World Socialism Will Ultimately Prevail over Capitalism and Individual LIberty

[Tribesman]

I think you just glance over it, pick a sentence or two, and then make a comment on what you think it may be about.

isn't that what this forum is for

I have come to the realization that the values of the United States have died in the cradle.
Can you think of a revolution whose values didn't die in the cradle , or shortly after weaning ?

America is nothing more than a single nation with 50 administrative regions, and nothing more.
Now that isn't true is it

I will continue to serve my community. I will continue to care for my fellow man. And I will continue to believe in the ideals of individual liberty so long as I live.

[Cronos Impera]

The problem with democracy is universal suffarage and every democratic power has it.
Every poor, materialistic idiot over the age of 18 ( 20 in other places) has the same power as a more wealthy, more concious citizen.The curent democratic system allows corruption and idiocy to rule supreme, while competence is throw to the dumpster in the name of political correctness and equality.
Since democracy is based on the power of the masses and masses are usually dumb, it is natural that geneticly superior men will be bullied and pushed to the edge of society because stupid people are green with envy on everyone with a well-diserved edge.

But, since the world would be a more dull place without stupid masses, I thank the stupid masses for their very existance.

[Sigurd]

World Socialism Will Ultimately Prevail over Capitalism and Individual LIberty? No. Because socialist nanny-states cannot succeed economically.

Investor's Business Daily Editorial

Sweden has socialistic neighbour that don’t quite fit this theory... sorry to burst your .

[JAG]

DA - I am sorry to say that your post is possibly the biggest piece of tripe I have ever read on these forums, ever. What a load of sterotypical, groundless and aimless 'projections', which you would expect in an active 12 year old. It would probably take all day to go through that post and give any kind of response, because it is - all of it - simply put, a whole heap of words with no common purpose other than to fill space and time.

[Watchman]

If you ask me DA should go and read up on the history and developement of the sovereign centralized state. Half of what he seems to consider some sort of new and terrible threat to whatever has already been well tried and had its worst bugs worked out from hundreds of years ago, and the results seem to have worked pretty well overall. Better than the competition anyway.

And, IMHO, stop being a drama queen with sectarian delusions of what the US of A was, is and will be, what it was built on, what it became a superpower with, and how it will try to remain so.

PS: I also kinda wonder if he's been reading Hobbes' Leviathan or something inspired by it. If so he'll probably be relieved to hear centralized states didn't really work out that way in practice, and more importantly evolved further away from those pessimistic visions.

[AntiochusIII]

The problem with democracy is universal suffarage and every democratic power has it.
Every poor, materialistic idiot over the age of 18 ( 20 in other places) has the same power as a more wealthy, more concious citizen.The curent democratic system allows corruption and idiocy to rule supreme, while competence is throw to the dumpster in the name of political correctness and equality.
Since democracy is based on the power of the masses and masses are usually dumb, it is natural that geneticly superior men will be bullied and pushed to the edge of society because stupid people are green with envy on everyone with a well-diserved edge.

But, since the world would be a more dull place without stupid masses, I thank the stupid masses for their very existance.

Yeah...

Who's the Superior Guy again? Don't, please, ever say something along the lines of Aryan. Those dumbarses genocided their way through the natives of India anyway, if the theories are correct. And don't tell me Romans either.

The masses are dumb; the rulers are not dumb; so the rulers got to exploit the masses--is that your thesis? Because that's crap.

Genetically superior men...you actually believe that?

Stupid people and well-deserved edge...seriously?

A class of genetically superior people...what in the world?

Jeez. What a tripe. What's the skin color that designate the Superior Man? What's his or her required height; his or her gender preference; his or her looks; his or her lineage; his or her...political affiliation?

[Watchman]

Didn't some wit observe that democracy isn't so much a method to arrive at the best decision as to avoid the worst ones...? And another that it substituted the stupidity of the many for the cruelty of the few ?

[Papewaio]

Since democracy is based on the power of the masses and masses are usually dumb, it is natural that geneticly superior men will be bullied and pushed to the edge of society because stupid people are green with envy on everyone with a well-diserved edge.

