Hello:

If not, you SHOULD be. This is what MY president, JFK, said about liberalism:

“If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people-their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties-someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal", then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal.”

That's WHY I'm a liberal too.

excon

Maybe OBAMA should read that. Class warfare is not liberalism. Taking from one and giving to another is Marxism. " break through the stalemate" Harry Reid just did that by trampling the rights of the minority vote.

You forgot the beginning of that quote :
"What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal."

I am certain that he would find little common ground with the faction that began taking over his party in 1972. I can get into specifics . In the 1960 election he was the pro-defense hawk accusing Ike and Nixon of allowing the US to fall behind the Soviets. In his inaugural he stated that the US would pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and success of liberty
His big government programs like NASA and the Peace Corp were designed as cold war weapons .
Domestically he argued for ,and enacted supply side tax cuts to stimulate the economy . His advisors like John Kenneth Galbraith suggested the pump priming stimulus that we are used to seeing from the liberals. He chose a different course ("an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income
taxes," ) . He argued that would rise the tide that would lift all boats .

He was by today's standards conservative when it came to welfare . His economic advisor , James Tobin ,said that if welfare was too generous, families would have an incentive to remain on the dole rather than working and producing. H had a pro-growth economic policy,and free trade and a strong dollar policy.

Now I will give you some quotes and ask if these are "liberal" quotes ...
The ever expanding power of the federal government, the absorption of many of the functions that states and cities once considered to be responsibilities of their own, must now be a source of concern to all those who believe as did the great patriot, Henry Grattan that: “Control over local affairs is the essence of liberty.” (Commencement Address, University of Notre Dame, January 29, 1950)
If it is in the public interest to maintain an industry, it is clearly not in the public interest by the impact of regulatory authority to destroy its otherwise viable way of life. (Message to the Congress on Regulatory Agencies, April 13, 1961)
Those aren't quotes today's liberals would make.

I am constantly accused of being a libtard by my ultra conservative friends. I let it stand.
I am mostly liberal, a little bit conservative, a bit more moderate. Mostly I pay no attention to the labels. But this country's problems have a lot to do with the rigid demands of the two parties. That wasn't the intent when the nation formed.

I am a liberal and believe in we the people. I Vote, sometimes that's good enough to get the guys you want, sometimes its not.

Surviving no matter who wins and thriving is a personal responsibility, but now is not the time to repeal the social safety net. Expand it until the job creators actually do their job, or trickle down more than they have. Supply side economics is great when the valves are all open, but sucks when they aren't. Yeah I would make 'em open them valves up or go back to their other names... greedy rich basturds.

Yeah, I'm a liberal, because we the people means everybody, not just a FEW.

Liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism)

Accoring to the philosophies included here, I am a liberal and so should you all be, but republicanism has withdrawn from the principles of liberalism and sought to reimpose the politics of privilege. Liberalism is not socialism.

the liberalism of the last 60 years does not resemble the liberalism of the age of enlightenment . Liberalism has been coopted by the progressive movement . JFK would not have identified with the liberalism his youngest brother was a champion of .

Something has changed, maybe both parties have, as the far right has shrunk the repubs and coalitions are growing the dems.

Tom you really need to stop defining things by that pecular american experience which puts a tag on things, no matter how unrepresentative they might be. When I speak to you of democracy, you speak to me of republicanism, When I speak to you of liberalism, you speak to me of socialism. It is possible to have compassion without abandoning liberal ideals. You country, no matter what it thinks of itsself, is not a liberal democracy and I know you agree with me. The reforms of recent times are not socialism

You country, no matter what it thinks of itsself, is not a liberal democracy and I know you agree with me. The reforms of recent times are not socialism
D@mn right we are not a liberal democracy and thank God for that ! Tell that to the progressive Fabian Democrats who run the country . The " reforms " as you call them ,are what the fabians can get away with . The emperor's term is not over ,and in the 1st year of his 2nd term you've seen some incredible executive power grabs .He rules by fiat from the White House ,and the only checks against his power is ineffective Congress and the courts . He now has the means to pack the courts in a way that FDR would not have even dared .

Without wishing to state the obvious... that's why you are in the situation your find yourself. You think things are going to be different with a change of electoral chair shuffling? I am sure the next president will behave himself.

Hello again, tom:

He now has the means to pack the courts in a way that FDR would not have even dared .The problem we have here, is an unabiding refusal by ONE side to accept REALITY. I think there was a thread with that name around here somewhere..

