Do you believe in Private Property?

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 11 May 2016 11:11:23 -0400

Do you believe that your cell phone is yours, and you should be able to control it? Or, as opposed to the above, do you believe that someone should be able to take that phone from you at gun-point, sell it, and then give the money to poor people?

I'm trying to understand the individuals involved in the Socialist movement. I'm not trying to argue, I'm only trying to close the tremendous gap in my understanding of the Socialist agenda.

Thank you for your answers!

Response by SFC Craig Dalen made May 11 at 2016 11:15 AM

SFC Craig Dalen — Wed, 11 May 2016 11:15:08 -0400

This to me is a no brainer, Private property is covered by law.

Response by PO2 Robert Aitchison made May 11 at 2016 11:23 AM

PO2 Robert Aitchison — Wed, 11 May 2016 11:23:32 -0400

I see what you did there with this question.

Also I'd like to point out that almost certainly you already don't "control" cell phone. If you have an iPhone Apple maintains complete control and with most Android phones your carrier and the manufacturer have the control. Unless you have a "Nexus" phone or a small number of other Android phones your phone isn't really yours.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made May 11 at 2016 11:36 AM

CPT Jack Durish — Wed, 11 May 2016 11:36:12 -0400

Interestingly, in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson had penned that our inalienable rights include the pursuit of "Life, Liberty, and Property". Ultimately, sadly I think, he substituted "Happiness" for "Property". It helps if you understand that most people escaped the "Old World" to get a little piece of property for themselves. Yes, I know that most of us were taught they came to America for religious freedom and other purposes, but if you study history, rather than learn to hate it, you'll discover that keeping what you earn was the real driving force then as now. How does this apply to socialism? Actually, it doesn't. Like Bernie Sanders, most people don't have a clue as to what socialism really is. Socialism may be tyrannical as practiced by Nazis and Communists or it may be truly democratic as practiced in some modern European nations (actually not many). Socialism is simply a concept of community or government ownership of the means of production. It was tried in America by the Pilgrims and almost destroyed their colony. They only survived by abandoning it and shifting to a free market economy. No, what the author of this discussion should focus on is the cancerous growth of government. Government can grow and be intrusive without being socialist as is ours (the U.S.). It does not (yet) own the means of production but is attempting to interfere as though it does. A century of this trend (since the Administration of Woodrow Wilson) has seen the decline of the American economy in response to the growth of government intrusion. That is simply verifiable fact.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made May 11 at 2016 11:41 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 11 May 2016 11:41:13 -0400

Yeah, this question isn't really related to socialism. It sounds more like an attempt to bitch about welfare. But there are lots of things we in the US are forced to pay for that we may not agree with. Should a person with no kids be forced to pay for the education of other peoples kids? Why should they get "free" school instead of each parent having to pay for themselves? Should any government have the ability to order its citizens into military service, against their will, and force them to work as a soldier or fight a war they feel is against the constitution? That's not just paying for something, that's taking over your life. When someone who doesn't pay for health insurance goes to the hospital, should those that do pay have to pay for his coverage through higher premiums? Or should the government require everyone to pay for insurance if they can? Or let's get really personal--since soldiers volunteer to join the military, and no one makes them, should the taxpayers have to pay for their healthcare for the rest of their lives? No other job does that. If privatization is so always so great, why don't we privatize the military? Captialism says that if we have different companies competing to provide our defense, then we would get the best defense at the lowest cost due to competition.

Nothing is a clear cut as if there is a bright shining line between capitalism and socialism, especially as it is addressed in regards to Bernie Sanders being a socialist. Many throw it out as a dirty word, harking back to the USSR versions. But I remember a sign I saw in the video of a Tea Party rally that an old woman was holding that said "keep the government away from my medicare". The irony of that seemed to escape her.

Response by COL Ted Mc made May 11 at 2016 11:42 AM

COL Ted Mc — Wed, 11 May 2016 11:42:41 -0400

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member - Sergeant; Where did you get the idea that "Socialism" involved appropriation at gun point and that "Capitalism" doesn't involve appropriation at all?

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made May 11 at 2016 12:09 PM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 11 May 2016 12:09:22 -0400

I think the "little s" components of socialism have their value...I mean, what decent person wouldn't agree that sharing and caring is a good thing? The trouble comes with the "Big S" variety...where government seeks to "enact" a forced version of what should be an intrinsic societal trait. Further complicating the argument is the fact that even in our "Capitalist" society...we do have limited socialism; for example: taxation to pay for public services and education.

Personally, I don't worship at the alter of "Capitalism"; I believe that to whom much is given, much is required. However, I also try to live in reality...taking 50% of my paycheck to pay for programs aimed at controlling votes and handed out to those satisfied to live off others, as opposed to those needing a helping hand...is only going to hurt my family. Arguing that 0% of my income should be taxed, sounds equally unrealistic.

That said, were I to somehow publish that "best seller" I've been working on for four years, invent a better mousetrap, or discover I'm heir to a fortune...my personal beliefs inform me that I owe at least 10% of that, however much it is, towards ensuring those less fortunate benefit from my success.

