Rome is gone and I doubt America will last as long as Rome. You are making the same mistakes, projecting your power until someone realises it is an empty shell. The Romans became fat and lazy enjoying their money and you are doing the same. You are ruled by patrician families just as the Romans were

Thing is I live in a fairer world than you do, it hasn't bankrupted our state and we don't need slave labour in the form of migrant workers to prop up our society. You fail to understand empire, the Romans reaped the benefits of empire, you have been doing the same but it collapes when the extremidities of empire become wealthy and independent

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.”John Adams

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”James Madison

---

Hi Tom,

I am sure Adams, as well as other thinkers of the time were trying to echo Locke. One can also understand why there were admirers of Locke.

Unfortunately, Adams got it wrong in this case. Private property does not have anything to do with religion. Locke's account is a historical account of the origins of government. It isn't a theistic account of government.


Tut

So it's OK for government to steal ?

If they make it LEGAL its okay. Just ask Mitt, and Bank of America. The founders had their own self interest at the time. When people were private property.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

so it's ok for government to steal ?

---

No it's no all right for governments to steal.

I think I am as religious as the next person but you don't, and should not use religion as a justification for the ownership of private property or the ownership of the means of production. These types of ideas may well have been tolerated in the 18th century; but not today.

"Thou shall not steal' is an ethical commandment that applies to individuals, not governments. Governments should not be bound in any way to virtue ethics. In exactly the same way they should not be enforcing this type of ethic.

There are better way to justify the ownership of private property.

Tut

Blatantly buying politicians and writing rules and regulations is not one of them.

Quote:

---

Blatantly buying politicians and writing rules and regulations is not one of them.

---

couldn't have said it better myself. Your side is the worse offenders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

couldn't have said it better myself. Your side is the worse offenders.

---

None are so blind...
Your entire politics is geared that way, regardless of party affiliation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Capitalist grow the pie for themselves. If you get a piece, you pay THEM for it.

---

So you do want everything handed to you on a platter. So go ahead, get rid of the capitalists and then there will be no one left to grow a pie. Pretty soon you're going to run out of pie.

Stop dealing in absolutes, no society can be successful dealing in absolutes

"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." -- Margaret Thatcher

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." -- Margaret Thatcher

---

Sweden seems happy.

Sweden has been taking a right turn since the 90s.

Isn't the US running out of money?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Sweden has been taking a right turn since the 90s.

---

Not like your (US) right at all:

Quote:

---

Over dinner in a Stockholm restaurant, an impressively multiethnic and multiracial group of Swedish conservatives (the majority of the group were immigrants themselves or the children of immigrants) argue that less has changed than meets the eye. "Swedish values," they argue, still emphasize economic security over economic liberty.
His party is formally known as the Moderates, and he goes to great pains to reassure Swedes that the party will live up to its billing.

American conservatives might find Reinfeldt disappointingly unconfrontational.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Not like your (US) right at all:

---

Oh no? They're doing pretty much what we've called for and what Tal complains about every day:

Quote:

---

Between 1980 and 1992, Sweden lost ground relative to other rich countries, according to a McKinsey study. Since 2009, however, Sweden has one of the faster-growing economies in Western Europe. The growth has been led by the private sector, where jobs are multiplying at what Radio Sweden calls "a record pace."

Sweden's right turn started back in the early 1990s, but the turn is being institutionalized under the prime ministership of Fredrik Reinfeldt. Reinfeldt is a cautious conservative in the manner of Britain's David Cameron. His party is formally known as the Moderates, and he goes to great pains to reassure Swedes that the party will live up to its billing.

American conservatives might find Reinfeldt disappointingly unconfrontational. Yet in five years in office, he has repealed Sweden's wealth taxes and inheritance taxes. He has reduced the labor taxes that pushed almost all home repairs into the black market. He has championed a simple powerful idea: Work should pay better than benefits. He is prevailing.

As he prevails, he changes the country's political culture.

---

Imagine that, eliminate wealth and inheritance taxes while reducing labor taxes and the private sector exploded. Meanwhile, Obama is taking us the other direction and our economy is stagnant, only to get worse the more he turns left and as the true cost of Obamacare becomes apparent..

So is Sweden a socialist/communist country or a capitalist one? I get confused with your labels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

So is Sweden a socialist/communist country or a capitalist one? I get confused with your labels.

---

I didn't label them anything, you are the one who mentioned Sweden. Try to keep up.

Here you go NK, here's your Socialist success story...