But, since the world would be a more dull place without stupid masses, I thank the stupid masses for their very existance.

Dumb agents in mass can normally outperform a single smart agent in speedily finding a solution.

A quick look at countries that are democracies for a long time vs short time vs non-democractic and it is a pretty clear picture that the uber-leader idea isn't everything it is cracked up to be... uber-leaders ego rarely matches reality.

[Divinus Arma]

Well. I certainly seemed to have rubbed the socialist/communist/redistribution theorist the wrong way.

I theorize that (a) Socialism is inevitable, (b) This is neither bad nor good but inevitable, and (c) as a prallel point for demonstartion I cite the decline of America's founding ideals. In return, I get borderline ad hominem attacks and unrestrained anger. It seems to me that I have touched a nerve, and as is my custom, I shall continue to dig.

Allow me to elaborate, since my incoherent unorganized ramblings have caused such rage in some of our leftist members.

I am conceding that the "American" Ideals as written in the constitution have been steadily eroded to the point where the American state is no longer recognizable from its original founding form.

Granted, the original form was imperfect. Western culture at that point was not evolved enough to allow for race and gender blind suffrage. I acknowledge that, and fortunately the definition of citizenship has evolved to include the rest of our populace.

Here are the key points where I see evidence of the American decline (or assent, if you so choose to view it that way) to socialism.

(1) States were essentially sovereign, but for the unity as required under the enumerated powers of the federal government. The framers were very specific in outlining the powers of the entity unifying the states. It was recognized that confederation failed because of a lack of "glue". Fair enough. I agree with the need to form a government unifying the states under standardized and specifically outlined powers. But all other powers were left to the states. What do we have now? Under the commerce clause and supremacy clause, the national government has expanded its potential for power into almost every aspect of state level governance, ultimately undermining state self-determination under the guise of "commerce". As Justice O'Conner wrote in Ashcroft v. Raich, "We enforce the “outer limits” of Congress’ Commerce Clause authority not for their own sake, but to protecthistoric spheres of state sovereignty from excessive federal encroachment and thereby to maintain the distribution ofpower fundamental to our federalist system of government". Further, O'Conner wrote: "Today’s decision suggests that the federal regulation of local activity is immune to Commerce Clause challenge because Congress chose to act with an ambitious, all-encompassing statute, rather than piecemeal. In my view,allowing Congress to set the terms of the constitutional debate in this way, i.e., by packaging regulation of local activity in broader schemes, is tantamount to removing meaningful limits on the Commerce Clause." "...little may be left to the notion of enumerated powers."

FULL CASE TEXT FROM RAICH

The errosion of the enumerated powers under the commerce-supremacy formula began with Wickard, and will continue into the future.

The consequence is the absolute elimination of State sovereignty as envisioned and demanded under the Consitution of the United States.


(2) Citizens of this country had a right to land ownership, free from government theft unless it benefited the greater public good. Land ownership was guaranteed and protected. The only instances where a man's land could be taken from him under eminent domain was for government use where it was necessary; roads, utilities, extreme instances of blight, and et cetera. Now, under Kelo v. New London, local government may take a man's land and grant it to another private citizen if that private citizen is able to devlop the land and improve the tax base. Thus, no property is safe and the feeding frenzy has already begun.


Now Gentleman, how long do you think it will be before there is a synthesis of power under a supremacy-commerce-eminent domain formula?

That is federal-level socialism.

Why is this eventual? Because the ignorant masses wil demand it, the middle class will ignore it, the liberal elite will support it, and the rest of us will go to hell.

[Papewaio]

(1) States were essentially sovereign, but for the unity as required under the enumerated powers of the federal government. The framers were very specific in outlining the powers of the entity unifying the states. It was recognized that confederation failed because of a lack of "glue". Fair enough. I agree with the need to form a government unifying the states under standardized and specifically outlined powers. But all other powers were left to the states.

