America is a Socialist Nation
I was thinking about this when I read a comment from someone advertising Shotgun Shells regarding my post on rights from a while ago. Mr. Shotgun said,
I thought that stuff only existed in liberal socialist countries in Europe. Can't believe that happened in Florida.
My eyes have finally been opened. You see, all this time I honestly believed that America was a free country -- a collection of states -- a free republic. I now know that I was wrong. America is a socialist state. I challenge anyone to prove me wrong.
Not specifically the Marxist form of Socialism that would follow capitalism in an eventual decline towards communism, but more of a George Orwellian Democratic Socialism.
Socialism in this form, as a form of government, is based on a few ideals: central control of production, a strong welfare state, re-distribution of wealth through government, and a planned economy. That describes the government of the United States today. Central control of production: The local, state, and federal governments all work together to control all production. Don't believe me? Try and produce and sell quite literally ANYTHING without asking permission. If you so much as try and sell lemonade at a lemonade stand in your neighborhood, you are likely to be attacked and shut down by police. If you want to follow the rules, you have to get permission -- giving the state the power to deny you the ability to produce. Very clearly, all production in the US is centrally controlled. A Strong Welfare State: This one goes without saying. America now provides food, shelter, cash, strip bars, medicine, education, and anything else anyone desires simply if they cannot afford it. Anyone who has any real "needs" in this country has never been to a government office. Re-distribution of wealth: Have you looked at your tax bill lately? Have you seen the size of the government budget? Keep in mind that the government is quite literally incapable of creating or earning ANY money -- ALL the money they have has been taken from someone who earned it -- EVERY DOLLAR. The government of America today's primary business IS re-distribution of wealth -- take money in hundreds of thousands of forms of taxes and give it to other people. A Planned Economy: See Kelo vs. New London. You have no property rights at all in this country any more. You can own, quite literally, nothing. Think I'm wrong? Give me an example of anything you can own that the government cannot take away from you. Land ownership, one of the primary requirements of a free society is gone. You cannot own any land anywhere. Don't believe me? Try not paying your annual taxes on your land and see what happens. Try owning land where someone else wants it and watch the government take it from you. You think you have the right to your own labor? Once again, go ahead and try. You don't have the right to hire or fire anyone without following the government rules. You don't have the right to sell your labor to anyone else without following regulations. Government has total control over the economy and the development of all land and space in the entire country. America is a socialist country. I wish I were wrong.Comments
1
Yesterday I got a chance to watch a video called "The Money Masters". Some of it was old news to me, but it did a great job of describing the details of how our money system works. It only loosely relates to this topic, but I would highly recommend it if you can find time to watch it (it's 3.5 hours long).
You can download part one here:
http://madcowpolitics.com/moneymasters.wmv
and part two here:
http://madcowpolitics.com/moneymasters2.wmv
Even if you can only run it in a window in the background on your computer and listen to it, be sure to check it out.
You can download part one here:
http://madcowpolitics.com/moneymasters.wmv
and part two here:
http://madcowpolitics.com/moneymasters2.wmv
Even if you can only run it in a window in the background on your computer and listen to it, be sure to check it out.
Posted by: Echo Zoe at November 09, 2005 09:32 AM (K+h36)
2
Whew, 3.5 hours? Well, I guess I do spend that much time in front of the computer in a day, just not all at one time...
Posted by: Ogre at November 09, 2005 09:39 AM (/k+l4)
3
I am glad you discovered that America is a socialist nation. I thought everyone realized that the only true democratic nations were the Hellenistic Greeks. It is sad but true.
Posted by: Arbitratorofall at November 09, 2005 03:14 PM (5+Jvh)
4
I just wonder if it's too late to do anything about it without violence. I fear that it is.
Posted by: Ogre at November 09, 2005 04:10 PM (7PCNv)
5
No, nothing can be done nonviolently since it will eventually turn into a "Red Scare" situation. Worse, it could flip and the "revolutionaries" would be viewed as communist or anti-american.
Posted by: Arbitratorofall at November 09, 2005 06:36 PM (5+Jvh)
6
Most certainly any revolutionaries will be completely vilified as anti-American and every other name they can be called. Just look at what people are called when they try and peacefully advance freedom!
