I know that -I- laughed when I read your response...
Your the smart one...
All hail you and your knight...
It does when discussing the term in any meaningful way.
Of course it does.
Socialists do believe that some party of the economy should be nationalized...
But what you are saying is exactly this (which i believe you even said earlier): "When the government/state owns all industries and a centrally planned economy" (or something along those lines.)
A sure sign of a weak argument is when one is forced to resort to conveninet botique definitions of the terms under discussion - such as you have.
Wait!
Didnt you just give a weak minded basis fear mongering scary definition?
"
Socialsim is where the state owns/controls the means on producing and distributing wealth,"
Oh wait you did...
Hypocrite.
And, as you said, you agreed with my defintion "As a basic definition", so your points, and the complaints that stem from them, are moot.
No i didnt....
I agreed with Wake said as a very basic definition...
Its impossible to define any political system or generate an understanding of it with just a basic definition.
Except that, since socialsim can exist under such a system, you're wrong. you're wrong.
So sense a dictator can use socialism and give people worker ran industries like Lenin did in the USSR im wrong?
Socislism is an economic system, and therefore can exist under any sort of government.
You were blaming things such as loosing freedom of speech and what not on an economic system....
Thank you for confirming the obvious.
Then thanks for pointing out the obvious.
Redistribution of wealth thru anything other than a fully voluntary system of charity, in and of itself, runs contrary to human nature,
Uhhh then why do people vote for it??:doh
as people, given the choice, will only give their wealth to others when they believe it is in their best interest to do so, arrived at by whatever meas. You advocate the removal of that choice, and as such, act in opposition to human nature.
Then why do people vote for it?
I didnt say anything about the nanny state. Did you read my post?
My apologies.
I miss read and thought welfare state was nanny state...
But what do you mean by welfare state?
Do you mean that the gov carries you from cradle to grave?
I know right...
What you fail to understand is that having a right to something is not the same as being entitled to the means to exercise that someting.
You seek not the right - as those rights already exist - but the entitlement to the means.
The entitlement comes thru rediustribuion of wealth, which is, as noted, an indication that socialism runs contrary to human nature.
How does it go against human nature if someone votes for it?
You certainly know that this is not at all what I mean; your ineffective response indicates that you cannot counter what I said.
You haven't even tried to explain even the basics of socialism... All you have said is that "redistribution of wealth is bad... human nature... your wrong..."
Your just like everyone on the right thinking that the USSR was socialism or the little 2nd grade definition of socialism we all come to fear because our teachers say its when the government owns everything.
Under socialism, I -cannot- own or control a means or producing wealth
Uhhh yes you can. You can own it along with your workers if you are a employer.
- that is, a for-profit business
It still will be.
- and I can neither own/control the means to distribute that wealth, nor keep my wealth from being distributed to others. This absolutely negates the right to pursue happiness.
The only difference in the workplace is that the workers will own the means of production/workplace............
Your response does not address what I said.
Yes it does.
You are hung up on this claim about socialism and you cant have any private property...
You can own property.
One individual however cannot own the workplace...
Under socialism, I do not have the freedom to own property
Yes you do.
AND use it to produce wealth.
If you mean that one individual cannot own the workplace then you are right.
Socialism holds that should be in the workers hands equally.
Your attempt to remove the conjunction indicates that you cannot counter what I said.
What that you cannot own private property....
Let me do something straight from the Socialist Party of Kansas website:
"[h=5]Does Socialism really want to take all my possessions and redistribute them to everyone else?[/h]
Answer: No. It is a myth that Socialism seeks to do away with all personal property. Socialists have no intention of taking away your house, your car, your material possessions, etc. What Socialists do desire, however, is public ownership of utilities, communication, and transportation entities, etc."
As previously noted and left unaddressed by you.
On the pursit of happiness as Garry Wills stated on this: "When Jefferson spoke of pursuing happiness, he had nothing vague or private in mind. He meant a public happiness which is measurable; which is, indeed, the test and justification of any government."
[h=1][/h]
As previously noted and left unaddressed by you.
I asked you...
Still waiting on a explanation...
You seem to be the master here...