To SOME, passing a law via the Constitutional process is RAMMING it down peoples throats, and filling court vacancies is PACKING the court.

As long as these distortions of reality are in the mix, we're gonna BE mixed up. That's why you should be a liberal, tom. We're NOT mixed up at all.

excon

If it were anything like "we the people" there would be no ACA. We the people told them loud and clear NO and they did it in spite of what "we the people" told them to do.

Must not be enough of you people to win an election and do things YOUR way. We won, and you will benefit. For sure the status quo you try to maintain hasn't worked for us people. And I doubt it worked very well for your people either.

Bet they sign up for ACA too.

Hello again, tom:
The problem we have here, is an unabiding refusal by ONE side to accept REALITY. I think there was a thread with that name around here somewhere..

To SOME, passing a law via the Constitutional process is RAMMING it down peoples throats, and filling court vacancies is PACKING the court.

As long as these distortions of reality are in the mix, we're gonna BE mixed up. That's why you should be a liberal, tom. We're NOT mixed up at all.

excon

Throughout our history advise and consent meant that a nominee for the court had to pass a super majority threshold ....until this week .

You can dispense with the "we won" nonsense, it's what you do after you win that matters. The job of a congressman is to represent and on Obamacare they did not represent our wishes.

Hello again, Steve:

The job of a congressman is to represent and on Obamacare they did not represent our wishes.Let's review, shall we? Certainly, the congressmen who represented YOUR wishes didn't have enough votes to make YOUR wishes law. That's how it works here, in this great country of ours.

The congressmen who represented the MAJORITY of the people, DID have enough votes to make their constituents wishes LAW, and that's what they did. Again, that's how it works around here.

Now, you can keep on saying that YOUR minority wishes WEREN'T carried out, and that means the law was rammed down your throat, but it's just not so, and I'll remind you of it whenever necessary...

excon

I guess the blue states that are working toward implementation don't count as we, or the millions that have a chance and want health insurance. And what will those that want it but can't get it in red states going to do?

Oh that's right you guys don't have to do anything for your own citizens in need. And have not done anything for their health care needs and is probably why red states have such a high rate of uninsured.

Oh that's right you guys don't have to do anything for your own citizens in need. And have not done anything for their health care needs and is probably why red states have such a high rate of uninsured.

What gets me Tal is that if they identified the same level of poverty in a third world country they would be looking to exploit it, but when it is at home it can be ignored

Hello again, Steve:
Let's review, shall we? Certainly, the congressmen who represented YOUR wishes didn't have enough votes to make YOUR wishes law. That's how it works here, in this great country of ours.

The congressmen who represented the MAJORITY of the people, DID have enough votes to make their constituents wishes LAW, and that's what they did. Again, that's how it works around here.

Now, you can keep on saying that YOUR minority wishes WEREN'T carried out, and that means the law was rammed down your throat, but it's just not so, and I'll remind you of it whenever necessary...

excon

That would be really interesting to see you prove with more than rhetoric.

What gets me Tal is that if they identified the same level of poverty in a third world country they would be looking to exploit it, but when it is at home it can be ignored

more BS ;over a third of the nation gets means tested government assistance. I'd say we are overly generous because most American poor do not live in conditions that the world would identify as "poor".

The poorest Americans today live a better life than all but the richest persons a hundred years ago.” In 2005, the typical household defined as poor by the government had a car and air conditioning. For entertainment, the household had two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR. If there were children, especially boys, in the home, the family had a game system, such as an Xbox or a PlayStation.In the kitchen, the household had a refrigerator, an oven and stove, and a microwave. Other household conveniences included a clothes washer, clothes dryer, ceiling fans, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker.

The home of the typical poor family was not overcrowded and was in good repair. In fact, the typical poor American had more living space than the average European. The typical poor American family was also able to obtain medical care when needed. By its own report, the typical family was not hungry and had sufficient funds during the past year to meet all essential needs.
Poor families certainly struggle to make ends meet, but in most cases, they are struggling to pay for air conditioning and the cable TV bill as well as to put food on the table. Their living standards are far different from the images of dire deprivation promoted by activists and the mainstream media.

