Anarchy v. Socialism

Anarchy v. Socialism

Created by spoiled rich kid on Apr 23, 2010

25 votes

Click on an option to vote

Socialism

Anarchy

First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Since: Jan 10

Gallatin County

#1 Apr 23, 2010
Those two things arent even in the same category. One is a form of government ruling and the other is a form of economy.

“Get to the point! ”

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#2 Apr 23, 2010
what is the point of this poll are we supposed to chose whether we would accept anarchy before we would become socialist? or vice versa?
spoiled rich kid

Florence, KY

#3 Apr 23, 2010
As an economic system, which would you rather have (assuming Capitalism is out... though Capitalism and anarchy are similar)? If Capitalism is out, what other economic systems are there? There's socialism, and... what? No government? And no government, meaning no government regulation, or cutting out the Department of Education, which is what Rand Paul wants to do, is anarchy.

Does anybody know of any other economic system? There's Communism, which has failed... so what else is there? We got a Mixed System right now (part government control, part "free market"), but if we don't want unbridled big business doing whatever they want, then what do we do? Socialism? Anarchy? Or are you fine with the Capitalism/Socialism for the Corporations that we have now? The corporatist plutocracy. That's what we got now. Big Banks and War get most of American taxpayer dollars. Is this what we all voted for?

Ronnie Smith for Sheriff

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#4 Apr 23, 2010
Neither one would last very long, eventually in Socialism, a group of elites get together and gain control over the populace, and the same exxact thing happens in Anarchy.
Either way you will only end up in and elitist Oligarchy.

The only realistic long lasting government is a Republic: I pledge alliegence to the flag, and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands, what about you?
Johnny Masters

Florence, KY

#5 Apr 25, 2010
What constitutes a Republic? Is it just the Rule of Law? Because Democracies and Anarchies can have the Rule of Law too, depending on how the People want it to be organized.

I hear "Republic" frequently, esp. the Ben Franklin quote, but I mostly hear this from Republicans (Republic... Republicans... is there a similarity here for a reason?), and those same Republicans also tell me how bad "democracy" is, even though we bomb the crap out of countries all throughout the world in the name of democracy. Democracy has got to have some credibility with the public.

To me, America is a representative democracy. While you may disagree with that, what do you think about Democracy?

Ronnie Smith for Sheriff

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#6 Apr 25, 2010
America is literally a representative republic.

Republicans were originally for small central government,

Ron Paul is the Epitomy of what a republican is supposed to be!
Small central government large individual freedoms.

You are supposed to be able to do whatever you want as long as it does not infringe on the rights of someone else!
Johnny Masters wrote:
What constitutes a Republic? Is it just the Rule of Law? Because Democracies and Anarchies can have the Rule of Law too, depending on how the People want it to be organized.
I hear "Republic" frequently, esp. the Ben Franklin quote, but I mostly hear this from Republicans (Republic... Republicans... is there a similarity here for a reason?), and those same Republicans also tell me how bad "democracy" is, even though we bomb the crap out of countries all throughout the world in the name of democracy. Democracy has got to have some credibility with the public.
To me, America is a representative democracy. While you may disagree with that, what do you think about Democracy?

Ronnie Smith for Sheriff

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#7 Apr 25, 2010
What do I think about democracy? It is illegal according to the Ky constitution
section 2 of the bill of rights...
Johnny Masters wrote:
What constitutes a Republic? Is it just the Rule of Law? Because Democracies and Anarchies can have the Rule of Law too, depending on how the People want it to be organized.
I hear "Republic" frequently, esp. the Ben Franklin quote, but I mostly hear this from Republicans (Republic... Republicans... is there a similarity here for a reason?), and those same Republicans also tell me how bad "democracy" is, even though we bomb the crap out of countries all throughout the world in the name of democracy. Democracy has got to have some credibility with the public.
To me, America is a representative democracy. While you may disagree with that, what do you think about Democracy?
Johnny Masters

Florence, KY

#8 Apr 25, 2010
I agree. Ron Paul is impressive. I agree with his stance on the Patriot Act, how he fights for civil liberties, and his anti-war stance. And he's right. He is a "true conservative". W. Bush spent more than Bill Clinton, and Obama is looking to top W. Bush... but to call W. Bush a "conservative", well, that's crap.