States consolidating into Federal... modern communications and infrastructure could mean the removal of tiers of government.

But state rights are independent of individual rights. I don't think having strong states means any more or less socialism.

(2) Now, under Kelo v. New London, local government may take a man's land and grant it to another private citizen if that private citizen is able to devlop the land and improve the tax base. Thus, no property is safe and the feeding frenzy has already begun.

Surely that is unfettered capitalism... it seems you do not like the conclusion and hence would want a system that protects individuals first and has a capital economy second. A neo-socialist.

Which some democratic-neo-socialist governments crossed with capitalistic economies do.

[Divinus Arma]

Surely that is unfettered capitalism...

Private property rights are essential to capitalism.

It is not capitalism to take away another's property against their will and give it to somebody else. That is not a market economy.

[Reverend Joe]

Well. I certainly seemed to have rubbed the socialist/communist/redistribution theorist the wrong way.

I theorize that (a) Socialism is inevitable, (b) This is neither bad nor good but inevitable, and (c) as a prallel point for demonstartion I cite the decline of America's founding ideals. In return, I get borderline ad hominem attacks and unrestrained anger. It seems to me that I have touched a nerve, and as is my custom, I shall continue to dig.

Allow me to elaborate, since my incoherent unorganized ramblings have caused such rage in some of our leftist members.

I am conceding that the "American" Ideals as written in the constitution have been steadily eroded to the point where the American state is no longer recognizable from its original founding form.

Granted, the original form was imperfect. Western culture at that point was not evolved enough to allow for race and gender blind suffrage. I acknowledge that, and fortunately the definition of citizenship has evolved to include the rest of our populace.

Here are the key points where I see evidence of the American decline (or assent, if you so choose to view it that way) to socialism.

(1) States were essentially sovereign, but for the unity as required under the enumerated powers of the federal government. The framers were very specific in outlining the powers of the entity unifying the states. It was recognized that confederation failed because of a lack of "glue". Fair enough. I agree with the need to form a government unifying the states under standardized and specifically outlined powers. But all other powers were left to the states. What do we have now? Under the commerce clause and supremacy clause, the national government has expanded its potential for power into almost every aspect of state level governance, ultimately undermining state self-determination under the guise of "commerce". As Justice O'Conner wrote in Ashcroft v. Raich, "We enforce the “outer limits” of Congress’ Commerce Clause authority not for their own sake, but to protecthistoric spheres of state sovereignty from excessive federal encroachment and thereby to maintain the distribution ofpower fundamental to our federalist system of government". Further, O'Conner wrote: "Today’s decision suggests that the federal regulation of local activity is immune to Commerce Clause challenge because Congress chose to act with an ambitious, all-encompassing statute, rather than piecemeal. In my view,allowing Congress to set the terms of the constitutional debate in this way, i.e., by packaging regulation of local activity in broader schemes, is tantamount to removing meaningful limits on the Commerce Clause." "...little may be left to the notion of enumerated powers."

FULL CASE TEXT FROM RAICH

The errosion of the enumerated powers under the commerce-supremacy formula began with Wickard, and will continue into the future.

The consequence is the absolute elimination of State sovereignty as envisioned and demanded under the Consitution of the United States.


(2) Citizens of this country had a right to land ownership, free from government theft unless it benefited the greater public good. Land ownership was guaranteed and protected. The only instances where a man's land could be taken from him under eminent domain was for government use where it was necessary; roads, utilities, extreme instances of blight, and et cetera. Now, under Kelo v. New London, local government may take a man's land and grant it to another private citizen if that private citizen is able to devlop the land and improve the tax base. Thus, no property is safe and the feeding frenzy has already begun.


Now Gentleman, how long do you think it will be before there is a synthesis of power under a supremacy-commerce-eminent domain formula?

That is federal-level socialism.

Why is this eventual? Because the ignorant masses wil demand it, the middle class will ignore it, the liberal elite will support it, and the rest of us will go to hell.

...I lost ya.

[Papewaio]

Capitalism involves privately owned property that is operated for profit.