Regrettably, annual Census reports not only exaggerate current poverty, but also suggest that the number of poor persons[5] and their living conditions have remained virtually unchanged for four decades or more. In reality, the living conditions of poor Americans have shown significant improvement over time.
What is Poverty in the United States: Air Conditioning, Cable TV and an Xbox (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty)

Hello again, Steve:

That would be really interesting to see you prove with more than rhetoricI'm not sure what we're missing here...

The OBVIOUS proof in what I said, is that the MAJORITY of those congresspeople we were talking about, PASSED the law. That means, WE, the people, SPOKE. Whether you like it or not, you're PART of WE the people.

Now, I know you FLAP your gums about what "we" want, but you learn what "we" want from the likes of Rush Limprod. I learn about what WE the PEOPLE want by watching ELECTIONS.

excon

Hello again, tom:

I'd say we are overly generous because most American poor do not live in conditions that the world would identify as "poor". At least you ADMIT that you're NOT willing to help our poor, until they get as poor as the poorest people in the world... How RICH we are as a country, has NOTHING whatever, to do with your calculation.

Kudos to you.

excon

Hello again, Steve:
I'm not sure what we're missing here...

The OBVIOUS proof in what I said, is that the MAJORITY of those congresspeople we were talking about, PASSED the law. That means, WE, the people, SPOKE. Whether you like it or not, you're PART of WE the people.

Now, I know you FLAP your gums about what "we" want, but you learn what "we" want from the likes of Rush Limprod. I learn about what WE the PEOPLE want by watching ELECTIONS.

excon

Just because they won doesn't mean they did what their particular constituents wanted.

P.S. You know you're using the exact same argument to both your point an disprove mine. The majority of "we the people" elected Democrats AND said no to Obamacare.

Hello again, tom:
At least you ADMIT that you're NOT willing to help our poor, until they get as poor as the poorest people in the world... How RICH we are as a country, has NOTHING whatever, to do with your calculation.

Kudos to you.

excon

Oh I'm very willing to help the truely needy. I just don't want the government deciding where my charitible contributions go. And no ,I don't think that people who have to sacrifice a color TV or an X Box to pay for food necessarily need my support .

I help the poor on a regular basis and don't take a dollar from ex and Tal to do so.

Hello again, Steve:
I help the poor on a regular basis and don't take a dollar from ex and Tal to do so.I do too, and if it was enough, I wouldn't support taking your dollar.

Look. I'm sure you agree with tom, that our poor just aren't quite poor enough to warrant taking your money. I'm not even sure if THAT poor would be poor enough for you.

I see you're REALLY pissed that the poor have cell phones.. Tom HATES that they have color TV's. I suppose you'd like our poor to be ragpickers before you'd help.. But, I don't even think you would then... I think it's a ideology you'll NEVER give up.. The poor are poor because they DESERVE it.

excon

Perhaps if I had any faith in your solutions I'd be convinced . But I am very skeptical about government social services because they are inefficient and fraught with waste and abuse; ;they are ineffective, and detrimental to the people they allege to help. They do keep a bunch of bureaucrats and Federal workers employed who divert the funds from the people they claim to support ....and that I think is the real goal of Federal anti-poverty programs. I'd rather the money be spent in economic development initiatives in areas where the poor live .

Nobody tells you how much and what charity you support. But we pay taxes for the common good as a nation, and comparing OUR poor with world third countries is absurd. Liberals think we should do better than we are, you guys think we should do nothing and crow how much better you are because you worked hard, and have more and better things.

Too bad for those that don't.

Perhaps if I had any faith in your solutions I'd be convinced

Giving rich guys more money, tax breaks, and subsidies ain't exactly an efficient solution either, because that has proven to be the run for cheap labor and more profits for "job creators", going overseas to those third world countries. You call that good business, I call it exploitation.

Making more working poor here that you still have to support with tax payers money makes little sense.

Hello again, Steve:I do too, and if it was enough, I wouldn't support taking your dollar.

Look. I'm sure you agree with tom, that our poor just aren't quite poor enough to warrant taking your money. I'm not even sure if THAT poor would be poor enough for you.

