This is all down to socialism

[practicaldreamer]

Is this all down to the populations of sovereign nation states having control of their countries means of production ?

Or is it down to a global and deregulated free market facilitating gross monopolistic accumulation ?



It would take the worlds richest man, Carlos Slim, 220 years to spend his fortune - and that, at a rate of $1,000,000 per day - according to the latest report on wealth inequality from Oxfam.


This is all down to socialism.

Isn't it ?

[1715688651]

1715688651

[1715688651]

1715688651

[1715688651]

1715688651

[Spendulus]

Is this all down to the populations of sovereign nation states having control of their countries means of production ?

Or is it down to a global and deregulated free market facilitating gross monopolistic accumulation ?



It would take the worlds richest man, Carlos Slim, 220 years to spend his fortune - and that, at a rate of $1,000,000 per day - according to the latest report on wealth inequality from Oxfam.


This is all down to socialism.

Isn't it ?

Yes, the richest men historically have snuggled up next to the evil socialist leaderss to steal from the people.

[username18333]

Is this all down to the populations of sovereign nation states having control of their countries means of production ?

Or is it down to a global and deregulated free market facilitating gross monopolistic accumulation ?



It would take the worlds richest man, Carlos Slim, 220 years to spend his fortune - and that, at a rate of $1,000,000 per day - according to the latest report on wealth inequality from Oxfam.


This is all down to socialism.

Isn't it ?

Yes, the richest men historically have snuggled up next to the evil socialist leaderss to steal from the people.

That is state socialism. There is also anarchist communism.

[Mccoy818]

I just can't stop imagining how you can spend 1,000,000 in one day? Everyday. In your whole life!

[EternalWingsofGod]

Is this all down to the populations of sovereign nation states having control of their countries means of production ?

Or is it down to a global and deregulated free market facilitating gross monopolistic accumulation ?



It would take the worlds richest man, Carlos Slim, 220 years to spend his fortune - and that, at a rate of $1,000,000 per day - according to the latest report on wealth inequality from Oxfam.


This is all down to socialism.

Isn't it ?

Really 220 Years
Slim may as well just invest in space development and build a personal gundam fleet with some Space Ready Ships
(They can build the lightdrive and put it in later) Find other uses for them in the short term.
Then to top it all of create the worlds first mass driver for sending objects to outer space
Begin the space colonizing age slowly and start with the moon and acquire any resources they need there to make Plants (Giant space colonies ^_^)

Put it on one of the Lagrangian points, to allow human habitation in space. The interior of each space colony usually replicates the surface of the Earth and the colony simulates gravity by rotating.

Enter CE Era (Cosmic)

[username18333]

Is this all down to the populations of sovereign nation states having control of their countries means of production ?

Or is it down to a global and deregulated free market facilitating gross monopolistic accumulation ?



It would take the worlds richest man, Carlos Slim, 220 years to spend his fortune - and that, at a rate of $1,000,000 per day - according to the latest report on wealth inequality from Oxfam.


This is all down to socialism.

Isn't it ?

Really 220 Years
Slim may as well just invest in space development and build a personal gundam fleet with some Space Ready Ships
(They can build the lightdrive and put it in later) Find other uses for them in the short term.
Then to top it all of create the worlds first mass driver for sending objects to outer space
Begin the space colonizing age slowly and start with the moon and acquire any resources they need there to make Plants (Giant space colonies ^_^)
Enter CE Era (Cosmic)

Better yet, he could pay down the debt that's propping up his "wealth."

[BADecker]

It is socialism.

All the forms of socialism except one place the power of the many into the hands of the few. The few are those in governments who direct the "property" of the everybody to be distributed evenly across society. What really happens is that the property of the many is distributed into the hands of those who are in government. Why? Because government people act in trust. But they can't resist the wealth. So they break their trust, and steal the wealth of the people. It always happens this way in the long run, and most of the time in the short run.

The people of common law countries - United States, Canada, the UK, India, Australia - don't realize what they have in the common law. The common law operates the ONLY kind of socialism that works - voluntary socialism. What is voluntary socialism? This is where the people own the property, individually, and they voluntarily, as each sees fit, donate the property to the poor.

Socialism is gradually taking over the common law in common law countries. How is it being done? The people are being trained out of their knowledge of common law in the public schools.

It's about time that the free people in ALL the common law countries, start to wake up to the fact of what they are losing, and start to re-learn common law, and then to use it to maintain ALL their property and ALL THEIR RIGHTS!

One of the best places to look on the Net for what common law is all about is http://1215.org/, and particularly http://1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/lectures/introduction/index.html. One of the best teachers about how to practically use common law can be found here http://www.broadmind.org/, here http://www.unkommonlaw.co.uk/, and here http://www.myprivateaudio.com/Karl-Lentz.html.

Let's wake up before we lose the world to the socialistic schemers who want to control everything, the superrich and the governments of the world.

[username18333]

It is socialism.

All the forms of socialism except one place the power of the many into the hands of the few. The few are those in governments who direct the "property" of the everybody to be distributed evenly across society. What really happens is that the property of the many is distributed into the hands of those who are in government. Why? Because government people act in trust. But they can't resist the wealth. So they break their trust, and steal the wealth of the people. It always happens this way in the long run, and most of the time in the short run.