We bombed the crap out of Iraq, and because we forced elections on them, now we brag about bringing them Democracy. So elections have a lot to do with democracy.

If the working folks of Gallatin County voted you in this November, I bet you'd support "mob rule" (aka democracy).

Section 2 states that "absolute" AND "arbitrary" power can't be used against anybody in a "republic". That only means that if the democracy mob wanted complete and total control over everybody's lives, you know, just cause, then that would be illegal. But if the power isn't arbitrary, say if there's a reason, and if the power doesn't put complete control of the government in one person's (or one small group of folks), which is what absolute power is, then Democracy, the right to vote, the majority wins... those values would hold up in court.

I like Robert's Rules of Order. In every room, the majority of the folks vote for an issue, then it gets passed. The rights of the minorities (of a motion, say, to have cheese pizza instead of pepperoni) are still to be upheld. We have all of the freedom in the world, and having any elite group of folks (say your "posse comatatus" (sp?)) has the potential of corruption. But if we respect the minority voice's opinion, then we get to hear everybody out, and if the the minority is convincing, then they can steer the mob in their direction. But if they don't, and most of the folks at a Fair Board meeting wanted pepperoni, instead of just cheese, then that Fair Board meeting should get pepperoni.

Ronnie Smith for Sheriff

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#9 Apr 25, 2010
In the rest of the world, a state is a country, that is what America started out as, a group of countries united together (like the european union) When we formed this union under the constitution, every state had it's own sovereignty and created their own constitution, which usually goes right along with the U.S. constitution.

This is where the idea of states rights comes in (10th amendment of US constitution) every person in every state has the same rights as a state, we can do what we want as long as we don't interfere with the other peoples rights. The government has no place in our personal business or our bedrooms or our bloodstreams. But now the "small central government" has gotten so rich and powerful that they feel they can dictate what the states do, and subsequently they think they can regulate what people can do. They do not constitutionally have this power but people do not stand up to them, and when people do stand up to them, the people get quashed by the formally small central government.

"absolute control over my life liberty or property means that you can tell someone what to do with their property, or with their life, or with their freedoms. The government has no place telling me what I can or cannot do, as long as what I want to do does not interfere with some other persons right to life, liberty, or freedom to pursue happiness, when a group of people got together and passed a law against smoking pot, then they are trying to exercise absolute control over my and many other peoples right to pursue happiness, they also are trying to exercise absolute control over my and others, freedoms to worship God in a way they deem fit!
Johnny Masters wrote:
I agree. Ron Paul is impressive. I agree with his stance on the Patriot Act, how he fights for civil liberties, and his anti-war stance. And he's right. He is a "true conservative". W. Bush spent more than Bill Clinton, and Obama is looking to top W. Bush... but to call W. Bush a "conservative", well, that's crap.
We bombed the crap out of Iraq, and because we forced elections on them, now we brag about bringing them Democracy. So elections have a lot to do with democracy.
If the working folks of Gallatin County voted you in this November, I bet you'd support "mob rule" (aka democracy).
Section 2 states that "absolute" AND "arbitrary" power can't be used against anybody in a "republic". That only means that if the democracy mob wanted complete and total control over everybody's lives, you know, just cause, then that would be illegal. But if the power isn't arbitrary, say if there's a reason, and if the power doesn't put complete control of the government in one person's (or one small group of folks), which is what absolute power is, then Democracy, the right to vote, the majority wins... those values would hold up in court.
I like Robert's Rules of Order. In every room, the majority of the folks vote for an issue, then it gets passed. The rights of the minorities (of a motion, say, to have cheese pizza instead of pepperoni) are still to be upheld. We have all of the freedom in the world, and having any elite group of folks (say your "posse comatatus" (sp?)) has the potential of corruption. But if we respect the minority voice's opinion, then we get to hear everybody out, and if the the minority is convincing, then they can steer the mob in their direction. But if they don't, and most of the folks at a Fair Board meeting wanted pepperoni, instead of just cheese, then that Fair Board meeting should get pepperoni.
Johnny Masters

Florence, KY

#10 Apr 25, 2010
I'd rather have no government than a corrupt government. What's the point of stealing our taxes for the rich? Don't they have enough money already?

