Is becoming a Socialist country all that bad?

[MikeUpton]

Hey Mike,

I always cringe a bit at this kind of absolutist language, such as the word "tyranny." Britain did not act any more tyrannical than the American colonies did. It was simply asking its subjects to do what it asked of all its subjects, and the American colonists said no.

But to maintain perspective, it‘s important to understand the colonies said no because England had essentially left the colonies alone, to rule themselves, for at least a century.

England‘s policy of not enforcing its laws in the American colonies is called “salutary neglect,“ or “benign neglect.” From Wiki:

"Salutary neglect was a large contributing factor that led to the American Revolutionary War. Since the imperial authority did not assert the power that it had, the colonists were left to govern themselves.

These essentially sovereign colonies soon became accustomed to the idea of self-control. The effects of such prolonged isolation eventually resulted in the emergence of a collective identity that considered itself separate from Great Britain."

In other words, if Britain hadn’t left the colonies alone for such a long time, they probably would never have thought to break from its rule. In fact, the American colonists' decision to do so was actually rather arrogant, and not entirely reasonable.

Salutary neglect is far from tyranny, and the label is rhetoric, not reality.

Elphaba

Elphaba,

Its always fun to debate. I hope we can keep this lighthearted and maintain respect for each other.

I was speaking of the tyranny defined here:

1. oppressive power <every form of tyranny over the mind of man — Thomas Jefferson> ; especially : oppressive power exerted by government <the tyranny of a police state>

2 a: a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler ; especially : one characteristic of an ancient Greek city-state b: the office, authority, and administration of a tyrant

: a rigorous condition imposed by some outside agency or force <living under the tyranny of the clock — Dixon Wecter>

4: a tyrannical act <workers who had suffered tyrannies>

tyranny - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

As you can see there are several definitions of tyranny, not all of them refer to absolute and complete control. Some of them refer to "oppressive power" or a even a single tyrannical act. I would agree on the point that the level of tyranny faced by those who started this country was not absolute, but i believe that it was far too much.

My use of the word tyranny was also a nod to the founder's feeling at the time towards England, as spoken of by the writers of the Declaration of Independence, quoted here:

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.

The Declaration of Independence

You are merely using the term salutary neglect describe a change in someone's willingness to be obedient due to not having to be obedient to the law for a long time. Whether or not the law is correct is completely independent of that. Its simply a psychological process that might happen to anyone who is given freedom for a long time. Try that sort of thing on the Chinese, and see if they will again comply with their country's law after a hundred years. It did in fact play a part in their attitudes, but it cannot be said to be a commentary on the right or wrong of the policy. It is likely to happen to anyone, whether or not the law is incorrect.

In other words, if Britain hadn’t left the colonies alone for such a long time, they probably would never have thought to break from its rule. In fact, the American colonists' decision to do so was actually rather arrogant, and not entirely reasonable.

The use of the word Tyranny is most certainly rhetoric, but again that does not mean its incorrect. Rhetoric as shown in this definition can be used insincerely, but as we see it in the definition, it also is simply the art of speaking or writing effectively.

Rhetoric:

1: the art of speaking or writing effectively: as a: the study of principles and rules of composition formulated by critics of ancient times b: the study of writing or speaking as a means of communication or persuasion

2 a: skill in the effective use of speech b: a type or mode of language or speech ; also : insincere or grandiloquent language

3: verbal communication : discourse

rhetoric - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

The fact they used rhetoric is proof of nothing. It simply proves they used rhetoric, which is even necessary to explain their position. Rhetoric is not evil, it is what we're doing now on this forum. Rhetoric is something used by people who wish to effect change or communicate an idea.

I understand what you're saying here. The map is not the territory. I would also suggest that the map does not disqualify the territory. There is only one argument of any real merit at stake here, and that is:

Were the founders of the United States correct in their decision to break from England, based on their treatment by the government?

Click on the The Declaration of Independence link again and read their complaints!

In other words, if Britain hadn’t left the colonies alone for such a long time, they probably would never have thought to break from its rule. In fact, the American colonists' decision to do so was actually rather arrogant, and not entirely reasonable.

My thought is: Yes. The founding father's decision was correct and understandable. Whether or not the tyranny was absolute is beside the point.

