[ElephantInTheRoom]

Now back in 1927 an American socialist, Norman Thomas, six times candidate for president on the Socialist Party ticket, said the American people would never vote for socialism. But he said under the name of liberalism the American people will adopt every fragment of the socialist program.

There are many ways in which our government has invaded the precincts of private citizens, the method of earning a living. But at the moment I'd like to talk about another way because this trip is with us and at the moment is more imminent.

One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can't afford it.

Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. We had an example of this. Under the Truman administration it was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the United States, and, of course, the American people unhesitatingly rejected this.

So with the American people on record as not wanting socialized medicine, Congressman Ferrand said, if we can only break through and get our foot inside the door, they can we can expand the program after that. Well, let's see what the socialists themselves had to say about it. They say once the Ferrand bill is passed, this nation will be provided with a mechanism for socialized medicine capable of indefinite expansion in every direction until it includes the entire population. Well, we can't say we haven't been warned.

James Madison in 1788, speaking to the Virginia Convention said: “Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations.”

Now in our country under our free enterprise system, we have seen medicine reach the greatest heights that it has in any country in the world. Today, the relationship between patient and doctor in this country is something to be envied any place. The privacy, the care that is given to a person, the right to chose a doctor, the right to go from one doctor to the other.

But let’s also look from the other side, at the freedom the doctor loses. A doctor would be reluctant to say this. Well, like you, I am only a patient, so I can say it in his behalf. The doctor begins to lose freedoms; it’s like telling a lie, and one leads to another. First you decide that the doctor can have so many patients. They are equally divided among the various doctors by the government. But then the doctors aren’t equally divided geographically, so a doctor decides he wants to practice in one town and the government has to say to him you can’t live in that town, they already have enough doctors. You have to go someplace else. And from here it is only a short step to dictating where he will go.

This is a freedom that I wonder whether any of us have the right to take from any human being.

In this country of ours, took place the greatest revolution that has ever taken place in world’s history. The only true revolution. Every other revolution simply exchanged one set of rulers for another. But here for the first time in all the thousands of years of man’s relation to man, a little group of the men, the founding fathers for the first time – established the idea that you and I had within ourselves the God given right and ability to determine our own destiny.

This freedom was built into our government with safeguards. We talk democracy today. And strangely we let democracy begin to assume the aspect of majority rule is all that is needed. Well, majority rule is a fine aspect of democracy, provided there are guarantees written in to our government concerning the rights of the individual and of the minorities.

What can we do about this? Well, you and I can do a great deal. We can say right now that we want no further encroachment on these individual liberties and freedoms and that you demand the continuation of our traditional free enterprise system. You and I can do this. The only way we can do it is by writing to our congressmen, even if we believe that he's on our side to begin with, write to strengthen his hand. Write those letters now. Call your friends and tell them to write. If you don't, this program, I promise you, will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow. And behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country... until one day as Norman Thomas said, we will awake to find that we have socialism. And if you don't do this and if I don't do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it once was like in America when men were free.
President Ronald Reagan
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articl ... 198/29847/

[WoodE]

>The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor—not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules. In this respect, it is important to realize that the means of production—that is to say, the entire productive capacity that is needed for producing consumer goods as well as additional capital goods—may legally be, and for the most part are, the private property of individuals.

For the sake of simplicity, in the discussion that follows I shall call “workers” all those who do not share in the ownership of the means of production—although this does not quite correspond to the customary use of the term. The owner of the means of production is in a position to purchase the labor power of the worker. By using the means of production, the worker produces new goods which become the property of the capitalist. The essential point about this process is the relation between what the worker produces and what he is paid, both measured in terms of real value. Insofar as the labor contract is “free,” what the worker receives is determined not by the real value of the goods he produces, but by his minimum needs and by the capitalists' requirements for labor power in relation to the number of workers competing for jobs. It is important to understand that even in theory the payment of the worker is not determined by the value of his product.

Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.

Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an “army of unemployed” almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers' goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before.

I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society.