What about Civil Rights? Many folks said the same thing about that. The government shouldn't tell us Southerners that we're not allowed to segregate. That was infringing on our states rights, our states rights to run a two-tiered society, with 2nd class citizens. Then you had the American government sending in federal troops to make sure integration happened. now look around. we don't have two bathrooms anymore. we don't have two different schools. we still self-segregate ourselves, where we live in town, but our kids play together, and that was one example where having the government influence our public school systems was a good thing. i see the problem with having a powerful fascist government, but one that stands up to ridiculous practices, such as apartheid, is also a government i want too. i can think of no other way our southern schools would have been integrated.

but actually, looking at the racism poll, perhaps much of the support for Rand Paul, Gatewood, and Ron Paul, and Glenn Beck has those racist overtones, as the new numbers that came out recently indicate. so while we actually care about "state's rights", maybe those who listen to us use these issues to pursue their apartheid behavior. using state right's is just a way for the elite, or for the mob to trample on the rights of blacks in the deep South a few decades ago, or for the rich to keep the people from getting free hospital care.

Ronnie Smith for Sheriff

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#11 Apr 25, 2010
people are brainwashed to think states rights means racism.

Read the constitution, it says all men are created equal, it says nothing about race, the race thing came from a racist supreme court that ruled blacks were 3/5 of a person.

In actuality all men and women are created equal and are blessed with the unalienable rights by our creator.

black, white, brown, yellow and red.
Johnny Masters wrote:
I'd rather have no government than a corrupt government. What's the point of stealing our taxes for the rich? Don't they have enough money already?
What about Civil Rights? Many folks said the same thing about that. The government shouldn't tell us Southerners that we're not allowed to segregate. That was infringing on our states rights, our states rights to run a two-tiered society, with 2nd class citizens. Then you had the American government sending in federal troops to make sure integration happened. now look around. we don't have two bathrooms anymore. we don't have two different schools. we still self-segregate ourselves, where we live in town, but our kids play together, and that was one example where having the government influence our public school systems was a good thing. i see the problem with having a powerful fascist government, but one that stands up to ridiculous practices, such as apartheid, is also a government i want too. i can think of no other way our southern schools would have been integrated.
but actually, looking at the racism poll, perhaps much of the support for Rand Paul, Gatewood, and Ron Paul, and Glenn Beck has those racist overtones, as the new numbers that came out recently indicate. so while we actually care about "state's rights", maybe those who listen to us use these issues to pursue their apartheid behavior. using state right's is just a way for the elite, or for the mob to trample on the rights of blacks in the deep South a few decades ago, or for the rich to keep the people from getting free hospital care.

Ronnie Smith for Sheriff

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#12 Apr 25, 2010
civil rights are a scam to subvert our unalienable rights.

the government took possession of all black people and "granted them civil rights" then the white poor people got jealous and jumped onto the black mans freedom train and got chained to it, then as time went on people got stupider and stupider until now pretty much everyone considers themselves a citizen of the United States and they also think they are guaranteed civil rights.

Can't anyone else see the trick they played on us with the 14th amendment, they took possession of anyone who wants to be a citizen of the United States which is a corporation based in Washington D.C. now they are government property and the government decides their rights, not God.