Again, for those who wish to see America continue in the path of freedom, we must resist all attempts to increase power in government, to draw the line and use our power to vote against tyranny in any degree. If we take our freedoms for granted and do not use our heads when voting, we will lose our freedoms, bit by bit. We need to draw the line and keep it there, be ever watchful of government, that it does not usurp too much power. A major principle the United States government was founded upon was distrust of those in government who seek too much power, and I fully agree with it.

Here's what Ezra Taft Benson had to say.

YouTube - In 1977, Ezra Taft Benson on Socialism -RON PAUL-LDS - 1/2

[MikeUpton]

Hey Mike,

I always cringe a bit at this kind of absolutist language, such as the word "tyranny." Britain did not act any more tyrannical than the American colonies did. It was simply asking its subjects to do what it asked of all its subjects, and the American colonists said no.

But to maintain perspective, it‘s important to understand the colonies said no because England had essentially left the colonies alone, to rule themselves, for at least a century.

England‘s policy of not enforcing its laws in the American colonies is called “salutary neglect,“ or “benign neglect.” From Wiki:

"Salutary neglect was a large contributing factor that led to the American Revolutionary War. Since the imperial authority did not assert the power that it had, the colonists were left to govern themselves.

These essentially sovereign colonies soon became accustomed to the idea of self-control. The effects of such prolonged isolation eventually resulted in the emergence of a collective identity that considered itself separate from Great Britain."

In other words, if Britain hadn’t left the colonies alone for such a long time, they probably would never have thought to break from its rule. In fact, the American colonists' decision to do so was actually rather arrogant, and not entirely reasonable.

Salutary neglect is far from tyranny, and the label is rhetoric, not reality.

Elphaba

Elphaba,

Its always fun to debate. I hope we can keep this lighthearted and maintain respect for each other.

I was speaking of the tyranny defined here:

1. oppressive power <every form of tyranny over the mind of man — Thomas Jefferson> ; especially : oppressive power exerted by government <the tyranny of a police state>

2 a: a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler ; especially : one characteristic of an ancient Greek city-state b: the office, authority, and administration of a tyrant

: a rigorous condition imposed by some outside agency or force <living under the tyranny of the clock — Dixon Wecter>

4: a tyrannical act <workers who had suffered tyrannies>

tyranny - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

As you can see there are several definitions of tyranny, not all of them refer to absolute and complete control. Some of them refer to "oppressive power" or a even a single tyrannical act. I would agree on the point that the level of tyranny faced by those who started this country was not absolute, but i believe that it was far too much.

My use of the word tyranny was also a nod to the founder's feeling at the time towards England, as spoken of by the writers of the Declaration of Independence, quoted here:

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.

The Declaration of Independence

You are merely using the term salutary neglect describe a change in someone's willingness to be obedient due to not having to be obedient to the law for a long time. Whether or not the law is correct is completely independent of that. Its simply a psychological process that might happen to anyone who is given freedom for a long time. Try that sort of thing on the Chinese, and see if they will again comply with their country's law after a hundred years. It did in fact play a part in their attitudes, but it cannot be said to be a commentary on the right or wrong of the policy. It is likely to happen to anyone, whether or not the law is incorrect.

The use of the word Tyranny is most certainly rhetoric, but again that does not mean its incorrect. Rhetoric as shown in this definition can be used insincerely, but as we see it in the definition, it also is simply the art of speaking or writing effectively.

Rhetoric:

1: the art of speaking or writing effectively: as a: the study of principles and rules of composition formulated by critics of ancient times b: the study of writing or speaking as a means of communication or persuasion

2 a: skill in the effective use of speech b: a type or mode of language or speech ; also : insincere or grandiloquent language

3: verbal communication : discourse

rhetoric - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

The fact they used rhetoric is proof of nothing. It simply proves they used rhetoric, which is even necessary to explain their position. Rhetoric is not evil, it is what we're doing now on this forum. Rhetoric is something used by people who wish to effect change or communicate an idea.

I understand what you're saying here. The map is not the territory. I would also suggest that the map does not disqualify the territory. There is only one argument of any real merit at stake here, and that is:

Were the founders of the United States correct in their decision to break from England, based on their treatment by the government?

Click on the The Declaration of Independence link again and read their complaints!

In other words, if Britain hadn’t left the colonies alone for such a long time, they probably would never have thought to break from its rule. In fact, the American colonists' decision to do so was actually rather arrogant, and not entirely reasonable.