Quote:

---

The Hugo Chávez cult is over
Oil can no longer blind Venezuelans to their leader's failure. The flaws in Chávez's 21st-century socialism are all too clea

As Venezuelans get ready to head to the polls for the most closely fought presidential election of the past 14 years, one question is at the forefront of everyone's mind: does Hugo Chávez still have it? By "it", I mean his legendary, intense, emotional connection with the poor – a kind of attachment that has, for many, a feeling of religious fervour. Of faith.

"Chávez is the only one who has ever really cared about the poor" – you hear his supporters say it again and again, with real feeling, and now more than ever it's the centre of his pitch to voters.

Chávez: Heart of my Fatherland – the slogan turns up everywhere, right down to the water bottles given away to keep his supporters hydrated at rallies.

But 14 years on, as even his most hardcore supporters acknowledge, Chávez's experiment in 21st-century socialism isn't really working. After the chaotic nationalisation of most of the agro-industrial chain – from the farm to the supermarket – food shortages have become chronic, with various staples disappearing from shelves. Lines at subsidised government grocery shops are long, and particularly scarce commodities sell out almost the second they're delivered.

On closer inspection, the only thing that appears to be 21st century about Chávez's 21st-century socialism is the presidential Twitter account. The economy is still run along the same rigid lines that crippled eastern bloc economies for much of the 20th century. One after another, industries have been nationalised only to become outsized money-pits unable to produce the goods needed. The steel and cement industries can't produce enough to meet the country's housing needs; electric utilities have brought chronic blackouts throughout the country; and the phone company has failed to deliver adequate internet access. Venezuelans like to joke that Julian Assange passed over Venezuela for political asylum simply because the internet is so slow there.

---

Obama should steal that campaign slogan, "Obama: Heart of my Fatherland." I'm sure the cult of Obama would buy it... and we can be Venezuela.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Here ya go NK, here's your Socialist success story...
Obama should steal that campaign slogan, "Obama: Heart of my Fatherland." I'm sure the cult of Obama would buy it...and we can be Venezuela.

---

Poor old Chavez he used the wrong model, nationalisation, state ownership of the means of production doesn't work, you tax business and the rich and support the poor otherwise you wind up with less due to lack of incentive. As long as tax isn't too high people will strive to earn more

Now BO knows you can do it, he has said so more than once, yes we can, pity he didn't define what it was, but from his actions I expect he means pay more tax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Here ya go NK, here's your Socialist success story...

---

Venezuela is a combination of socialism, democracy, totalitarianism and some small capitalism.

Far too complex to be slotted into the socialist pigeonhole.


Tut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

Venezuela is a combination of socialism, democracy, totalitarianism and some small capitalism.

Far too complex to be slotted into the socialist pigeonhole.


Tut

---

None of the above are mutually exclusive. They don't understand socialism over there, they think it is communism. It is unfortunate that socialism can lead to totalitarianism but it can also lead in another direction

The only thing democratic about the Chavez reign was the one vote one time aspect. But add the rest of the recipe socialism, totalitarianism and some state controlled capitalism and mix them all together and what you got is left wing State socialism... aks fascism .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

the only thing democratic about the Chavez reign was the one vote one time aspect. But add the rest of the recipe socialism, totalitarianism and some state controlled capitalism and mix them all together and what you got is left wing State socialism ...aks fascism .

---

So many "scary" labels in one post - I think you've outdone yourself this time! :D

Well there you go one minute he is communist, the next he is fascist, there is a difference you know, by the way Fascism is right wing, what they have in common is they are both authoritarian.

This may help your sort it out
http://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgu...9QEwAw&dur=303

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

the only thing democratic about the Chavez reign was the one vote one time aspect. But add the rest of the recipe socialism, totalitarianism and some state controlled capitalism and mix them all together and what you got is left wing State socialism ...aks fascism .

---

Tom, please give up this over simplistic linear explanation for politics. We've already been through all of that in a different post.

Tut

No I don't think I will .Y'all don't like that I challenge what has become accepted assumptions,but I can't help it that you ignore modern liberalism's fascist roots .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

no I don't think I will .Y'all don't like that I challenge what has become accepted assumptions,but I can't help it that you ignore modern liberalism's fascist roots .

---

No, because liberalism had it roots in the 18th century. Not the 20th.


Tut

Tom you just don't get it, anything other than laisez faire capitalism is anathema to you and yet such a system cannot exist, surely the last few years have taught you something

Ithought the Swedish modelwas familiar

Sweden's Model Approach to Financial Disaster - TIME

Quote:

---

"The Swedish success depended on four factors," he explains. Stockholm acted quickly, in open acknowledgement of the problems, and under a broad political agreement across the party spectrum. "Running parallel with these three factors," he says, "a new economic policy — new goals for inflation and the budget — was developed after the crisis."