Cynics will say that since none to few people have that mentality...it must be enacted by law. I can see their point. However, the people who legislate are equally corruptible, and history would indicate that socialist forms of government soon become communist...or some flavor thereof, which always ends up nasty.

The hard truth is that the wealthy got that way, and remain that way by not being altruistic. Whether we "lesser" folks like it our not, we depend on their desire to increase their wealth to create the jobs we survive on (even if just barely). Start hitting them in the pocketbook too hard, and they'll quit playing...Unless we abolish currency, go to a barter system, and forego all of our conveniences...that won't work.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made May 11 at 2016 12:13 PM

LTC Paul Labrador — Wed, 11 May 2016 12:13:06 -0400

I think concepts like Socialism and Capitalism are not black and white, but work on a sliding scale. The real question is how much of each are you willing to have and how do you control it? Honestly, I believe in the Social Contract whereas as a member of a society, I do owe some contribution for the common good. To me that means paying fair share of taxes for shared benefits (ie road, infrastructure, publilc schools, emergency services and military, etc) is OK. However, I start to get a bit antsy when we start sliding into the social welfare stuff. Why? Because while paying taxes for shared things I'm okay with, I am not okay with paying taxes to give money to someone who is not being as productive as I am, because that is NOT a shared benefit.

Response by MSgt Michael Bischoff made May 11 at 2016 12:26 PM

MSgt Michael Bischoff — Wed, 11 May 2016 12:26:10 -0400

I agree with consensus it has nothing to with political ideology.

Then of course you have this
http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2016/02/03/air-force-seizure-phones-texting-miley-cyrus-lyrics-didnt-violate-pilots-rights-watchdog-says/79743314/

Air Force seizure of phones linked to Miley Cyrus lyrics didn't violate pilots' rights, IG says

The Air Force didn’t violate the rights of three Laughlin airmen when it seized their phones as part of an investigation into inappropriate conduct, a top Pentagon watchdog said, but added that some parts of the law are “unsettled.

Response by PFC Alexander Oliveira made May 11 at 2016 12:55 PM

PFC Alexander Oliveira — Wed, 11 May 2016 12:55:33 -0400

how does socialism constitute having your phone taken from you and sold?

Response by CW4 Guy Butler made May 11 at 2016 12:57 PM

CW4 Guy Butler — Wed, 11 May 2016 12:57:32 -0400

Might want to ask these guys:

"A Texas company wants to condemn private property in Georgia for a pipeline to deliver energy to Florida.

Sound familiar?

It should. For the second time this year an interstate pipeline builder threatens to use eminent domain to seize Georgia land from reluctant property owners."

This one's a "local" one for me at the moment; just one example.

http://www.myajc.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/south-georgia-pipeline-fight-turns-into-battle-ove/nrD5C/

Pipeline wants to take land from South Georgians

A Texas company wants to condemn private property in Georgia for a pipeline to deliver energy to Florida.

Response by SGT Ben Keen made May 11 at 2016 12:59 PM

SGT Ben Keen — Wed, 11 May 2016 12:59:49 -0400

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member - Just a heads up, I changed the title of this discussion and another discussion you started earlier today. These changes were made based on our standing guidelines. I ask that you please take a minute to read through these guidelines so that you can better reach the community and get the answers you are looking for.

You may read through the standards by reading this article.
http://support.rallypoint.com/customer/en/portal/articles/1495555-guidelines-on-questions

Please feel free to contact myself, SSG James J. Palmer IV aka "JP4", or SSG Carlos Madden if you have any questions. We would happily answer them for you. Thank you.

Guidelines on Questions

The following are guidelines for proper Question Title format in our Answers Forums:1. Question titles should follow s...

Response by SGT Edward Wilcox made May 11 at 2016 1:42 PM

SGT Edward Wilcox — Wed, 11 May 2016 13:42:49 -0400

Another excellent example of how little you understand socialism. May I suggest you pick up a book and read it? It has become obvious that these questions are here simply to further a political agenda. If you were truly interested in understanding socialism, or more precisely democratic socialism, then you would actually do some research, instead of putting questions on social media sites.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made May 11 at 2016 1:44 PM

Capt Seid Waddell — Wed, 11 May 2016 13:44:27 -0400

Trying to understand the "thinking" of socialists is a futile undertaking; there is nothing rational about socialism - it is an emotional position.

Response by GySgt Carl Rumbolo made May 11 at 2016 1:58 PM

GySgt Carl Rumbolo — Wed, 11 May 2016 13:58:16 -0400

Nice piece of 'click bait' - you pose a question that is worded to raise 'outrage' over someone taking something and somehow attempt to tie it to 'socialism' (nice use of a 'trigger' word).

A pointless argument, typically made by someone who fails to understand 'socialism' in a economic context and merely assumes that it means 'taking something from someone ' (usually at gun point).

