From the Mouths of Democrats

Status
Not open for further replies.
invention_45 wrote:
Yes, I have read the constitution. Tell me right here and now you do NOT think the Constitution is a document that intends to limit the power of some group. Hint: the Government.
Click to expand...
Not sure what point you're trying to make, here, but yes: The Consitution does limit the power of the U.S. government. That's why what we have in the U.S. is known as a "consitutionally limited representative republic."

invention_45 wrote:
Once you have conceded to that, you have to admit it's a document that redistributes something in an unnatural way (otherwise it would not be needed). That something is power.

That is pretty much what socialism does, no?
Click to expand...
All forms of government (re)distribute power in some way or another. (Other than classical anarchy, but that's really un-government.)
 
As I read it, the US Constitution neither establishes nor precludes a socialist economic system.
Click to expand...
WRONG.
Socialism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social control. [1] As an economic system, socialism is usually associated with state or collective ownership of the means of production. This control, according to socialists, may be either direct, exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils, or it may be indirect, exercised on behalf of the people by the state.

The modern socialist movement had its origin largely in the working class movement of the late-19th century. In this period, the term "socialism" was first used in connection with European social critics who condemned capitalism and private property. For Karl Marx, who helped establish and define the modern socialist movement, socialism implied the abolition of markets, capital, and labor as a commodity.

It is difficult to make generalizations about the diverse array of doctrines and movements that have been referred to as "socialist." The various adherents of contemporary socialist movements do not agree on a common doctrine or program. As a result, the movement has split into different and sometimes opposing branches, particularly between moderate socialists and communists. Since the 19th century, socialists have differed in their vision of socialism as a system of economic organization. Some socialists have championed the complete nationalization of the means of production to implement their aims. Others have proposed selective nationalization of key industries within the framework of mixed economies. Stalinists insisted on the creation of Soviet-style command economies under strong central state direction. Others advocate "market socialism" in which social control of property exists within the framework of market economics and private property.
Click to expand...
The control and compulsion by the state that is required for socialism to operate in the manner in which it is intended, abrogates the provisions of the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights is about limiting government intervention in the lives of the people, not giving the government carte blanche to enforce the will of the elite on the masses, which is mandatory under a socialist system - economic, political or other.

As I pointed out above -
Yes - socialism attempts to give to the government arbitrary power that is not legitimately the government's to possess.

The Constitution guarantees the rights of the people which is diametrically opposite of what socialism attempts to do.

This is how the two differ - and why they are in no manner similar in their intent or purpose. They are worlds apart.
Click to expand...
 
Political system <> economic system. Socialism is an economic system. I could prove this, I suppose, by using bold letters, but I just don't feel like it.

Tim
 
Socialism is an economic system.
Click to expand...
Whether or not you want to accept it, the fact remains that socialism is a political philosophy/system; one of the facets of socialism is the economic facet.

Socialism is much more than an economic system. It is a political worldview.
 
Quote:
you have to admit it's a document that redistributes something in an unnatural way (otherwise it would not be needed). That something is power.

Wrong.

The Constitution does not "redistribute power." It establishes in writing the workings of the government and in the Bill of Rights, it establishes the rights of the people
Click to expand...

Now, why did these rights need establishing? Why did the workings need establishing? Because somebody was doing those things in a way the FF's did not like. They fought to seize control of those things, and created a document that institutionalized them, the Constitution. If that's not a redistribution of power (which is, for practical purposes these days, wealth), then what is?

What The Creator gave to man, no government has the right to take away.
Click to expand...

That's what the Crown used to say. The king was a natural extension of God himself, and so were the nobles and judges.

You just like constitutional rule better than you like noble rule. So do I. But that doesn't answer which people's rights are God-given, all citizens or just the noble.

The Bill of Rights guarantees those rights - it does not "redistribute power."
Click to expand...

The only way it can guarantee anything is to guarantee that those who would take away rights are restricted from doing so. Notice all the "shall not infringe" and "shall not make any law" clauses in it. The word NOT is important. That takes their power away and gives it back to the People. When you take a thing away and give it to someone else, you are redistributing it. Look it up.

Quote:
That is pretty much what socialism does, no?

Yes - socialism attempts to give to the government arbitrary power...
Click to expand...

So far, so good...

...that is not legitimately the government's to possess.
Click to expand...

...says who?

The Constitution guarantees the rights of the people which is diametrically opposite of what socialism attempts to do.
Click to expand...

Actually, the Constitution cannot guarantee the rights of anyone unless it curbs the rights of someone else. What part of that do you not understand? Guaranteeing my right to free speech is taking away someone else's right to shut me up. Guaranteeing my right to be free from arbitrary searches and seizures is curbing someone else's right to stomp into my house and take what they want, that someone else being the government and its agents.

Socialism just takes the concept further. It guarantees additional rights, such as medical care. But to do that it takes rights away from those who then have to pay for it.

This is how the two differ - and why they are in no manner similar in their intent or purpose. They are worlds apart.
Click to expand...

Wrong. See above.

----

So, back in the days of old, when knights were bold, and the constitution wasn't invented...

...the noble were simply exercising their God-given rights. There weren't any rules covering their actions, other than gradually evolving common law. So they were free to decree and carry out whatever they wanted to in the name of God. This was probably a pretty comfortable situation for them, and it was just the way things were.

Then along came the mean old Constitution and took away their God-given rights. I'm sure they were howling the same way you are about socialism back when that happened to them. They lost power and freedom so that we could have some.
 
The Professor strikes!

I have to congratulate you, Invention45. You have produced an outstanding example of intellectual masturbation. At which community college do you teach?:D

Good work, buddy. Totally irrelevant, but good work.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top