Eric wrote:Oh, and can we three agree that war = socialism?
All you have to do is ask other national socialist's like Hitler and Mussolini.
Eric wrote:Oh, and can we three agree that war = socialism?
Spence wrote:Eric wrote:Oh, and can we three agree that war = socialism?
All you have to do is ask other national socialist's like Hitler and Mussolini.
Spence wrote:Yes, but protecting our freedom and national interests are the primary function of the Federal government.
Eric wrote:Spence wrote:Yes, but protecting our freedom and national interests are the primary function of the Federal government.
I agree that that is the point in principle, but I see no reason why the government has to be continually engaged in foreign conflicts to the extent that America is currently. The corporatism is undeniably a factor (military-industrial complex). The point isn't always securing freedom. Iraq was no threat to the United States.
All that I would ask is for there to be a little skepticism. It is presupposed from the get-go that, "America = good / Anti-American = bad" when really neither of those properties are contingent upon each other. The other issue I have always had with neoconservative thought is the idea that when saying the American government inadvertently brought 9/11 upon it's subjects, the neoconservative will conflate the government with the citizens. The people are not the State.
Yes, interpretation can take you....those are interpretations you cited already. Then your rendering gets you another derivative away. Further, you can Google all you like...read the whole thing from Genesis to Revelation, then preach to me. Well read it 3 times (KJV) and research Hebraisms and Jewish culture and get back to me.
Eric, I cannot agree that war equals socialism. I don't know how you would arrive at that.
There are things the guv-mint does well...putting men on the moon (which they only managed...private enterprise put us there), taking over another country....but managing my retirement they are not so good at.
War is no more socialist than the FAA, a very necessary regulating body for public safety....this is NOT socialism.
And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine: 2
Eric wrote:
Derek, the point I'm trying to make is that the government is not competitive and it is funded by the same means as the picture you displayed here. Whether or not it is "necessary" is besides the point. The war-making apparatus of the government is socialist because it is funded by involuntary means. It's the same thing that happens when government gets its hand into the banking industry and selectively bails out "private" banks. They have their hands in the arms industry and it turns into a colossal iron triangle. The fire departments are socialized, the school system is socialized, the police are socialized, etc.
socialism (ˈsəʊʃəˌlɪzəm) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]
— n
1. Compare capitalism an economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state. It is characterized by production for use rather than profit, by equality of individual wealth, by the absence of competitive economic activity, and, usually, by government determination of investment, prices, and production levels
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests