MJ, the party crasher, is undeserving of a reply. — J. A. A. — > On Feb 27, 11:03 pm, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > If I had to point out the characteristic trait that differentiates socialism > from [a proper view of the political economy], I should find it here. > Socialism includes a countless number of sects. Each one has its own utopia, > and we may well say that they are so far from agreement that they wage bitter > war upon one another. Between M. Blanc's organized social workshops and M. > Proudhon's anarchy, between Fourier's association and M. Cabet's communism, > there is certainly all the difference between night and day. What then, is > the comon denominator to which all forms of socialism are reducible, and what > is the bond that unites them against natural society, or society as planned > by Providence? There is none except this: They do not want natural society. > What they want is an artificial society, which has come forth full-grown from > the brain of its inventor... They quarrel over who will mould the human clay, > but they agree that there is human clay to mould. Mankind is not in their > eyes a living and harmonious being endowed by God Himself with the power to > progress and to survive, but an inert mass that has been waiting for them to > give it feeling and life; human nature is not a subject to be studied, but > matter on which to perform experiments. -- Frédéric BastiatAt 10:59 PM > 2/27/2011, you wrote:<Grin>!! "Date: 1837. From Latin socialis for "friend" > or "companion" or "associate". Any of various economic and political theories > advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the > means of production and distribution of goods; usually there is no private > property; in Marxist theory this is also considered just a transitional stage > between capitalism and communism and it is distinguished by unequal > distribution of goods and pay according to work done." The above definition > is by Mr. John Spargo, from his work titled: "Socialism, A Summary And > Interpretation Of Socialist Principles" (McMillan & Co. 1913). > On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 4:05 AM, Jonathan Ashley > <[email protected]> wrote:John,I know I'm not Sage 2, but you > wrote:> Making socialist-communist promises to the lazy wasn't nixed by any > language of the Constitution.Since Robert Owen (in 1817) appears to be the > first person to publicly entertain the idea of alleviating poverty through > the creation of social communities; and since the term "socialism" itself was > first used in early 1830s Britain by the followers of Owen and in France by > those of Claude- Henri de Rouvroy comte de Saint-Simon; and since the terms > "communism" and "communist" appeared first among the Parisian revolutionists > of the 1830s, just how exactly were the authors of the Constitution (adopted > in 1787) supposed to nix "by any language" such concepts?I'm sure you on the > other hand, as brilliant as you have claimed to be, can look into your > crystal ball and see (prior to their first existence) concepts and > terminology that may appear 20-30 years from now.On 2/27/2011 4:14 PM, > NoEinstein wrote:Dear Sage 2: Consider this: If our original Constitution > was soperfect, how has it been possible that government evolved away fromthe > ideals of the Founding Fathers? It did so because that documentis WEAK! > There was an assumption that elected officials would bemotivated to do what > is best for the country (ha!). But everyoneknows politicians do what they > know gives them the best chance ofgetting re elected. Making > socialist-communist promises to the lazywasn't nixed by any language of the > Constitution. But my NewConstitution will hang for treason anyone advocating > socialism—theanti-thesis of the democratic ideals of the Founding Fathers. > Isuspect that you are far more left than the country can tolerate.Please give > the readers a capsule description of your feelings aboutthe free-market > capitalist system that made the USA great. And aboutyour ideas on the role > of government in such an economy. Thanks. —John A. Armistead, — Patriot —On > Feb 26, 11:11 pm, Sage2<[email protected]>wrote: Hey Keith, Mark et > al, Suffice it to say that OUR Constitution need never be rewrittennor > changed, but from time to time revisited to it's original intentand meaning, > less personal interpretation. " It is what it is " andwas not intended to be > anything more nor anything less than that. Theonly true recourse the founding > fathers wisely gave us was the "amendment " and even they should be rare and > few. We should not try tofix what ain't broke by breaking that which don't > need fixing > !*************************************************************************** > *********************************************************On Feb 26, 6:31 am, > KeithInSeoul<[email protected]>wrote:Greetings from Seoul Korea > John!Uhm.....This seems to me, to be, "Much Ado, About Nothing".....We'd all > like to read your "New Constitution"; but if ya don't want toshare it with > the group, that is your perogative.The purpose of Political Forum is to share > political thought, ideas,commentary and opinion, as well as to comment on > government, politics, worldaffairs and current events. (And occasionally, > pro football andbaseball!) Your posts I find sometimes interesting and > usually thoughtprovoking, so therein lied my initial interest in you posting > your, "NewConstitution". It was never my intent to get a shit storm > started!If you take the time to read both Jonathan's and Michael's posts, you > willfind that both men are thoughtful, and probably share many of the > sameconcerns as you do. I consider myself a conservative libertarian, (not > somuch a capitalist as I am one who beleives in protection of free > marketenterprise, and I believe that there is a distinction between a, > "freemarket" versus an economic system such as capitalism, of which I > alsosupport and subscribe to. Jonathan and Michael are damn near > anarchists,(and I say that with a smile on my face, I don't think either > would agreewith me!!) but the point being, is that instead of taking the > route of manyof the nasty, hateful rhetorical smear merchants from the far > left, (e.g.;the Wacko left socialist-elitist Moonbats) who from time to > time and onoccasion chime in here; I would like to think that the > thoughtful, wellreasoned conservative voices of Politicall Forum can have > discussion, aswell as disagreement with a little more civility!At any rate, > have a good Saturday....Mine is almost over!KeithInSeoulOn Sat, Feb 26, 2011 > at 12:16 PM, NoEinstein<[email protected]>wrote:MJ: You are NOT > wanted on this post! In the last few weeks you'vemanaged to give your > cook-booked quotations of others, and your ownbreakfast-table-written > "constitution" of sorts. But you have noteven gone back into my thread to > read about my New Constitution, whichis detailed in essays that highlight the > apt portions of my document.And you obviously have no "Regard$" for... > > read more »
-- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