I still support The Free State Project, but I'm not sure they can succeed. If it can be done without violence, great, but Jefferson's quote about the tree of liberty needing to be refreshed comes to mind here.
I still support The Free State Project, but I'm not sure they can succeed. If it can be done without violence, great, but Jefferson's quote about the tree of liberty needing to be refreshed comes to mind here.
Posted by: Ogre at November 09, 2005 06:47 PM (7PCNv)
7
I would love for a peacefull revolution but in these times only a revolution like in China in the 90's would work. The blood of protesting American's would spark interest in the US. I hate to say it but that is the only way. Hopefully if this did happen someone could lead it and make it organized or it could result in more problems like the race riots or what is occuring in France.
Posted by: Arbitratorofall at November 09, 2005 06:54 PM (5+Jvh)
8
A single leader would be problematic -- the US knows how to fight rather well. If a single leader were to emerge, they would be a target -- for assassination or simply capture and disappearance.
I think it would need to be a well-organized group, yes, but then again, organizing to overthrow the government is a crime, so it could be rather difficult to assemble.
The free-staters, free-westers, and christian exodous people might have the right idea on how to get things moving -- at least in the beginning.
I think it would need to be a well-organized group, yes, but then again, organizing to overthrow the government is a crime, so it could be rather difficult to assemble.
The free-staters, free-westers, and christian exodous people might have the right idea on how to get things moving -- at least in the beginning.
Posted by: Ogre at November 10, 2005 04:39 AM (7PCNv)
9
Yes, a single leader would be a problem when it comes to the government; but if enough people heard of the person or their voice and then suddenly disappeared or was assignated; then people may see a direct correlation and might view him a martyr. My only concern with this is that American's prefer violence and with their death would come a civil war or massive riots. Besides who said the leader did not have other "officers" such as a para-military or other rebel groups.
Posted by: Arbitratorofall at November 10, 2005 06:09 AM (/k+l4)
10
That's why I think the government would be very careful NOT to kill a leader -- just arrest him and hold him incommunicado in Gitmo or some such place.
True, Americans may be prone to violence, but perhaps not as much so as other countries. If it came to a civil war, and I'm not sure it could because Americans, in general, are pretty damn lazy, it would indeed be very bloody because so many Americans are armed -- and that is a good thing.
True, Americans may be prone to violence, but perhaps not as much so as other countries. If it came to a civil war, and I'm not sure it could because Americans, in general, are pretty damn lazy, it would indeed be very bloody because so many Americans are armed -- and that is a good thing.
Posted by: Ogre at November 10, 2005 06:49 AM (/k+l4)
11
Yeah Americans are armed, which is good, but I fear that the government will either become more strict such as communist or possible slip into a monarchy styled system. Worst of all the Union could split or fall apart all together.
Posted by: Arbitratorofall at November 10, 2005 07:05 AM (/k+l4)
12
I can certainly see the union splitting apart. If freedom is to survive, that will be the only way -- there are way too many people, organized, that are wholly committed to socialism and communism for freedom to co-exist with them in one country.
Some areas of the country are already more strict.
I don't see a monarchy making a comeback short of a serious nuclear destruction -- too many people just wouldn't accept the ordination of kings by the right of God, nor blood-lineage successors without drastic changes.
I think it will be most interesting to watch, perhaps in my lifetime, whether the country manages to be held together by force and continue towards more communism, or if it will split and some portions will move towards freedom.
Many people have discussed taking states and declaring independence from America, no matter what laws and rules dictate. Certainly, if this were to happen, there would be a federal response -- but what would the people's response be?
For example, if Texas were to split, the welfare socialists in Houston and other big cities would support the federalists, while the people in the rural areas would support the freedom fighters. Then what?
Would order be restored only in cities? Could Socialist America only exist in armed, walled cities while outside freedom reined? Could be very interesting.
Some areas of the country are already more strict.
I don't see a monarchy making a comeback short of a serious nuclear destruction -- too many people just wouldn't accept the ordination of kings by the right of God, nor blood-lineage successors without drastic changes.
