't use one thing until there is no more is because what do you do in between?  We hunted whales nearly to extinction before discovering oil (ground oil not whale oil obviously)  What would have happened if there had been 50 years before we figured it out?  Hell what if this oil scare (which even at the time many of us knew was artifical) had been the real deal?  That oil would decline 10% each year after 07?  How many people would starve and freeze to death if say it took us just 5 years to discover an alternative?  Obviously you have to at least have a plan in place for later.

    Of course use our oil and get cash for it.  I have never said we shouldn't.  I'm not a huge fan of wind farms.  I don't think in the long or short run that technology is going to pan out.  Solar on the other hand has been proven and yeah it's not for everybody.  Obviously solar power in Washington State would be stupid.  But I bet the south west (California, Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas) could probably produce enough energy to power the entire country.  And that's before adding nuclear power.  Which is relatively safe. 

  • ALIENated said on Oct 15, 2009....

    Capitalism will be the system that brings all that about, not Socialism. I figure our grandchildren (or maybe our great grandchildren) will be using power sources we never thought of.

  • SeanRenaud said on Oct 15, 2009....

    Have you ever heard me deny that?  In some cases socialism is not the opposite of capitalism it is simply an alternative or even a driving force. 

    The best example I can give is farming.  I believe that farming technology has been allowed to stagnate because we reached a point decades back where we could produce more than we could use (not more than we need, we still produce more than we need) but more than we could use.  As a result we still pick fruit by hand and haven't really invested much at all in R&D.  Instead we artificially manipulated the market.  How is that capitalism?

  • ALIENated said on Oct 15, 2009....

    I do not think it is capitalism. Democrats / Socialists have most likely been in control of the legislature more than Republicans in the last century. We have lots going on that is anti-capitalistic and I figure most of it is their fault. They claim to want to pull people out of poverty, yadda yadda yadda. Why are there still hungry, poor people? I heard a lady talking about ACORN, that they had really done nothing to improve her community. D / S have taken over some of our larger cities and they are turning them into ghettos that most people leave and go to the suburbs. People need jobs and self respect, not handouts from the government.

  • SeanRenaud said on Oct 16, 2009....

    You really need to pick a philosphy and be consistent.  Either Democrats get power and keep power OR it takes six months for America to realize why they vote Republican and to fix their mistakes.  You can't have both.

    And I highly doubt this had anything to do with Dems.  As a general rule they aren't fond of people making money so a system that causes people to go hungry (by artificially raising the prices of food) AND puts money in people's pockets (by allowing them to make a profit on something so plentiful that Supply and Demand ought to demand it be free or nearly free) is very unlikely to be a Democrat plot.  If you can seach back and fine the legislation that set up ths system ok, but this stinks of Republican.  If this was a plot that allowed illegal aliens to set up shanty towns in San Diego that have been accused of child prositituion rings amongst other things I'd tell you screams of Dem (which by the way is a real story in the So Cal news right now.

  • ALIENated said on Oct 16, 2009....

    Democrats have been in control of congress even when Republicans are president. And I was speaking more of pre-1980s. The Democrat party used to be more dominant, but they are now running neck and neck because so many have abandoned the Democrat party for the Republican party or have become independents, often voting Republican. But it really does not matter. The parties are not so much the problem as is bigger and bigger government. It is just that the Democrats are more in favor of bigger government. If the government gets big enough, has enough control over our lives, it will not matter which party is in power. As government gets bigger, the individual gets smaller and has less rights.

Comment on "Socialism Is A Childish Idea"


(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)

Communist or socialism refers to a world-wide society in which the means of production would be held in common, where money, wages, and profits would not exist, and in which true democracy and the greatest possible libertry would prevail....
The only human being on the planet that can eject a huge turd, yet somehow dupe the media into thinking it's a golden egg that smells like roses....