You might try to educate yourself on the differences between capitalism, socialism and command economics and understand the relative relationships. The United States economic system is not a pure form of capitalism - it is, essentially a regulated system with a mix of capitalism and socialism, including wealth transfer, regulation, anti-trust rules, etc.

Try again and next time maybe you won't be such an obvious troll.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made May 11 at 2016 2:14 PM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Wed, 11 May 2016 14:14:25 -0400

All forms of Government are Socialist, The opposite of Socialism is not Capitalism, The opposite of Socialism is Anarchy. It is just the manner of Socialism you choose and which Social Group it Benefits and how much.

Response by MSG Brad Sand made May 11 at 2016 3:15 PM

MSG Brad Sand — Wed, 11 May 2016 15:15:04 -0400

If the question was not asked on RP and in a military forum, I would have answered 'Yes', or at least for a bit longer in the United States BUT as a member of the military that answer is not the hard 'Yes' it would be in the civilian sector.

Response by MSgt James Mullis made May 11 at 2016 3:23 PM

MSgt James Mullis — Wed, 11 May 2016 15:23:08 -0400

When Jesus was asked whether or not it is right for Jews to pay the taxes demanded by Caesar, he replied "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's". When Caesar's duly appointed representatives (in our case the IRS) demands that I pay taxes, I pay them. I don't complain that I pay more in taxes than the Swede's do or less in taxes than the French do (FYI: they are both "Socialist" nations).

Socialism is far less about taxes than it is about who controls production: individuals or the state. Where the high taxes creates a problem is its dilatory effect on the ability of the poor to improve their lot in life. When you're making $240 a year, it's almost impossible to save or raise enough money to start a business. Even if you have quality health care (which you pay for no matter what) your lot in life is stagnant. Some simple research will show you that in all of today's socialist countries, the families that started out wealthy remained wealthy and folks from poor families remained poor.

Response by Capt Michael Greene made May 11 at 2016 3:42 PM

Capt Michael Greene — Wed, 11 May 2016 15:42:52 -0400

Ha ha! Yes, Sgt Needham, a few educating remarks are in order.
Many people think "socialism" is the state owns everything, and everybody gets what they need from the state. Even Red China doesn't do that. I spent three weeks touring China, and saw private individuals running around stocking up on consumer goods in bulk so they could sell it and keep the profits. China now has a lot of billionaires. Maybe Soviet Russia tried to be that kind of "socialist" but I've never been there. From the looks of North Korea and Cuba, that brand of socialism doesn't work at all.

The "democratic socialist" countries in Europe and elsewhere have good capitalist economies and democratic voting. In fact, several of those countries are rated more "economically free" than the USA! What makes them socialist is that their governments have implemented various versions of healthcare and social security systems that are more comprehensive than ours. The workers there pay higher taxes than we do, but they typically pay absolutely nothing for healthcare all their lives. The government mandates that employers treat employees fairly, and even requires a fair amount of paid vacation. And if they're out of work, the government keeps them afloat so they don't slide into poverty. If you google "OECD Better Living Index," you'll find the 30 richest countries compared on a dozen quality of life indicators. The people in those countries that we deride as "overtaxed socialists" are, in fact, quite happy and entrepreneurial. The government doesn't steal their phones. :)

About Bernie Sanders: He has always called himself a democratic socialist, but in fact, he's been working for his constituents for 30 years, and they like him. I looked and saw that the American Socialist Party and the American Communist Party DO NOT endorse Sanders. They say he's not really a socialist. They say he's just another Democrat.

Sanders and his people are not a "socialist movement." They're Americans who believe that unregulated, runaway Wall Street CEOs and billionaires are continuing to bleed the middle class by buying politicians. You might remember when Wall Street's unchecked gambling nearly destroyed the world financial system in 2008, and it cost taxpayers nearly a trillion dollars to bail out the banks and the auto industry, so we could avoid a world-wide Great Depression #2.

Now "redistribution of wealth." That's a standard phrase in economics that means taxation. Every elected government in the world decides where to spend money: roads, defense, space, whatever. Then we pay taxes and the politicians put the money where they want it: contractors, factories, soldiers, doctors, whatever. Ideally, we agree with our representatives. THAT's what's called redistribution of wealth. It's one of the main tasks of all governments.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 11 at 2016 8:54 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 11 May 2016 20:54:33 -0400

If things were not like they are I would not think that this would be a real question the fact that it is well is just sad.

Response by SSG Gerhard S. made May 11 at 2016 11:02 PM

SSG Gerhard S. — Wed, 11 May 2016 23:02:58 -0400

Property ownership is the basis of freedom. It starts with ownership of one's self. This recognition of self ownership implies the right to use, and defend oneself, i.e. ones property. And if we own ourselves, and can defend ourselves, doesn't it follow that the property we peaceably acquire belongs to us as well? And doesn't it follow that we have the right to defend that property, as our own, just as we have the right to defend our most basic property, namely, our own selves? Of course, a peaceably acquired cell phone belongs to its owner and nobody has the right to acquire it from that owner through the use of force, or fraud.