You're barking up the wrong tree in my direction with the "indoctrinated" stuff, and have had ample opportunities to make a coherent point ...
Socialism without the threat of violence behind it is just voluntary charity."Violence" is not in the definition of socialism. Historically there was violence for and against it.
Socialism without the threat of violence behind it is just voluntary charity.
We are all OK with voluntary charity.
Yep, all political systems do.Any political system that has laws, has a threat of violence behind it, according to this logic.
Yep, all political systems do.
But capitalism can be an economic system only (which doesn't require that threat). Socialism cannot be *just* an economic system, it *requires* government mandates that *must* be enforced by threat of violence.
So, before passing any law you have to ask, is this worth killing people to enforce. If the answer is no, then it shouldn't be enacted.
Capitalism doesn't require the threat of violence to force people to participate. That makes it better.
We have lots of laws that regulate capitalism here. All are enforced under threat of violence.Really? Ever hear about laws that deal with insider trading?
Pure capitalism without social safety nets failed pretty much everywhere including this country.
You took a very extreme position against any government social net program. To defend your extreme position, you used an argument that falls short.
Any political system that has laws, has a threat of violence behind it, according to this logic.
The government has no business being in that business. There's nothing extreme about that. The fact that Americans have been lied to, manipulated, dumbed down and indoctrinated to accept creeping socialism should indicate that socialism can't sell itself and stand on its own.
Social net programs are nothing more than a ruse to give the government more power and money, redistribute wealth and promote class envy/warfare.
If the founders had intended for the country and government to function like this it's news to me.
Seriously?
See if you spot the differences:
A) You murder your neighbor and steal his lawnmower. Men with guns show up.
B) Your neighbor has no lawnmower so the government makes you buy him one. You don't. Men with guns show up.
We in America are nearly surrounded by Socialism and socialist type programs.
Social Security. Un-employmentn insurance. Many facets of healthcare. Welfare. Wic. Food stamps. Many parts of the farm bill. Public education.
The list is long. The problem with polls like this is is the questions are always skewed to get the results that are wanted.
Arguing against any social safety net is an extreme position. Labeling anything less absolute as socialism is an extreme view. It's you who is indoctrinated and brainwashed, not the majority of the public, who would at least support a social security program.
There are tons of laws that don't have socialist charitable connotation and are not related to what is common definition of crime. And?
Laws against insider trading for example. I'm not seeing your issue with this.
You are supporting your extreme position with a hyperbole and a wrong one at that.
I don't condone socialism, wife says I'm anti-social. Damn personality defects.
Just because there are laws on the books about something doesn't mean there *should be*.There are tons of laws that don't have socialist charitable connotation and are not related to what is common definition of crime. Laws against insider trading for example.
You are supporting your extreme position with a hyperbole and a wrong one at that.