The people of common law countries - United States, Canada, the UK, India, Australia - don't realize what they have in the common law. The common law operates the ONLY kind of socialism that works - voluntary socialism. What is voluntary socialism? This is where the people own the property, individually, and they voluntarily, as each sees fit, donate the property to the poor.

Socialism is gradually taking over the common law in common law countries. How is it being done? The people are being trained out of their knowledge of common law in the public schools.

It's about time that the free people in ALL the common law countries, start to wake up to the fact of what they are losing, and start to re-learn common law, and then to use it to maintain ALL their property and ALL THEIR RIGHTS!

One of the best places to look on the Net for what common law is all about is http://1215.org/, and particularly http://1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/lectures/introduction/index.html. One of the best teachers about how to practically use common law can be found here http://www.broadmind.org/, here http://www.unkommonlaw.co.uk/, and here http://www.myprivateaudio.com/Karl-Lentz.html.

Let's wake up before we lose the world to the socialistic schemers who want to control everything, the superrich and the governments of the world.

(Who's the propagandist?)

The point is that Marxism and anarchism are built up on entirely different principles, in spite of the fact that both come into the arena of the struggle under the flag of socialism. The cornerstone of anarchism is the individual, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the masses, the collective body. According to the tenets of anarchism, the emancipation of the masses is impossible until the individual is emancipated. Accordingly, its slogan is: "Everything for the individual." The cornerstone of Marxism, however, is the masses, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the individual. That is to say, according to the tenets of Marxism, the emancipation of the individual is impossible until the masses are emancipated. Accordingly, its slogan is: "Everything for the masses."

Clearly, we have here two principles, one negating the other, and not merely disagreements on tactics.

(Emphasis mine.)

(Perhaps it is he that would promote the sustenance of State?)

[Spendulus]

It is socialism.

All the forms of socialism except one place the power of the many into the hands of the few. The few are those in governments who direct the "property" of the everybody to be distributed evenly across society. What really happens is that the property of the many is distributed into the hands of those who are in government. Why? Because government people act in trust. But they can't resist the wealth. So they break their trust, and steal the wealth of the people. It always happens this way in the long run, and most of the time in the short run.

The people of common law countries - United States, Canada, the UK, India, Australia - don't realize what they have in the common law. The common law operates the ONLY kind of socialism that works - voluntary socialism. What is voluntary socialism? This is where the people own the property, individually, and they voluntarily, as each sees fit, donate the property to the poor.

Socialism is gradually taking over the common law in common law countries. How is it being done? The people are being trained out of their knowledge of common law in the public schools.

It's about time that the free people in ALL the common law countries, start to wake up to the fact of what they are losing, and start to re-learn common law, and then to use it to maintain ALL their property and ALL THEIR RIGHTS!

One of the best places to look on the Net for what common law is all about is http://1215.org/, and particularly http://1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/lectures/introduction/index.html. One of the best teachers about how to practically use common law can be found here http://www.broadmind.org/, here http://www.unkommonlaw.co.uk/, and here http://www.myprivateaudio.com/Karl-Lentz.html.

Let's wake up before we lose the world to the socialistic schemers who want to control everything, the superrich and the governments of the world.

(Who's the propagandist?)

The point is that Marxism and anarchism are built up on entirely different principles, in spite of the fact that both come into the arena of the struggle under the flag of socialism. The cornerstone of anarchism is the individual, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the masses, the collective body. According to the tenets of anarchism, the emancipation of the masses is impossible until the individual is emancipated. Accordingly, its slogan is: "Everything for the individual." The cornerstone of Marxism, however, is the masses, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the individual. That is to say, according to the tenets of Marxism, the emancipation of the individual is impossible until the masses are emancipated. Accordingly, its slogan is: "Everything for the masses."

Clearly, we have here two principles, one negating the other, and not merely disagreements on tactics.

(Emphasis mine.)

(Perhaps it is he that would promote the sustenance of State?)

The primary philosophical advocate of capitalism, Ayn Rand, was completely opposed to the accumulation of wealth by snuggling up to socialist leaders.

I guess she was more a anarchist capitalist than a crony capitalist...

[practicaldreamer]

Thats got to be photoshopped  .

When would Trotsky ever be seen dead with Freddie Mercury or Axel Rose ?

GTFO

[CoinCube]

Is this all down to the populations of sovereign nation states having control of their countries means of production ?

Or is it down to a global and deregulated free market facilitating gross monopolistic accumulation ?

It would take the worlds richest man, Carlos Slim, 220 years to spend his fortune - and that, at a rate of $1,000,000 per day - according to the latest report on wealth inequality from Oxfam.

This is all down to socialism.

Isn't it ?

You can not blame socialism for creating income inequality. Even in times when socialism was a shadow of what it is today 1870-1900. You had the robber barons and massive income inequality.

What socialism does is protect such entities from competition that might otherwise destroy them. Socialism allows such monopolistic growths to cease innovating and and simply survive as parasites on the population.  