I see you're REALLY pissed that the poor have cell phones.. Tom HATES that they have color TV's. I suppose you'd like our poor to be ragpickers before you'd help.. But, I don't even think you would then... I think it's a ideology you'll NEVER give up.. The poor are poor because they DESERVE it.

excon

I'll just say being poor in America can be a pretty good job. Unless you're a poor, white, single female with no kids. Besides the crappy "health care" she gets not even $500 a month in SSI and food stamps. You live on that.

http://media.cagle.com/205/2013/11/19/140350_600.jpg

Hello again, Steve:

I'll just say being poor in America can be a pretty good job. Unless you're a poor, white, single female with no kids.I dunno, Steve. You HAVE a living breathing example of how we treat the poor RIGHT smack dab in your own family... Yet, you SAY the poor are living a good life - except your daughter, of course.. Now, tom in NY doesn't know anyone in need, so HE can be excused for his ignorance. You can't..

excon

The obvious, I pick up the slack and then some for where the government won't help my daughter - I don't take from you to be"fair" to her. In fact, you take even more from me that could be used to help my own family in need.

The price of stuff we need to help our own is too high for me too Speech. I get a tax return, and its still not enough to take up all the slack.

Hello again, Steve:
I dunno, Steve. You HAVE a living breathing example of how we treat the poor RIGHT smack dab in your own family... Yet, you SAY the poor are living a good life - except your daughter, of course.. Now, tom in NY doesn't know anyone in need, so HE can be excused for his ignorance. You can't..

excon

on the contrary . I know plenty of poor folk. Here in NY ,government policies have guaranteed that most of the state outside of the NYC area ,and the college campus towns have resided in a permanent state of poverty my whole life ,and probably since the Great Depression. What's the idiot in Albany's latest cure ?......casinos for the Catskills .CLUELESS !!! Meanwhile we sit on one of the largest shale deposits in the country. Like I said ;economic development is the answer to poverty .

Agreed, safety first, with oversight and accountability.

Meanwhile we sit on one of the largest shale deposits in the country. Like I said ;economic development is the answer to poverty .


You really don't want that sort of development Tom extracting oil from shale is a last ditch effort

nah ,it's the oil underneath the shale I want. All it takes is an end to this fracking phobia.

The phobia as you call it is real, there are problems with polluting ground water

Across the border in Pa. it's full steam ahead . Their former depressed region is experiencing a rebirth . Meanwhile the poor NY farmer looks across the border and wonder why they can't experience the same boom . The reason ? The new gentry of NY ,the liberal intelligencia snobs like Yoko Ono ,Matt Damon who live in multi million penthouse lofts in Manhattan ,trying to dictate what people upstate can do ...have the ear of our idiot Governor who does his Hamlet act on the issue.

ah to be or not to be... outragous fortune and all that

So, if you haven't taken the Obots advice and don't plan on picking a fight with your family over Obamacare, perhaps you'd like to print some gun control place mats (http://www.demandaction.org/placemat?source=TW00017) via Bloomberg's anti-gun group instead for Thanksgiving.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/images/TalkingTurkeyPlacemat.jpg

While they are eating on those place mats ,they can choke on their drum stick when they read John Stossel's op-ed today :


Had today's political class been in power in 1623, tomorrow's holiday would have been called "Starvation Day" instead of Thanksgiving. Of course, most of us wouldn't be alive to celebrate it.

Every year around this time, schoolchildren are taught about that wonderful day when Pilgrims and Native Americans shared the fruits of the harvest. But the first Thanksgiving in 1623 almost didn't happen.

Long before the failure of modern socialism, the earliest European settlers gave us a dramatic demonstration of the fatal flaws of collectivism. Unfortunately, few Americans today know it.

The Pilgrims at Plymouth Colony organized their farm economy along communal lines. The goal was to share the work and produce equally.

That's why they nearly all starved.

When people can get the same return with less effort, most people make less effort. Plymouth settlers faked illness rather than working the common property. Some even stole, despite their Puritan convictions. Total production was too meager to support the population, and famine resulted. This went on for two years.

"So as it well appeared that famine must still ensue the next year also, if not some way prevented," wrote Gov. William Bradford in his diary. The colonists, he said, "began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length after much debate of things, [I] [with the advice of the chiefest among them] gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land."

In other words, the people of Plymouth moved from socialism to private farming. The results were dramatic.

"This had very good success," Bradford wrote, "for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been. By this time harvest was come, and instead of famine, now God gave them plenty, and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many."

Because of the change, the first Thanksgiving could be held in November 1623.

What Plymouth suffered under communalism was what economists today call the tragedy of the commons. The problem has been known since ancient Greece. As Aristotle noted, "That which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it."