I think it will be most interesting to watch, perhaps in my lifetime, whether the country manages to be held together by force and continue towards more communism, or if it will split and some portions will move towards freedom.
Many people have discussed taking states and declaring independence from America, no matter what laws and rules dictate. Certainly, if this were to happen, there would be a federal response -- but what would the people's response be?
For example, if Texas were to split, the welfare socialists in Houston and other big cities would support the federalists, while the people in the rural areas would support the freedom fighters. Then what?
Would order be restored only in cities? Could Socialist America only exist in armed, walled cities while outside freedom reined? Could be very interesting.
Posted by: Ogre at November 10, 2005 09:03 AM (/k+l4)
13
I didn't mean a monarchy system as in king's but along the lines you discussed as in the cities being run their way and those in rural areas would be like the peasants of past and considered outsiders.
The larger cities would likely side with the federal government who would in turn send troops or other forms of control such as in the movie "The Siege", which I feel would represent a more realistic look as to what the government would do in extreme situations.
The larger cities would likely side with the federal government who would in turn send troops or other forms of control such as in the movie "The Siege", which I feel would represent a more realistic look as to what the government would do in extreme situations.
Posted by: Arbitratorofall at November 10, 2005 09:14 AM (/k+l4)
14
Wouldn't that be something to see? I think it would end up being like the old west -- shipments would have to be made from one federal city to another, and the "outsiders" would attack shipments, etc.
Of course, without all the outsiders producing for them, I'm not sure the cities could survive on their own. A socialist and communist form of government relies upon people working and producing for other people without benefit to the producer.
Yes, that's how this government functions now, but the larger it gets, the more it takes -- at some point the producers are going to stop producing only for others, aren't they?
Of course, without all the outsiders producing for them, I'm not sure the cities could survive on their own. A socialist and communist form of government relies upon people working and producing for other people without benefit to the producer.
Yes, that's how this government functions now, but the larger it gets, the more it takes -- at some point the producers are going to stop producing only for others, aren't they?
Posted by: Ogre at November 10, 2005 09:22 AM (/k+l4)
15
Yes, it would be like the Old West but don't forget the US is still split up into different production areas. New York has the most active farms, Washington produces apples and potatoes, and the Mid-west controls alot of cattle so if they side with the government then the "peasants" would move or be relocated to other "rouge" states. This would then allow for most of the needed supplies.
The point I am making is many companies would pickup and move to a needed area and the government would "procure" needed resources even if it meant killing the "peasants". The armed forces, say loyal to the government and sided with them so they could then be used to "peacekeep" much like in Bosnia and now in Iraq.
The point I am making is many companies would pickup and move to a needed area and the government would "procure" needed resources even if it meant killing the "peasants". The armed forces, say loyal to the government and sided with them so they could then be used to "peacekeep" much like in Bosnia and now in Iraq.
Posted by: Arbitratorofall at November 10, 2005 09:32 AM (/k+l4)
16
What would be most interesting would the numbers of people who chose sides. If there were a vast majority of people that chose the "peasant" side, there would be no movement of produce from one city to another -- the peasants, armed, would simply stop them.
On the other hand, if the majority chose socialist cities, the federal government would have the upper hand.
I'm not sure, in this situation, if there would be enough loyal to the federal government to effectively keep the peace in such a large nation. There have been surveys of active duty military asking if they would take arms up against their own countrymen, and large numbers of them have said that they would not.
On the other hand, if the majority chose socialist cities, the federal government would have the upper hand.
I'm not sure, in this situation, if there would be enough loyal to the federal government to effectively keep the peace in such a large nation. There have been surveys of active duty military asking if they would take arms up against their own countrymen, and large numbers of them have said that they would not.
Posted by: Ogre at November 10, 2005 09:42 AM (/k+l4)
17
Thanks for pointing this out Ogre. You are right. Let the New Revolution Begin.
Posted by: kender at November 11, 2005 11:54 PM (Ekg2f)
18
Count me in, Kender!
Posted by: Ogre at November 13, 2005 09:58 PM (7PCNv)
Processing 0.0, elapsed 0.0112 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0076 seconds, 26 records returned.
Page size 17 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.