Corporations are open to having a hostile takeover. All the current law does is create a similar strategy on the private user in which capital will be maximised for profit. The capital will still be privately owned, it just will be operated for more (maximum) profit by the new owner. It does cross the older free market philosophical boundary that all trades should be voluntary.

[Lehesu]

The point that I don't understand in the rant is why the strengthening of federal power over state power heralds a Socialist world?

Huh?

Perhaps for centralized totalitarianism, but socialism? And the idea that the Federal Government insidiously winds and wends itself to take over state powers is absurd. The states have, individually, shown enough incompetence in a wide variety of issues and practically asked or forced federal intervention. Civil rights? Whoops, the states dropped that ball. Economic safety nets? Uh, let the Federal government handle it. And don't stop those block grants, by God!

The states are really not some bastion of capitalism.

And with that redistribution of property to turn more capital? Isn't that extreme capitalism? The incompetent being crushed under the desire for profit? In an extreme capitalist system, some people have to die because they end up in the bottom of the skill pool due to genetics or socio-economic standing. Stripping someone's land because he can't or won't use it to turn a profit strikes me as rather capitalist in the extreme, like firing an employee because he isn't helping the company only on a larger scale.

Perhaps you are lamenting the loss of "American values", the existence of which others can debate, because your definition of socialism isn't gelling with your arguments.

[Watchman]

(2) Citizens of this country had a right to land ownership, free from government theft unless it benefited the greater public good. Land ownership was guaranteed and protected. The only instances where a man's land could be taken from him under eminent domain was for government use where it was necessary; roads, utilities, extreme instances of blight, and et cetera. Now, under Kelo v. New London, local government may take a man's land and grant it to another private citizen if that private citizen is able to devlop the land and improve the tax base. Thus, no property is safe and the feeding frenzy has already begun.

Now Gentleman, how long do you think it will be before there is a synthesis of power under a supremacy-commerce-eminent domain formula?

That is federal-level socialism.

I fail to perceive anything particularly "socialist" in this. Socialism would involve all the land being state (here in the more common meaning of nation-state, not the jumped-up province the Americans use the term for) property and under its direct adminstration in the first place rather than being just moved from one private owner to another, now wouldn't it ?

What it does smack of (at least as presented here), however, is runaway capitalism where the local adminstration has become willing to cooperate with influental private interests to sacrifice individual rights for economic expediency and profit. I don't really see any federal connection here, it being the local governement at work according to the quote above, except perhaps on the judicial side (I presume the case eventually went fairly high up in the courts).

Something in the whole scenario actually kind of reminds me of those old practices of monarchs granting prominent people land, though. In some cases that very nearly led to the introduction of de facto serfdom where none had previously existed, too. All of which has nothing at all to do with socialism - which is pretty much diametrically opposed to such favoritistic and unequal ancien regime style practices anyway as far as basic ideology goes - but could probably be construed as corruption in the context of modern adminstrative bureaucracy, although I'd refrain from doing so without knowing more details of the case.

In any case, I'd say it has much more to do with the self-destructive short-term profiteering of too unrestricted market economy (and related values which subordinate virtually everything else to money and profit), which by its inherent logic of accumulating capital for investement in the accumulation of more capital cannot but lead to eventual concentration of influence and other resources in the hands of a comparatively small elite unlikely to be altogether too restrained by legislation, than socialism in any commonly accepted meaning.

Put this way: a wholly (or practically) unregulated market is practically quaranteed to produce a in practice parasitical class of tax-exempt aristocrats who have a functional stranglehold on various vital resources and can duly exert influence to skew the "rules of the game" to ensure the continuation of their own power and position and stifle any threats to it. Total freedom is its own worst enemy, as it has no safeguards against the already powerful becoming even more powerful and subordinating others for their own ends.

Which in my opinion is really the just about single biggest problem in the US socioeconomy; not enough checks and balances on the "power elite" of the private sector, hence allowing them to run roughshod and try to subvert the sociopolitical structures to their own ends and Devil take the "free market" if it doesn't profit them...


Point (1), however, is rather dubious. The internal structures of states are not some eternal perfect creations; they are subject to changes over the time and in response to stimuli (those that weren't rarely met good ends...), and the US of A certainly has had quite enough of reasons to move towards a more centralized system for much of the past century. Strongly centralized state structures, you see, have proven themselves really good for mustering and deploying the resources for fighting conflicts; that's what the first ones in the modern sovereign "Westphalian" tradition specifically evolved for during the war-torn 1600s in the first place, although the basic principle is in hindsight apparent from way earlier on. And the US fought in two total wars as well as shouldered the better part of the burden of paying for the wars-by-proxy and arms race of the potentially apocalyptic Cold War, if only by the default of being just about the only state in its block that wasn't figuratively or literally a smouldering rubble-field at the start...

And now it has the questionable honour of trying to maintain its imperial pre-eminence in the post-Cold War world where its extremely sophisticated and hideously expensive extant military-intelligence structures are very much a liablity if not employed to "pay themselves back" one way or another, and quite possibly way too thoroughly integrated in the economy, society and political system to be dismantled if necessary.

And guess who rakes in the real profits ? Pretty much the same folks as back in the 1600s - arms manufacturers and merchants and similar unscrupulous tycoons, as well as those capitalists fortunate enough to be in a position where they can otherwise make a profit out of the policies the state pursues for its own reasons.

[Aenlic]

Typical. Someone with faulty understanding puts socialism at one end and individual liberty at the other. I blame the total lack of education received in our so-called education systems.

Socialism does not equal totalitarianism. More BS propaganda given weight by the fools who subscribed to the bastardization of socialism which Lenin created with his "war communism" and which was completely warped beyond all relation to socialism by Stalin and Mao and their toadies.

Just in case you're wondering, Eric Arthur Blair - otherwise known by his pen name George Orwell - was a socialist. He was also against state-controlled Stalinist centrally-run capitalism. That's right I said Stalinism in the same breath as capitalism. Stalinism has more in common with capitalism than with socialism. George Orwell as anti-socialist is just more BS propaganda, too readily believed by the credulous.

Lenin was not and never was the be-all and end-all of socialist theory. Read some Bakunin. Read some Kropotkin. Read any of the number of other socialist libertarian thinkers since those two. That's right. I said socialist libertarian. The Libertarians with a capital L are just dupes of the corporatists. They've been brainwashed into believing that capitalism and corporatism are the same thing. They aren't. They've been duped into believing that capitalism and freedom are the same thing, when in fact corporate consumerism is the real issue and is the exact opposite of true libertarianism - i.e. individual liberty. Corporatists are perfectly happy as long as their freedom to do as they please economically is furthered. Getting the gullible to buy into it by mouthing platitudes about capitalism and freedom is just part of the dogma. In reality, corporatists and corporations couldn't give a rat's ass about your individual freedoms. But they dupe you into thinking capitalist liberty is the same thing as individual liberty. They're just as happy if their freedom to act as they please is guaranteed without your personal freedoms mucking it all up. See fascism for a description of this other side of the coin. Corporations would be perfectly satisfied with laws requiring you to buy their products. Don't kid yourself. Corporations are not the same thing as capitalism.

Will socialism ultimately prevail over the corporate consumerism which parades around calling itself capitalism when it really is not capitalism at all? I hope so. Will socialism AND individual liberty triumph over corporatist so-called capitalism and fascism? Again, I hope so.

And just as an aside, the whole literalist, original intent stuff about the U.S. Constitution means the original poster is in favor of slavery and women not having the right to vote? Just checking. Because both of those were originally intended by the framers of the Constitution and were later overturned by amendment. Not to rain on your parade or anything.

[rory_20_uk]

I find that using mere labels to describe complex socioeconomic systems is not merely pointless, but unhelpful.

Capitalism can be free. It can just as easily bea plutocracy.
Socialism can be free. It can also be taken as one of the dictatorships (military or beaurocratic) that we have at the moment.

Better to describe the government that is supported and the one that is feared. My guess is often we'll be using different names for essentially the same thing

[Cronos Impera]

Yeah...

Who's the Superior Guy again? Don't, please, ever say something along the lines of Aryan. Those dumbarses genocided their way through the natives of India anyway, if the theories are correct. And don't tell me Romans either.

The masses are dumb; the rulers are not dumb; so the rulers got to exploit the masses--is that your thesis? Because that's crap.

Genetically superior men...you actually believe that?

Stupid people and well-deserved edge...seriously?

A class of genetically superior people...what in the world?

Jeez. What a tripe. What's the skin color that designate the Superior Man? What's his or her required height; his or her gender preference; his or her looks; his or her lineage; his or her...political affiliation?

No, geneticly superior men aren't Aryan. They are just competent, hard-working individuals who are smart enough to think outside their box, regardless of race, sex,...blablabla. The state was designed as a kidden garden where some uber-leaders are summend to rule over masses of idiots who can't rule by themselves.
Masses of poorly-trained democratic individuals allow autocratic tyrants rise to power. Geneticly inferior men/women are materialistic persons who can't distinguish between propaganda and truth, who belive any utopic crap and head towards it like lemmings towards the sea. They usually vote for the wrong reasons ( eg: Traian Basescu is funnier than other candidates so we vote him) or ( He's a true christian believer so he must do somethin good).
Naive idiots like these often encourage tyrany ( Hittler didn't stage a coop to rise to power, instead he got promoted)..
To vote or get elected, citizens should pass a series of exams ( History, Culture, Ethics, Law) before they put their hands on a stamp. Undemocratic as this may sound, it will help preserve democracy and encourage progress.

[Redleg]

To vote or get elected, citizens should pass a series of exams ( History, Culture, Ethics, Law) before they put their hands on a stamp. Undemocratic as this may sound, it will help preserve democracy and encourage progress.

Someone needs to read Starship Troopers

[Lehesu]

Cronos Impera scares me. I'm sure he would have scared black voters right after the Civil War as well. "Hell yes we need poll questions! Hey you, how exactly was pre-colonial land in Georgia divvied up? By a straight up lottery system, or a tiered first-come-first-serve system? Don't know the answer? Well, you obviously have no business voting!"

Seriously though, anybody that thinks the German people were a stupid race of people or individuals are sadly mistaken. Autocratic governments form for a variety of reasons, and universal suffrage is hardly a threat to democracy. The devil is in the details, and who is to say what qualifies one to vote on an intellectual level.

[Lehesu]

*Double Post*

[Silver Rusher]

That's called COMMUNISM, . One of the two bases of Socialism is absolute freedom (the other being financial equality.) Saying "Socialist Autocracy" is like saying "democratic facism." It doesn't make any sense.

And it doesn't work like that- yes, we will become an autocracy, but why in the hell is the government going to steal from the rich?! They will leave them in their place, because they are being paid to do so.

Isn't communism a TYPE of socialism?

[Ironside]

To vote or get elected, citizens should pass a series of exams ( History, Culture, Ethics, Law) before they put their hands on a stamp. Undemocratic as this may sound, it will help preserve democracy and encourage progress.

The ironic thing is that you would end up with educated, intelligent morons instead.

For example, when they had a debate about the humanification of animals in "debatt" (a debating program), a professor in the subject (yeah quite weird huh ) was saying somewhat surpriced that humans were burying their dead pets as if they were family members.
I mean a professor in the subject who hadn't realized that pets are considered family members for most people. He probably never had a cat or dog either.

The point is that unless someone could come up with a absolute meassurment on people's abillities to get sensible ideas that works very well in practice and has the intention on improving the situation for humans in both the short and long run, all ways to meassure people's abillity to vote well, will end up with an elitism that won't improve the situation, but only add strife into it.

Isn't communism a TYPE of socialism?