If individuals can take from a common pot regardless of how much they put in it, each person has an incentive to be a free-rider, to do as little as possible and take as much as possible because what one fails to take will be taken by someone else. Soon, the pot is empty.

What private property does -- as the Pilgrims discovered -- is connect effort to reward, creating an incentive for people to produce far more. Then, if there's a free market, people will trade their surpluses to others for the things they lack. Mutual exchange for mutual benefit makes the community richer.

Here's the biggest irony of all: The U.S. government has yet to apply the lesson to its first conquest, Native Americans.

The U.S. government has held most Indian land in trust since the 19th century. This discourages initiative and risk-taking because, among other reasons, it can't be used as collateral for loans.

On Indian reservations, "private land is 40 to 90 percent more productive than land owned through the Bureau of Indian Affairs," says economist Terry Anderson, executive director of PERC. "If you drive through western reservations, you will see on one side cultivated fields, irrigation, and on the other side, overgrazed pasture, run-down pastures and homes. One is a simple commons; the other side is private property. You have Indians on both sides. The important thing is someone owns one side."

Secure property rights are the key. When producers know their future products are safe from confiscation, they take risks and invest. But when they fear they will be deprived of the fruits of their labor, they will do as little as possible.

That's the lost lesson of Thanksgiving.
A Lost Thanksgiving Lesson | RealClearPolitics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/11/24/happy_starvation_day_108049.html)

I don't see republicans passing out 40 acres and a mule, or making a parcel of land available for ones own use. Hell you can't even get your fat rich job creators to live up to their name. So spare me the nanny state song and dance and explain why the rich are doing better now than they ever have!

Can't be that socialist president and his policies since they work so well for rich guys, crony's or NOT.

I don't see republicans passing out 40 acres and a mule,


you don't? I thought those fellows were supposed to be benevolent towards their fellow man and willing to give large charitable donations if they suffered lower taxes, What better donation to the struggling unemployed than to give them 40 acres and a mule. It's revolutionary, a place to live, a place to farm and something to eat at the same time and best of all those 40 acres could start with all that disused urban land in the rust belt

Tom is this Stossel person some type of historical revisionist?

Collectivism and socialism are not necessarily one and the same. The Collectivist system that dominated that period was hierarchical collectivism. It involved a hierarchy of class in the broadest sense. This was sometimes know as, The Chain of Being.

This is not the type of collectivism we find in modern Communist and Socialism theories. The Pilgrims we not suffering from Communist or socialist collectivism. They were suffering from hierarchical collectivism. Why? Because this type of collectivism that was dominant at the time.

It is a pointless exercise to compare modern collectivist ideas with those ideas of the early 1600's

as if there is anything vertical in 21st century socialism . Everywhere I look ,it's dominated by cadres of elites .

(1). Collectivist production is impossible upon a democratic basis. It could only be directed by a hierarchical administration devoid of a democratic character, without liberty, equality or any guarantee against abuses of power.
(2). It suppresses nature and property: all matters of the same class are concentrated in a great social workshop working upon the principle of equal remuneration for the same time spent in labour, but with a democratic organisation individuals impregnated with perpetual flattery would not submit to the sacrifices requisite to effect the economics necessary for this development of the means of production. Those who possessed them would not be disposed to share their surplus with others.
(3). Supposing that it were possible to concentrate in one body all the branches of production on the basis of uniform labour and a uniform estimate of the time of labour and to set up complete local factories, that would be to act contrary to all experience in industrial matters.
(4). An increase of production could only take place subject to the following conditions: (a) strict administration, and (b) an increase in the activity of the workers. Now democracy cannot admit of compulsion and would have nothing with which to replace profits, risks and graduated wages, so that there would be no initiative, no responsibility, no interest and no motive for action.
(5). Social democracy has not discovered a method of apportioning to each individual the exact value of his social labour.
(6). If each individual be remunerated in proportion to the social value of his labour, inequality must reappear.
(7). But collectivists at the same time promise a distribution of products according to requirements. This is contradictory, but only one thing could be more impracticable, that is to declare all requirements to be equal.
(8). Democratic collectivism claims to abolish “the exploitation of man by man,” but the collectivist dispensation would involve the organisation of the exploitation of labour as distributed by the agents of the party in power, without recourse to any remedy for its abuse than to overthrow it. In proceeding to the control of the hours of labour, in fixing the normal quantities of products, in reducing complex to simple labour by a method of calculation, the triumphant parasites of Socialism would set about their work in a spirit so far removed from one of fraternity as to make Marx' vampire capital assume a highly respectable appearance.
(9). Collectivism claims to abolish over-production and want, but theorists will not explain how they propose to prevent good or bad harvests in the vineyards, the orchards, the corn-fields, etc.