My thought is: Yes. The founding father's decision was correct and understandable. Whether or not the tyranny was absolute is beside the point.

Again, for those who wish to see America continue in the path of freedom, we must resist all attempts to increase power in government, to draw the line and use our power to vote against tyranny in any degree. If we take our freedoms for granted and do not use our heads when voting, we will lose our freedoms, bit by bit. We need to draw the line and keep it there, be ever watchful of government, that it does not usurp too much power. A major principle the United States government was founded upon was distrust of those in government who seek too much power, and I fully agree with it.

Here's what Ezra Taft Benson had to say.

YouTube - In 1977, Ezra Taft Benson on Socialism -RON PAUL-LDS - 1/2

[Elphaba]

Elphaba,

Its always fun to debate. I hope we can keep this lighthearted and maintain respect for each other.

Wowsa! You've done your homework. I'll respond as soon as I can.

And of course we'll maintain respect. I think you are one of the best posters when it comes to a debate.

Elphaba

[Palerider]

Wowsa! You've done your homework. I'll respond as soon as I can.

And of course we'll maintain respect. I think you are one of the best posters when it comes to a debate.

Elphaba

Pale has been tossed to the curb.....:eek:

[Moksha]

just like your Bush tax check you sent me ......

I never got my check either. Did they put the Hurricane Katrina guy in charge of the mail outs?

[Palerider]

I never got my check either. Did they put the Hurricane Katrina guy in charge of the mail outs?

I guess blame it on Bush...he did cause the hurricane and he must have kept your check.....

[tefor]

Newsweek recently ran a cover story called "We're All Socialists Now", and several people who were currently living in Europe (or who had lived there) wrote in and basically said, "Don't make me laugh; the US is nowhere near being truly socialist." As they saw it, the Obama administration is mainly taking some of the "edge" off of a capitalism which they saw as extreme in the first place.

Of course, they interpreted that capitalism through the lens of European Socialism in the first place, so whatever...

[MikeUpton]

Newsweek recently ran a cover story called "We're All Socialists Now", and several people who were currently living in Europe (or who had lived there) wrote in and basically said, "Don't make me laugh; the US is nowhere near being truly socialist." As they saw it, the Obama administration is mainly taking some of the "edge" off of a capitalism which they saw as extreme in the first place.

Of course, they interpreted that capitalism through the lens of European Socialism in the first place, so whatever...

Again, Ezra Taft Benson's word come to mind:

Socialism is as Benson stated, happening in degrees. Perhaps we're nowhere near total and true socialism, but we do need to toe the line. I think its gone way too far actually.

[prospectmom]

Ok another thread I find mentally invigorating to read , research and learn from. I apreciate the debate going on and respect all who have posted ... and I always love Moksha's timely humor. It is like a deep breath and a smile all in one.... Thank you all .....

[Elphaba]

Pale has been tossed to the curb.....:eek:

Oh, I so hope that didn't hurt!

Besides, you're too big for me to toss. But that's a good thing, as it gives me more to make fun of. hehe

I'd never toss you anywhere....

Elph

[MikeUpton]

Wowsa! You've done your homework. I'll respond as soon as I can.

And of course we'll maintain respect. I think you are one of the best posters when it comes to a debate.

Elphaba

thanks. to tell the truth, its a bit intimidating to debate with you. You're pretty well read.

[JohnBirchSociety]

one of the biggest issues we have now is our money is over inflated.. our dollar is worth less in the global market then it ever has..

Socialism will only make that worse

As far as the economy goes.. well I am pet groomer by trade... some may say a frivolous profession.. I have been a SAHM for 2 years but my colleagues have seen very little drop in clients.. and some cant keep up with their clients and are turning them away. I am currently making my way back into the grooming world.. and the opportunities are amazing.. I thought I would have a much harder time establishing clientele based on the doom and gloom media.. but I have several offers to choose from.. that ought to tell ya something..

Well, to start at the beginning, we might want to understand what money IS.

Federal Reserve Notes are currency, but they are not money.

It is very telling to note that our divinely inspired founders mandated sound money in the United States Constitution.

Sad it is that we not only have abandoned that document, but we cannot even expound upon the nature of money. In effect, as a people, we are "barking up the wrong tree".

Absent a return to constitutionally mandated REAL money, none of this mess we find ourselves in will be resolved, no matter how many Federal Reserve Notes we spend / print.