Our problem is not socialism but our underlying fractional reserve based economic system. Socialism might work just fine in an economy with honest money, were fractional reserve lending was outlawed, and where government was required keep a balanced budget and barred from issuing debt.

The problem with any such dream system is its tendency to naturally decay into what we have today. In today's world socialism is simply the tool finance will use to steal the wealth of the upper 51-98% of the population. The bottom 1-50% has already been mostly wiped out by fractional reserve, debt, and usury.  
  

[RoadTrain]

Our problem is not socialism but our underlying fractional reserve based economic system. Socialism might work just fine in an economy with honest money, were fractional reserve lending was outlawed, and where government was required keep a balanced budget and barred from issuing debt.

Yep, blame the system, not the people.
What kind of a replacement to FRB would you suggest btw?

[Elwar]

It is all the same.

"Leaders" taking power from people to build up their own power so that they have more power to take more power from the people. That is what it all boils down to...over and over throughout history.

What excuses are your leaders giving to gain more power?

[CoinCube]

Yep, blame the system, not the people.
What kind of a replacement to FRB would you suggest btw?

An honest and ethical banking system would operate without any fractional reserve money creation.

Banks should have two kinds of deposits.

1) Deposits that are not lent out but kept for immediate withdraw. Banks should be required to keep 100% of these on hand and would charge the depositor a fee for this service.

2) Deposits that are lent out as loans. This money once lent would not be available for withdraw and the interest paid on the loan would go directly to the depositor. The bank would take a fee to administer the loan and identify appropriate borrowers.

Combine this with an honest currency. This could be gold or better yet cryptocurrency something that is non fiat with an inflation rate of population growth rate + 1-2% a year.

[BADecker]

Common law socialism is a term I coined. It may be that others have coined it as well.

Common law socialism is different than any other form of socialism. It is socialism only in the sense that the people have complete freedom to "socialize" or not, and when and when not to do it.

Common law socialism is not capitalism. Capitalism, at its core, suggests a movement towards fascism. How? Those who are smart will gradually own more and more property. They will use the wealth of their property to gradually control everything and everybody so that they gain more wealth. Common law allows people who feel oppressed by capitalism to be able to step out of it without any detrimental action being done towards them or their property for doing so. Advanced capitalism would stop such stepping out.

Ayn Rand was right in her ideas of freedom, but wrong in her lack of common law.

[Elwar]

Common law allows people who feel oppressed by capitalism to be able to step out of it without any detrimental action being done towards them or their property for doing so.

Would a rich person be able to pay them not to step out of it?

[BADecker]

Common law allows people who feel oppressed by capitalism to be able to step out of it without any detrimental action being done towards them or their property for doing so.

Would a rich person be able to pay them not to step out of it?

Yes, but he wouldn't be able to force them to take the pay and step out.

The United States is set up under common law. But with the IRS tax, and the Obama welfare, the people are almost forced to accept the pay.

The thing about the U.S. is that the common law is built into it in such a way that people can stop paying the income tax, and there is nothing that the government can do about it. The hinge point that gives the government the power is, the people don't know how to stop the government, although it is right in the basic law, the Constitution and the Preamble.

To start learning - it's going to take more than ten minutes - see http://1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/lectures/introduction/index.html. Once you start getting it, see https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5duR4OvEHHxOSdEZhANETw for the practical application.

DON'T JUMP INTO ANYTHING THAT YOU SEE IN THESE SITES, WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT YOU ARE DOING!

[BitMos]

Yes, but he wouldn't be able to force them to take the pay and step out.

The United States is set up under common law. But with the IRS tax, and the Obama welfare, the people are almost forced to accept the pay.

They say that they want to force you to pay for the sick (moral attack if you don't want), but to face the truth, all is about creating big pool of money for those unable to provide values to others to leech. Why should I be forced to pay money to the health issues of my amish gay smoking pot&drinking booze while playing poker in a dry town friend? Do you want me to restack him even? I don't get it... And how do you think it sustainable? Shall my friend be forced (reconditioned) to not drink, smoke and gamble? would be better for him anyway  .

[BADecker]

Yes, but he wouldn't be able to force them to take the pay and step out.

The United States is set up under common law. But with the IRS tax, and the Obama welfare, the people are almost forced to accept the pay.

They say that they want to force you to pay for the sick (moral attack if you don't want), but to face the truth, all is about creating big pool of money for those unable to provide values to others to leech. Why should I be forced to pay money to the health issues of my amish gay smoking pot&drinking booze while playing poker in a dry town friend? Do you want me to restack him even? I don't get it... And how do you think it sustainable? Shall my friend be forced (reconditioned) to not drink, smoke and gamble? would be better for him anyway  .

Perhaps you don't understand what I am saying. And perhaps I don't understand what you mean.

Nobody is forced to pay the IRS. All people who remain ignorant might be forced to pay the IRS. Remaining in ignorance is not a requirement. That's what the links I referenced are about - and other things, like freedom to smoke or not to smoke.

The common law of the United States offers, maybe, a hundred times the freedom that the people are exercising. The people would like to have the freedoms. But they simply don't know how to do it. Start by reviewing the links I entered.

[BitMos]

I will, thx a lot