Schoeffle's conclusion is: “Democratic collectivism is impossible and is unable to realise a single one of its economic promises.”
(Socialistic Fallacies by Yves Guyot)

Tom we know collectiveism tends to fail because the worth of the individual isn't recognised. the Israeli's seem to have proved that it can work for a time, but the model really only works in dire necessity.

Communism was doomed to fail because of human nature, collectiveism fails for the same reason. We see even in my nation that these ideas keep a race of people poor.

having said that collectiveism has nothing to do with the provision of mutual assurance which is the basis of insurance schemes

Tom, what has anything you posted got to do with Stossel's lack of historical understanding?

not his ;yours .You speak of modern socialism being a form of vertical collectivism . Well in theory it may be .But in fact ,it is the very same hierarchal system you say Bradford adopted for the Pilgrims initially before he recognized it's a failure .Still waiting for modern collectivist statists to learn that lesson.

The supply side business model is broken and doesn't work for many of us. When is that going to be recognized and fixed? We are no longer a country of farmers, and to compare those times with NOW is illogical.

Not really, I'd say the lack on understanding belongs to you and Stossel.

If you read my posts again I actually said that 1600's collectivism was vertical collectivism (Chain of Being). I didn't say modern socialism was an example of vertical collectivism. Modern socialism can be regarded as a form of horizontal collectivism.

Where did you get the idea that modern socialism is an example of vertical collectivism?

correct I wrote that wrong ....my point is valid with that correction ..I challenge you to find me an example of modern socialism being horizontal .

Social Security, and Medicare.

Tom. I'll go along with what was previously posted and pick social security as an example of horizontal collectivism. I see it as a good example from our perspective at least.

I was speaking of nations and not specific programs. However ,I dispute that SS as it was written or how it evolved is horizontal. First ;it was designed as an insurance plan that was /is not redistributive . You get from it what you put into it in the proportion that you put in. The non worker does not qualify Now that may change of course as the top down elites who run the country make decisions like means testing and permitting people who don't contribute into the plan.
Now back to my premise . What society that is structured as a socialist state is horizontal ? None ,they are run by cadres of elites . The communists /fascists states have /had dictatorial power .The European model depends on a few privileged from select institutes of learning .

Seems to be a couple of misunderstandings. When I was referring to "vertical collectivism" I was actually meaning hierarchical collectivism. More specifically, the type of collectivism found in feudal systems. This type of collectivism doesn't exist today ( except perhaps theocratic states).

On this basis vertical collectivism in the modern sense is somewhat different. There are few states that are entirely horizontal or vertical in the modern sense. What we usually find is a combination of both.

Our social security system evolved as form of horizontal collectivism. In other words, the sole judge of the rightness or wrongness of the system was and still is determined by the consequences of the decision.In our case the decision to dramatically expand social security was determined by a popular plebiscite.

Another way of saying this would be that it was based on a principle of utility. This principle is an example of horizontal collectivism. But yes, the administration of the system is of course not horizontal

When I was referring to "vertical collectivism" I was actually meaning hierarchical collectivism
Yes that was what the Pilgrims were escaping from. However ,the original construct of the society Bradford imagined was a horizontal ,almost Marxist design. That type of system will always fail as the incentive to produce 'according to ones ability ' is not there .

Tom, this is not a Marxist design. Marx opposed such collectivist ideas.

"Feuerbach resolves the essence of religion into the essence of man. But the essence of man is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the social relations." Marx 'Sixth Thesis on Feuerbach ' The big difference is that Marx saw ALL societies as collective in one form or another .

Of course he did. That was the problem from his point of view.

well he would be right at home here among the bougresse

Societys are collectives to some extent or another. At least sub sets of a greater collective.

Not sure what you are talking about, we are all children of the creator but we long ago went our own way

we are all children of the creatorIf one has that belief.

We still have to deal with each other in many areas of survival, and resolve conflicts and issues no matter where we think we come from.

If one has that belief.

irrespective of what you believe

irrespective of what you believeI guess that kind of works both ways.

whatever turns you on NK