I personally seperated myself from the corporate U.S. and declared my State citizenship under the 9th and 10th amendments. I am an American citizen with unalienable rights. what are you? do you have a grasp on your true citizenship? do you understand the constitution?
Johnny Masters wrote:
I'd rather have no government than a corrupt government. What's the point of stealing our taxes for the rich? Don't they have enough money already?
What about Civil Rights? Many folks said the same thing about that. The government shouldn't tell us Southerners that we're not allowed to segregate. That was infringing on our states rights, our states rights to run a two-tiered society, with 2nd class citizens. Then you had the American government sending in federal troops to make sure integration happened. now look around. we don't have two bathrooms anymore. we don't have two different schools. we still self-segregate ourselves, where we live in town, but our kids play together, and that was one example where having the government influence our public school systems was a good thing. i see the problem with having a powerful fascist government, but one that stands up to ridiculous practices, such as apartheid, is also a government i want too. i can think of no other way our southern schools would have been integrated.
but actually, looking at the racism poll, perhaps much of the support for Rand Paul, Gatewood, and Ron Paul, and Glenn Beck has those racist overtones, as the new numbers that came out recently indicate. so while we actually care about "state's rights", maybe those who listen to us use these issues to pursue their apartheid behavior. using state right's is just a way for the elite, or for the mob to trample on the rights of blacks in the deep South a few decades ago, or for the rich to keep the people from getting free hospital care.
Johnny Masters

Florence, KY

#13 Apr 26, 2010
I read the Constitution, and I still want to know which Constitution you believe in: US? KY? Or Both? Here's what our American Constitution in
Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3:

ôRepresentatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

I'm not saying States Rights = Racism. I'm saying Racism = State's Rights. I believe in the idea that the local community has a right to exclude outsiders from the decisions that happen here. I think you're right about your Sheriff bid in that if the DEA did try something, and you and your posse stopped these gang drug raids, that would lead to a Supreme Court case (again, we're using US Law... or should we listen to the KY Law?).

I think the Constitution is a great founding document, and it needs to be updated, to be more democratic, and to enhance our civil liberties, getting us more Bill of Rights type of laws.

Racism was institutionalized in America. I hear how white racists still talk (though racism isn't just the whites). And if you read the above line in the US Constitution, it says that Native Americans aka "Indians", weren't even counted as people, and slaves were counted as just 3/5 of a person. Ah America. A black person is a whole person; not 3/5. What were you thinking?

So while I stand for state's rights, and I despise Lincoln for the "Civil" War (how can any war be civil?... esp. that one... it was not civil in the least bit), for using military force to subdue the States under one centralized power. I have many libertarian ideals. But when I hear my racist cousins pretend that their hatred for black people, and their penchant for dropping the n bomb here and there, was really about "state's rights", I don't believe them. I think they just found smart ideas to cover up their initial racist beliefs. I support state's right, but I don't support the reasons for why my cousin's believe in state's rights. And while in politics, typically you go for the greatest amount of votes, but to be honest with you, I don't want a racist voting for me. It's 2010. It's about time these backwards and ignorant racists grow the fuck up. You Ronnie are more thoughtful, so it's doubtful that you're racist, but look at the demographics of the "tea partiers". A bunch of them are racists. That sux.

“Get to the point! ”

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#14 Apr 26, 2010
Ronnie Smith for Sheriff wrote:
civil rights are a scam to subvert our unalienable rights.
the government took possession of all black people and "granted them civil rights" then the white poor people got jealous and jumped onto the black mans freedom train and got chained to it, then as time went on people got stupider and stupider until now pretty much everyone considers themselves a citizen of the United States and they also think they are guaranteed civil rights.
Can't anyone else see the trick they played on us with the 14th amendment, they took possession of anyone who wants to be a citizen of the United States which is a corporation based in Washington D.C. now they are government property and the government decides their rights, not God.
I personally seperated myself from the corporate U.S. and declared my State citizenship under the 9th and 10th amendments. I am an American citizen with unalienable rights. what are you? do you have a grasp on your true citizenship? do you understand the constitution?
<quoted text>
does this mean there is no United States of America only this corporation? and how do you make your self anything other than what everyone else is if this corporation owns everything? I'm just interested in this subject because i have heard other ppl say the same and i want to understand.

Ronnie Smith for Sheriff

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#15 Apr 26, 2010
I will need to read and study a little more on that before I can have an answer, but I will have one in a day or so.