Communism is more a way to reach a final stage that if I understood it correctly will resemble Anarchism (no state, people lives in small cummunities). The huge flaw in Communism is that it intends that the state will own everything and after dividing the resources of the state up fairly among the population it will abolish itself. That it pass a stage of Absolute Power gives it the problems that we have seen with Communism.


Any ideas on my question yet?
Why I'm wondering is that the only way (that I can see) to have a functional society if only 60% of the workforce is needed, but it can easily sustain the entire population, is to have some kind of socialistic governing (the easiest way is simply to reduce the working days though, but that's not capitalistic thinking).
Any ideas on alternative scenarios and/or alternative solutions if this situation occurs?

[rory_20_uk]

Reducing work for all is missing one very important thing: some can do work better than others.

So you'd be giving important jobs to people who are known to be worse at doing them than others. It would cause a reduction in output, and deaths in sectors such as healthcare.

[Aenlic]

Except that experience tells us that the least capable workers usually go into management and end being promoted up the line until the least capable are the ones making the decisions. And those promoted who actually are capable will continue to be promoted until they reach the level of their incompetence (the second part is called the Peter Principle). The cream isn't what rises to the top and floats on the surface in a corporation.

[Reverend Joe]

Isn't communism a TYPE of socialism?

ACTUALLY, not really. The extreme forms of both have a common goal of eliminating the market economy entirely; however, whereas Socialism does this by granting absolute freedom to the people and creating a true democracy where every man is involved, Communism attempts to harness the power of totalitarianism to "wipe the slate clean" and create a new system from the ground up. Neither can ever really work, but lesser forms can certainly exist.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Getting back to DA's original points, I think the federal government in the US will continue to expand, absorbing more and more duties held by the state governments and providing more and bigger government-run services, leading to increases in spending and taxes. This won't be called socialism or anything; it will simply be. Few will care as Americans become more sedentary both physically and intellectually. Our politicians will demonstrate time and again that they can agree on taking as much power for themselves as possible. Our rights will decay - like a lobster in a pot with the heat slowly rising, the general populace won't realize it.

Our only hope may lie in a civil war one day. Hopefully not, but I don't see much other course. We haven't found people willing to change the current trend. Though Lemur, you give me a little more hope.

[Lehesu]

God, not another Civil War. The South will lose again and we will have to put up with their bitching for another 200 years...

[Reverend Joe]

Getting back to DA's original points, I think the federal government in the US will continue to expand, absorbing more and more duties held by the state governments and providing more and bigger government-run services, leading to increases in spending and taxes. This won't be called socialism or anything; it will simply be. Few will care as Americans become more sedentary both physically and intellectually. Our politicians will demonstrate time and again that they can agree on taking as much power for themselves as possible. Our rights will decay - like a lobster in a pot with the heat slowly rising, the general populace won't realize it.

Our only hope may lie in a civil war one day. Hopefully not, but I don't see much other course. We haven't found people willing to change the current trend. Though Lemur, you give me a little more hope.

Ever read "Farenheit 451"? The revolution won't just happen; everything we take for granted has to be taken from us in a single instant for change to occurr.

[AntiochusIII]

The dreams of a dramatic, revolutionary change that has been expressed, ironically, by the more rightist members of our forum simply do not have a force to grow beyond a pipe dream. If one simply looks at the histories of revolutions, it would be a most easy observation that revolutions do not happen overnight, and not simply by ideology. The driving force of revolutions have always been the socio-economic conditions and the political atmospheres of that particular system which have to be in quite an extremity before anything close to such situations are possible. The American Revolution, indeed, is an exception--one could, in fact, make a case that this is far less a revolution as opposed to a rebellion directed by and an establishment of another government by the new elite of the colonials, whose interests contradict the motherland's elite.

That they happen to endorse the ideas of the English social philosophers and federalism as opposed to centralism are based on the nature of the situation and the "upbringing" of that particular class itself.

Again, this call that "World Socialism" would dominate the world is both unfounded and futile. Not to mention the fact that this general trend of a decrease in civil rights has nothing to do with socialism.