Read more: Sweden's Model Approach to Financial Disaster - TIME

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model

No "my way or the highway" mentality over there. It work because they work together and share the labor and the fruits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

no I don't think I will .Y'all don't like that I challenge what has become accepted assumptions,but I can't help it that you ignore modern liberalism's fascist roots .

---

I didn't actually read you post carefully. You actually said, "modern liberalism's fascist roots". My original reply is not valid, so I'll address what you actually said.


Tom, this is even worse.

If you want to talk about the roots of modern liberalism we would be talking about the late 19th century. We mentioned it earlier or in a different post. You know- private property, rule of law, human rights, separation of the powers etc. All of this had its beginning with people such as Locke.

Fascism rejects all of these liberal ideas. Fascism is anti-individual. Are you trying to tell us that people such as Locke were really harbouring the beginnings of fascism?

Tut

No ;you trace it back to Locke whereas I trace it's real roots back to the late 19th century,early
20th century . The modern liberal (as opposed to the classic liberal ) aka progressives do not believe in property rights.. they are big on positive rights paid for by someone else. The modern liberal doesn't necessarily want a state take over of the economy... they want government control of the economy, while leaving ownership in private hands. That way, politicians get to call the shots but, when their bright ideas lead to disaster, they can always blame those who own businesses in the private sector. It's not the fault of their policy... oh no... it's the greedy private industry that screwed the pooch. It gives themselves credit when things go good ;and an instant scapegoat when they don't .
Modern liberals in the 1920s loved Mussolini and to a lesser extent Hitler.As an example ,such esteemed libs as W.E.B. Du Bois,considered Hitler as a man of the left. Du Bois had studied in Berlin from 1892 to 1894;and was a Germanophile.He travelled there again in 1936 ,the year of the Berlin Olympics ,and praised the Nazi leadership of the nation.He wrote that the establishment of the Nazi dictatorship in Germany had been “absolutely necessary to get the state in order.” In 1937 DuBois said “there is today, in some respects, more democracy in Germany than there has been in years past.”

This was a famous black progressive intellectual,and the founder of the civil rights movement ,and was a NAACP co-founder, who didn't even find anything wrong with the Nazi attitude toward black atheletes. But he was an equal opportunity progressive modern liberal. Pre-war he praised the central control of the Hitler regime... post war he praised Stalin's version of central control.

Influential modern liberal ,humorist and political commentator Will Rogers ;after visiting Italy said of the fascist dictator: I'm pretty high on that bird.” He wrote that "Dictator form of government is the greatest form of government,”.....“that is, if you have the right dictator.”

H. G. Wells is considered one of the most influential progressives of the 20th century. He said in 1932 that progressives must become “liberal fascists”....“enlightened Nazis.” He wrote of a “'Phoenix Rebirth' of Liberalism” under the umbrella of “Liberal Fascism,” He said: “I am asking for a Liberal Fascisti, for enlightened Nazis.”

And it began in this country even before the 1920s . Woodrow Wilson ,long considered one of the US most progressive Presidents was a devoted disciple of Georg Hegel .Wilson ,like Obama, attacked the Constitution in his writings as an academic before he became president.(there is no academic writing by Obama on record ;but he is on record in interviews ).

Even before that ,many of the American progressive movement around the end of the 19th century were being taught in liberal institutions like Harvard ;the 'positives ' of eugenics . Roosevelt and his contemporaries were big on "Aryan Superiority".Roosevelt actually ran against Wilson in 1914 because in his view Wilson was not progressive enough(he also rejected the views of conservative William Howard Taft ,his party's nominee) .

There are many other examples I could source ;but you get my point. By the end of WWII the left had shed it's overt support because as HG Wells pointed out ,it had become a symbol of everything undesirable . So they quickly did some revisionism and pegged it to the right and taught the next generation that in the classroom without accurately bringing up their early embrace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

no ;you trace it back to Locke whereas I trace it's real roots back to the late 19th century,early
20th century . The modern liberal (as opposed to the classic liberal ) aka progressives do not believe in property rights ..they are big on positive rights paid for by someone else. The modern liberal doesn't necessarily want a state take over of the economy ....they want government control of the economy, while leaving ownership in private hands. That way, politicians get to call the shots but, when their bright ideas lead to disaster, they can always blame those who own businesses in the private sector. It's not the fault of their policy ...oh no ...it's the greedy private industry that screwed the pooch. It gives themselves credit when things go good ;and an instant scapegoat when they don't .
Modern liberals in the 1920s loved Mussolini and to a lesser extent Hitler.As an example ,such esteemed libs as W.E.B. Du Bois,considered Hitler as a man of the left. Du Bois had studied in Berlin from 1892 to 1894;and was a Germanophile.He travelled there again in 1936 ,the year of the Berlin Olympics ,and praised the Nazi leadership of the nation.He wrote that the establishment of the Nazi dictatorship in Germany had been “absolutely necessary to get the state in order.” In 1937 DuBois said “there is today, in some respects, more democracy in Germany than there has been in years past.”