I tend to look at the Ky constitution first and then the national one.
Johnny Masters wrote:
I read the Constitution, and I still want to know which Constitution you believe in: US? KY? Or Both? Here's what our American Constitution in
Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3:
ôRepresentatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."
I'm not saying States Rights = Racism. I'm saying Racism = State's Rights. I believe in the idea that the local community has a right to exclude outsiders from the decisions that happen here. I think you're right about your Sheriff bid in that if the DEA did try something, and you and your posse stopped these gang drug raids, that would lead to a Supreme Court case (again, we're using US Law... or should we listen to the KY Law?).
I think the Constitution is a great founding document, and it needs to be updated, to be more democratic, and to enhance our civil liberties, getting us more Bill of Rights type of laws.
Racism was institutionalized in America. I hear how white racists still talk (though racism isn't just the whites). And if you read the above line in the US Constitution, it says that Native Americans aka "Indians", weren't even counted as people, and slaves were counted as just 3/5 of a person. Ah America. A black person is a whole person; not 3/5. What were you thinking?
So while I stand for state's rights, and I despise Lincoln for the "Civil" War (how can any war be civil?... esp. that one... it was not civil in the least bit), for using military force to subdue the States under one centralized power. I have many libertarian ideals. But when I hear my racist cousins pretend that their hatred for black people, and their penchant for dropping the n bomb here and there, was really about "state's rights", I don't believe them. I think they just found smart ideas to cover up their initial racist beliefs. I support state's right, but I don't support the reasons for why my cousin's believe in state's rights. And while in politics, typically you go for the greatest amount of votes, but to be honest with you, I don't want a racist voting for me. It's 2010. It's about time these backwards and ignorant racists grow the fuck up. You Ronnie are more thoughtful, so it's doubtful that you're racist, but look at the demographics of the "tea partiers". A bunch of them are racists. That sux.

Ronnie Smith for Sheriff

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#16 Apr 26, 2010
From the way I have it down, there are 2 united states.
one is all of the states united together and the other one is washington D.C. doing business as "The United States"
the difference can be seen by the obvious lack of the word America.
washington DC (DBA United States) gets its power from the 14th amendment.
2thapoint wrote:
<quoted text>
does this mean there is no United States of America only this corporation? and how do you make your self anything other than what everyone else is if this corporation owns everything? I'm just interested in this subject because i have heard other ppl say the same and i want to understand.

“Get to the point! ”

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#17 Apr 26, 2010
Ronnie Smith for Sheriff wrote:
From the way I have it down, there are 2 united states.
one is all of the states united together and the other one is washington D.C. doing business as "The United States"
the difference can be seen by the obvious lack of the word America.
washington DC (DBA United States) gets its power from the 14th amendment.
<quoted text>
so how do you become a citizen of the real US and who is the leader of it?

Ronnie Smith for Sheriff

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#18 Apr 26, 2010
Obama is the president of both, the nice thing about the congress back then was they put an option in law which allows you to opt out of the United States. you can read about it on the http://www.dirtyunclesam.com website

it is called expatriation, and you don't have to leave your state citizenship or even leave the country.
when you reclaim your state citizenship, you become a "non-resident alien to the United States" but you are still a Kentuckian!
what

Miamisburg, OH

#19 Jun 29, 2010
i pick socialism because of hte old people.
how nice

United States

#20 Jun 30, 2010
I pick capitalism not socialism.Vote RAND PAUl.Where do you get No Gov.What do you mean with no gov.if we go socialism?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Warsaw Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Sarah Snyder 9 hr Mark 11
Bethany mccormick 21 hr Bethann is trash 3
Poll would you vote for derrick wilson (Mar '10) Mon Not in this lifetime 8
That sullivan girl Mon Justcheckin 9
Meth ice Mon GCSO 19
Dormans Job May 20 Roger Arvin 6
Job Opening IT Field Engineer May 18 HRnexigen 1

Warsaw Jobs

Personal Finance

Warsaw Mortgages