Why do socialists hate freedoms?

What a stupid thread!
Why do socialists hate freedoms?
The only one country in the world where socialism exists is Sweden.
And there are more freedoms in Sweden than in US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where-to-be-born_Index
Sweden is the 4th US is the16.
Oh about freedom
Sure
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/30/sweden-officially-recognises-state-palestine

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left–right_politics

"There was asymmetry in the use of the terms left and right by the opposing sides. The right mostly denied that the left–right spectrum was meaningful because they saw it as artificial and damaging to unity. The left, however, seeking to change society, promoted the distinction."

I think its more of a left wing thing to call people left or right for the most part.

 

That's the defence that a five year old child would use. Why are you so eager to come to the defence of the greedy? You are always more than happy to bash anyone else who collects welfare.

I'm sure that you are an expert in health care, having lived in so many countries that have UHC. You have haven't you?

If you haven't, then maybe you should ask people who do live with UHC, instead of just parroting the party line.

A party line that's fed to you by more greedy corporations who don't want the real competition that State healthcare would provide.

Governments all around the world provide efficient health care for their citizens, so I am forced to ask: What is it about Americans that they are so uniquely incompetent to provide for their own citizens?

I can answer that question for you if you like, but you won't like the answer any more than you liked the question.

 

I gather it's because you're using it in the traditional radical-monarchist sense. Fair enough, that scale does make a whole lot more sense, but it's not what most people associate with left/right.

In that sense, I consider myself on the left.

 

The interesting thing about being a lawyer is that you learn that words are all ambiguous, and that's why you have a job.

ken2esq

 

Strangely enough, and not to derail, but its kind of like a 2nd amemdment discussion.

In this instance, according to Theo the Corporations use the tool of government to take what they want, and similarly a gunperson uses a gun to take what they want.

Some people look at a madman's reckless abuse of a necessary tool and say "take the gun"
some people look at a corporations reckless abuse of a necessary tool and say "take the government"

The parallels make for an interesting observation any way.

 

What "god given gifts" did Paris Hilton use to rise to the top?

Oh wait, she started out there.

 

You cant have both socialism and freedom.

 

You cannot have a secular and temporal, commune of Heaven on Earth, without socialism sufficient to accomplish that end.

 

She is actually quite good at marketing herself. I don't really care much about those who inherit entropy deals with the incompetent.

 

I have no problem in taking full responsibility for anything I post.

You, however, have done nothing to back up your original statement, except to tell me that my reply to it was silly.

Here it is again, to save you having to search.

If you can explain to me why the above is stupid and even why it is wrong, there is some possibility that I might see the error of my ways and come at least part of the way towards seeing your point of view.

Automatically contradicting or ridiculing other peoples views only continues the stupid partisan nonsense that abounds around here.

 

And what would this original statement be that you ar babbling about?

 

That's a good start to any productive discussion. But that's not really want you want, is it?

 

You are a fool. Without minimum wage employers can be infinitely inconsiderate and pay workers less than a dollar for a day's work which cannot put food on the table for a family of four. Unless you are supporter of unions so workers can get together and put pressure on employers to demand fair wages. You cannot be both anti-minimum wage and anti unions and then claim you care about the poor and working class.

 

How was that comment false? It was spot on.

 

I can agree with that … but then, neither can you have both capitalism and freedom.

 

From your post:
If any one could claim the sunlight as his property and could compel me to pay him for the agency of the sun in the growth of crops I had planted, it would necessarily lessen my right of property in the produce of my labor.

The government claims the sun, the air, and the earth as their property.

 

Thanks for the link. S'pose how you determine socialism. Sweden is a social democracy like all the Scandinavian countries. Very high standards of living, high Human Development Index and they sit very high in terms of democracy.

Even the current Australian (Australia sits 4th by the way) government is deemed rightwing by most Australians but would be central left if they were in government in the US.

 

Mmm,I can agree with you but partly. I think that freedom is not a choice between mars and bounty or between ford and mitsubishi. My maths teacher in high school said one very wise phrase: "You, guys, have only one choice in your life: to be an idiot or not to be". I don't think that rioting people in Ferguson enjoy their freedom (freedom of assembly, freedom of conscience, freedom of expression) mmm I don't think so. oh word "enjoy" looks sardonic in this context.

 

Wow. You say that as if you could make History disappear with the wave of a hand. It's like the Gulag, Laogai, etc., never existed.

As we learned during the 20th Century, Socialists have always been willing and eager to enslave others. They're the greatest enemies of individual freedom on the planet.

 

It's all about power and control. Individual freedom frustrates the socialist will to power and control.

 

So let the unions replace the government regulations on wages, safety, and working conditions. The Republicans could cut government and save the taxpayers' money. But unions give to the Democrats instead. Not real smart. Democrats let immigrants in to compete with jobs, and support raising the min. wage, which limits opportunities for potential union members.

 

And we learned in the 19th century the same is true for Capitalists.

"Under Capitalism, Man exploits Man. Under Communism, its just the opposite." - John Kenneth Galbraith

 

The difference would be that in the former the situation is in the long term untenable.

 

I am still trying to convince the right it is about better solutions at lower cost.