The "horrors" of Socialism Explained

That has very little to do with what I said, but still interesting. What word is that? I've been sitting here trying to think what word that could be, and I can't come up with it....

What question?

If they doubled the price because it gave them access to the President, like Trump did, then yes. Otherwise no.

 

Too afraid to read, I see....

 

It was all explained on the post you refused to read....

 

Well reading bullshit is a waste of time. Democracy is they tyranny of the majority there is nothing you could say that could negate that fact.

 

Which post did I refuse to read?

 

Dual personality much?

 

Absolute nonsense.

-The dictionary defined Republic as "a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch."

-Your statement, to which I was refuting was "KJU was nominated and elected. He was not elected by the people, which means it's not a Democracy. But it is definitely a Republic. A Republic simply means that it's not a Monarchy."

The dictionary definition of Republic states that Supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives. KJU undoubtedly holds supreme power in that country. Since the dictionary states that a Republic by definition is a state in which the people hold the supreme power through their elected representatives, and by your own admission he was not elected by the people, therefore NK is not legitimately a Republic. That one singular definition defies your claim that Republic only means that its not a Monarchy, AND it defies your claim that NK is legitimately a Republic. Additionally, a strong argument can be made that NK is, in fact, a monarchy. Being a monarchy does not mean he has to be called king. A family dictatorship qualifies as a monarchy regardless of his title.

To go one step further into your next post that claims that I am using your claimed logical fallacy, even that is demonstrably wrong. By your own link, the logical fallacy of appeal to definition is a result of dictionary definitions being overly concise and some people misusing the overly concise definiton to bogusly eliminate legitimate expansion of that meaning. It expounds upon that to say...

"the dictionary definition of X does not mention Y. Therefore, Y must not be part of X."

That isnt what I did even remotely in our conversation. In fact, you are the one using the overly concise definition of it simply meaning that it is not a monarchy, and I am the one expanding upon that concept and adding in addition to it not being a Monarchy, it is ALSO a state in which the people hold the supreme power via the ballot box. If anyone here was using the fallacy of appeal to definition, it is clearly YOU, because I am the one using the expanded definition which is the exact opposite of how your own link defined "appeal to definition".

Your blathering seemingly knows no bounds.

 

No. You claimed I didn't read a post. Which post Mrs. Cleo?

 

You cannot agree with that and still support socialist redistribution of the wealth through our wipe-every-nose welfare system that is bankrupting America

 

Just like the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and other horrific socialist nightmares. You know, like Jonestown. The USSR.

And Maoist China.

Why is it that the most relevant characteristics of socialist countries that affect the people the most on a personal level are cruel fascism, economic ruin, famine and mass graves?

Why do people risk their lives to flee socialist countries?

THINK!

 

Your post is a comedy of errors. First socialism does not take away from the rich, it takes from everyone. It takes more from the working class than anyone else as it keeps them in a state of perpetual slavery.
It takes not only the fruits of their labor, it takes their freedom and their rights as individuals.
The ultimate goal of individualism is not individual gain, it is individual sovereignty ( self ownership)
Socialism is simply the implementation of a feudal system in which the government claims ownership of the individuals. It is slavery under the disguise of state sponsored parenthood.
WE are not a Democratic Republic, We are a Constitutional Republic.
The goal of socialism is government control and the usurpation of individual rights.
Democracy for the most part is a sham. It is the majority taking away the rights of the minority.
We see that plainly today in our own country.
The great lie of socialism is that it is concerned with the public good. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Government is comprised mostly of psychopaths who gravitate to government in order to hold positions of power over other people. We see this plainly in the corruption that permeates government at all levels.
Police rob, beat, and shoot citizens at an alarming rate. Prisons have become businesses. The government passes laws beyond the powers the Constitution allows. Our military commits murder on a mass scale for profit. Our so called elected officials are for sale to the highest bidder. Our Justice system is a joke.
Socialism relies on government, and government is corrupt.
Anyone who believes in socialism as being a path to human advancement is a fool.

 

That's a lot of verbiage just to say:

Capitalism: Your life is yours, live it.
Socialism: Your life is ours, obey.

Just curious: Is Gollum your alter ego?

 

I know. Sad isn't. Not to mention minium wage laws, mark-up laws, banned products, until everything you touch is controlled or owned by government, including your life.

Capitalist: Let's shake on it.
Social Democrat: Let's control it.

 

So, the one ideology that works is the one ideology that denies intergrity to principles. Hmmm. Sounds very Lennish.

Ayn Rand: "A political ideology is a set of principles aimed at establishing or maintaining a certain social system; it is a program of long-range action, with the principles serving to unify and integrate particular steps into a consistent course. It is only by means of principles that men can project the future and choose their actions accordingly.