This was a famous black progressive intellectual,and the founder of the civil rights movement ,and was a NAACP co-founder, who didn't even find anything wrong with the Nazi attitude toward black atheletes. But he was an equal opportunity progressive modern liberal. Pre-war he praised the central control of the Hitler regime .....post war he praised Stalin's version of central control.

Influential modern liberal ,humorist and political commentator Will Rogers ;after visting Italy said of the fascist dictator: I'm pretty high on that bird.” He wrote that "Dictator form of government is the greatest form of government,”.....“that is, if you have the right dictator.”

H. G. Wells is considered one of the most influential progressives of the 20th century. He said in 1932 that progressives must become “liberal fascists”....“enlightened Nazis.” He wrote of a “'Phoenix Rebirth' of Liberalism” under the umbrella of “Liberal Fascism,” He said: “I am asking for a Liberal Fascisti, for enlightened Nazis.”

And it began in this country even before the 1920s . Woodrow Wilson ,long considered one of the US most progressive Presidents was a devoted disciple of Georg Hegel .Wilson ,like Obama, attacked the Constitution in his writings as an academic before he became president.(there is no academic writing by Obama on record ;but he is on record in interviews ).

Even before that ,many of the American progressive movement around the end of the 19th century were being taught in liberal institutions like Harvard ;the 'positives ' of eugenics . Roosevelt and his contemporaries were big on "Aryan Superiority".Roosevelt actually ran against Wilson in 1914 because in his view Wilson was not progressive enough(he also rejected the views of conservative William Howard Taft ,his party's nominee) .

There are many other examples I could source ;but you get my point. By the end of WWII the left had shed it's overt support because as HG Wells pointed out ,it had become a symbol of everything undesirable . So they quickly did some revisionism and pegged it to the right and taught the next generation that in the classroom without accurately bringing up their early embrace.

---

Lets clarify the first point... No, I don't trace it back to Locke- most scholars trace the roots of modern liberalism back to people such as Locke.

Tom, you need to get out of Goldberg and read more widely. Most of the above is an American perspective on liberalism. There are actually other academic sources from other countries that present a different understanding. The American understanding of liberalism is not necessarily the world's understanding of liberalism. If ,as you say, you can cite many other sources then how about some scholarly articles from other countries.

Lastly: Goldberg's interpretation of H.G. Wells is not the reason why liberalism/socialism split from fascism. It was because fascism was anti-individualism. The are incompatible in a number of important areas.

Tut

Let's face it he wouldn't know liberalism if it came up and bit him on the bum

Goldberg is just one of the more contemporaries who have made the comparison. Of course my perspective is of the US progressive left. These are the ones who are making 'change we can believe in" or other lefty catch phrases like the President's current slogan 'Forward'. It is a fundamental reorganization of US society from the individual to the collective reinforced by strong positive rights paid for by someone else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Let's face it he wouldn't know liberalism if it came up and bit him on the bum

---

Yes. All Tom has giver us so far is an American commentary on liberalism. In other words, the idea that liberalism can be judged as a reflection; or in light of American political institutions.


Tut

P.S. Don't worry about what I just said. Tom confirmed it in the above post. I missed his response.

Since the thread concerns American politics I would think the reference to US progressives would be a given.

Tom just linked liberalism to racism, as I said Tom you don't have any idea, it is the liberals of your country who have headed the anti-racism thrust of recent times, without them blacks would still be travelling in the back of the bus. What is wrong with your country isn't liberalism, it is the money grubbing conservatives who want it all, elitists who think the country belongs to them

Well no I didn't... but the fact is that the Dem libs are late comers to civil rights... and they get it wrong.. They think having the minorities permanent wards of the state is a good idea. Conservatives don't . We think that is slavery by other means. .

SLAVERY BY ANY OTHER MEANS, Tom you make me laugh, what is your capitalist system but slavery by any other means. Minimum wages, control of both the means and place of production