Clarity about the aims and problems of socialism is of greatest significance in our age of transition. Since, under present circumstances, free and unhindered discussion of these problems has come under a powerful taboo…<

…above are excerpts from…
Why Socialism?
by Albert Einstein
This essay was originally published in the first issue of Monthly Review (May 1949).

[Leginald]

So spooky I got chills up my spine.

Just kidding, I'm not reading that. lmao

[ElephantInTheRoom]

Bottom line, socialism has never worked anywhere in the world it's been tried. One cannot argue with results. Socialism always ends in bankrupt economies and/or tyranny.

Capitalism is time tested to work. It's nothing new. People understood it for millenia; even since biblical times.

Who ever serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard without eating it's produce? Or who shepherds a flock without using some of the milk from the flock? Am I saying this on human authority, or does not the law also speak of these things? It is written in the law of Moses, "You shall not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain." Is God concerned about oxen, or is he not really speaking for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope, and the thresher in hope of receiving a share.
1 Corinthians Chap. 9 vs. 7-10
----------------------------------------------------

Similarly, an athlete cannot receive the winner's crown except by competing according to the rules. The hardworking farmer ought to have the first share of the crop. Reflect on what I am saying, for the Lord will give you understanding in everything.
2 Timothy Chap. 2 vs. 6-7

[WoodE]

Capitalism does not 'work'. The economic results of capitalism are constantly tinkered with and over-ridden by human manipulation because capitalism has never 'worked'. The only people who like capitalism are capitalists...the profit-takers. Your efforts to meld economic theory with ancient religious idealogy makes a weak, biased, unacademic argument.

[Phaedrus]

Purity doesn't work either. Humans are neither purely altruistic or greedy, but each system makes a broad assumption about human nature. Socialism does not work and is inefficient at allocating resources. Laissez-faire Capitalism creates social inequities and may allocate resources inequitably.

The pragmatic approach is to recognize that the profit motive is the primary generator of a robust economy, but that "the good life" is not just about maximizing possessions.

[ElephantInTheRoom]

WoodE wrote:

Capitalism does not 'work'. The economic results of capitalism are constantly tinkered with and over-ridden by human manipulation because capitalism has never 'worked'. The only people who like capitalism are capitalists...the profit-takers.

If any of you have any doubt that we have Progressive Socialists right in our own back yard? This is all you need to read to know otherwise!

Your efforts to meld economic theory with ancient religious idealogy makes a weak, biased, unacademic argument.

More double standard and hypocrisy. See, it's only bad for ME to make the reference to the bible, because I am a Republican Conservative. If you are a Progressive Leftist, you get a free pass. Let me ask you something WoodE. Is House Speaker "Princess" Nancy Pelosi making a "weak, biased, unacademic argument" by asking Priests to preach immigration reform from the pulpit?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYoDymllAwc

[ElephantInTheRoom]

"Capitalism does not 'work'. The economic results of capitalism are constantly tinkered with and over-ridden by human manipulation because capitalism has never 'worked'. The only people who like capitalism are capitalists...the profit-takers."
WoodE

"While the miser is merely a capitalist gone mad, the capitalist is a rational miser."
Karl Marx

"The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property."
Karl Marx

"The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism."
Karl Marx

[ElephantInTheRoom]

Phaedrus:

"Socialism does not work and is inefficient at allocating resources. Laissez-faire Capitalism creates social inequities and may allocate resources inequitably."

Translation: Here is where we see Phaedrus attempting to come off looking like a Centrist. However, I know better. Phaedrus is as Progressive Socialist as the California Left Coast. Phaedrus lost the Progressive argument in this forum, and is now trying to pander to the Libertarian crowd.

Mark my words, we will see more of this tactic out of the Left the closer we get to the November 2010 elections. Progressives are starting to figure out that the American public is on to them. Now they are going to try to distance themselves from appearing TOO Progressive. We will see Progressive Leftists trying to make the claim they are Moderates in the center. This is what Progessives do. When they are becoming unpopular; they change their name and transform into something else. However, their goals and ideology remains the same. Don't be fooled by this trick.