Anti-ideology consists of the attempts to shrink men’s minds down to the range of the immediate moment, without regard to past or future, without context or memory—above all, without memory, so that contradictions cannot be detected, and errors or disasters can be blamed on the victims.

In anti-ideological practice, principles are used implicitly and are relied upon to disarm the opposition, but are never acknowledged, and are switched at will, when it suits the purpose of the moment. Whose purpose? The gang’s. Thus men’s moral criterion becomes, not “my view of the good—or of the right—or of the truth,” but “my gang, right or wrong."--http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/ideology.html

 

The horrors of Socialism as they really are:

Leonard Peikoff: "The Nazis defended their policies, and the country did not rebel; it accepted the Nazi argument. Selfish individuals may be unhappy, the Nazis said, but what we have established in Germany is the ideal system, socialism. In its Nazi usage this term is not restricted to a theory of economics; it is to be understood in a fundamental sense. “Socialism” for the Nazis denotes the principle of collectivism as such and its corollary, statism—in every field of human action, including but not limited to economics.

“To be a socialist,” says Goebbels, “is to submit the I to the thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole.”

By this definition, the Nazis practiced what they preached. They practiced it at home and then abroad. No one can claim that they did not sacrifice enough individuals." http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/socialism.html


Nope. No one can say that Socialism, Communism, Fascism, and any other form of collectivism or tribalism, hasn't sacrificed enough humans. 100 million plus, and still counting.​

 

You are making my point for me. This is an "Appeal to Dictionary" (or appeal to definition) Fallacy. A dictionary gives a partial definition of a word. It is a partial definition. In no way is it the only definition or a complete definition. For this reason it is a logical fallacy. A complete definition of Republic requires ample reading in Politicl Sciences. But an adequate understanding can be found on Encyclopedias. One that is better than the dictionary definition can be found on sites likke Wikipedia or

Capeesh?

He wasn't. But he was elected by an assembly of Representatives of the People. The SPA (Supreme People's Assembly). As is ours (The Electoral College). Of course, their Assembly is elected .through a complex system that is not Democratic. And, for that reason, it's not a Democracy. But it is a Republic.

It doesn't. But if it did, it would be an Appeal to Dictionary Fallacy.

Your argument: "One dictionary definition of Republic does not mention dictatorships, therefore dictatorships are not Republics"

Ignoring other dictionary definitions such as...

republic
noun [ C ] UK /rɪˈpʌb.lɪk/ US /rəˈpʌb.lɪk/
country without a king or queen, usually governed by electedrepresentatives of the people and a president:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/republic

Or

republic
[ri-puhb-lik]
noun
1-...
2-...
3- a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state.
4- ////
5- ...
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/republic

And many more.

What do they all have in common? What do they all agree on? That they are not ruled by a monarch.

So yes. A nation like ours, in which we elect a President indirectly is a Republic. A nation like.... Costa Rica, which elects a President directly, is a Republic. . A nation like NK, which has a dictator as President, elected by a National Assembly that grants him almost absolute power mostly out of fear is a Republic. A nation like Venezuela, in which the President is elected by a very small minority of people who vote (many by intimidation) is a Republic But while our nation and Costa Rica are Democratic Republics, NK and Venezuela are Dictatorial Republics.

 

You are positively delusional. I bet you were waiting with bated breath when Kim Jong IL died, wondering whether or not another member of the Kim Dynasty was going to be "elected"(appointed by father as hand-picked successor)(monarchy)

I will leave you to your trademarked nonstop blathering.....

 

The one you said you wouldn't read, Ms. Poly

 

As explained, and no matter what Rush, Hannity, and/or their wingnut news bubble keep hammering into your brain, Democratic socialists do not support that.

 

Which one is that?

 

Where has "Democratic Socialism" worked? Can you give us some case studies? And how does what "AOC, Bernie and others" propose get us there?

Also, minor point, why do you capitalize nouns that are not proper nouns? It's sort of confusing to read through the tangle.

 

That's a pretty far-fetched accusation. How is the Constitution of the United States like any of those?

 

But in nature (ie, reality), they are. The ONLY 'system' in which the idle can be supported is an aristocrat/serf arrangement, where the serfs do all the work, and the aristocrat does nothing. Note that I deliberately avoided using wealth as the determiner of who is who.

 

Oh... give me a break! You actually can't spot obvious sarcasm?

The first time I read this I thought it had to be double-sarcsam. That you were sarcastic about my sarcasm. But it's the only actual reference to anything I wrote.

My God!

 

Bingo!!!