Universal Socialism in the USA...bought to you by the DNC

The liberal-left attitude of expectations and demands for universal socialism

Published on August 29, 2004 By Essencay In Philosophy

Editorial Note: This article is not supported by John Kerry, George Bush or any other politician coping with campaign finance reform rules....it's just my personal philosophy....and I'm Stephen Kelley and I endorse this article

The trouble is the liberal-left attitude of expectations and demands for universal socialism. Everything is a so-called God given right. Just cause you were born wearing a red, white and blue diaper with the Statue of Liberty's flame of freedom flying out of your butt doesn't give you the right to have or use everything that any other American worked for and earned. Health care, housing, employment, food, etc., none of it is a guaranteed right. (Toss in there free webspace, free bandwidth, free software and the like, none of it is guaranteed either and if someone is handing it out for free, stop crying about how it works and what it does and doesn't do for you, kiss my pimply white ass and just be grateful it's not that hairy and I took a shower today)....but I digress.... The only thing guaranteed is the pursuit of these things, that's it, nothing more. Now if someone wants to take the stand and say that they're oppressed from this pursuit, I'll stand behind them and support them 100%, if not they can just bugger off.

Comments (Page 2)

Daiwa

on Aug 30, 2004

Cactoblasta -

Some were indeed afraid of pure democracy and its potential for anarchy, but they were smart enough to construct a representative system that avoided some of pure democracy's pitfalls. And I completely disagree concerning the "whole point." That is a gross oversimplification and flies in the face of historical fact. And if that was their secret intent, they failed. Power in America is not concentrated in a single unchanging cabal, as some would like us to believe - it's constantly shifting, with the previously pedestrian rising to powerful status all the time.

Cheers,
Daiwa

cactoblasta

on Aug 30, 2004

Power in America is not concentrated in a single unchanging cabal, as some would like us to believe - it's constantly shifting, with the previously pedestrian rising to powerful status all the time.

Sorry if I gave the impression that I meant that the powerful was a single unchanging body throughout history; that was unintentional. However power is limited to a relative few in democracies, with the average citizen having little more power (note I didn't say freedoms) than the average citizen of a dictatorship. It is the concentration of power whilst maintaining a veneer of consultation that I feel is the most sophisticated feature of democratic political control.

Daiwa

on Aug 30, 2004

Maybe we agree more than we disagree here, cacto. No society has ever been without a power class, no society ever will be, on that it appears we agree. In undemocratic societies the makeup of that class is dictated by the use of force by the power class, however, official or unofficial. In democratic societies (I use the term in its common meaning, not literal) the makeup of that class is constantly shifting with members moving in & out more or less freely. I'll admit that those in power tend to try to retain it, human nature being what it is, but our system makes it very difficult for them to do that successfully over the long haul, and does so mostly without force or bloodshed. Much better set of circumstances than in undemocratic societies. Not perfect, I'll admit, since no human endeavor will ever be, but far better.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Draginol

on Aug 31, 2004

Personally I date the birth of settler nations like the US and Australia to the time of settlement, but it is of course true that there was little legal northern slavery following independence. I still think the exploitation of slave labour was a major component of early American development though, especially in the south.

You can believe whatever you'd like. But that doesn't make it true. Slavery was never very widespread in the north. And while certainly slave labor was a major aspect of the old south, that is a very far cry from saying that the US was built on slave labor. It just wasn't that large a component of the economy overall -- ever.

Draginol

on Aug 31, 2004

But the simple fact is that all the countries with higher standards of living than the US incorporate a higher level of socialism in their societies.

Which countries would these be? The US has the world's highest per capita GDP and per capita purchasing power. That is kind of the point, socialism lowers the standard of living by taking away the incentive as well as drying up the raw capital needed to generate new wealth that inevitably benefits everyone.

If you think of most of the modern conveniences we have today, they originated in countries that are distinctly not very socialist (USA, Japan, Korea). France, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, and Belgium haven't exactly been lighting the world on fire with new innovations have they? Why is that?

Canada has a lot more socialistic-like policies but its per capita GDP (and purchasing power) is far less than the US. The only way these countries can get rated at having a higher living standard is by messing with the defiition of standard of living to mean various subjective terms. Pick a average American and pick a average Canadian or average Frenchman and I gaurantee that the American's lifestyle (materially) is better. That's not subjective, that is a statistical fact.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!