favor of "free will"?

How does the forceful taking and redistributing of someone elses personal wealth/possessions to others demonstrate a Socialists committment to "free will"?

""How does the forceful taking and redistributing of someone elses personal wealth/possessions to others demonstrate a Socialists committment to "free will"?""Berzerker

It doesn't... Just as being American and being coerced into repetitious recital of a socialist pledge doesn't dictate for certain that the reciter understands the difference. Still the act is SOCIALISTIC IN SCOPE.

To be a true SOCIALIST you will not object to social care, social schooling, unions, or even habits clearly socialistic in nature, so those that believe redistribution of wealth is "socialism in disguise," I agree with.

Therefore, corporations should be taxed and not the citizen's income! Corporations have that capacity. This is a perfect example of socialism the rich squeezing out the middle class or any other class. All citizens should be taxed the same rate doing away with that argument once in for all, right?

In my book there should be no difference between corporation taxation and individual taxation. All should be taxed with one identical rate, ending the taxation debate, but hey, that smacks of socialism too, doesn't it Berk? Gee, now what?

Seasoldier/I wonder why Bush is a SOCIALIST? Didn't he sign on to the NORTH AMERICAN UNION? There you have it, rich cats redistributing wealth upward, while pretending to despise socialism they affirm their signature to a "UNION CONTRACT!" So, what's the difference, both ways is SOCIALISTIC in nature.

I know of few Socialists in America.However,I know a lot of people who would consider themselves Democratic Socialist,such as myself.

What is you definition of a "SOCIALIST?" And, before you go there please explain to me the DIFFERENCE between DEMOCRACY and REPUBLIC.

Seasoldier/It is easy to BRAND yourself one or the other until it comes time to explain it. A REPUBLIC cannot be a DEMOCRACY and visa versa. First we need to justify that step. Second, we need to justify the COMBINATION of such words and exactly what they really mean.

Individuals printing their own money?

Funny how one needs a society to sell something to and a society to buy what they are selling in order to enjoy "personal wealth/possessions"

Free will is being a social human being or an anti-social human being.

Want to be anti-social, leave society and be totally sefl sufficient.

Living in a society involves give and take. The government of our nation was built around checks and balances to power. Where societies have allowed large rifts to occur between the haves and have nots, there has been instability and eventual revolution or great economic failure because some of those concerned only with their own "personal wealth/possesssions rob from the poor to give to themselves. Some also could care less about who or what might be harmed in the process of accumulating their "personal wealth/possessions" There is something more than words in the cliche, "killing the goose that lays the golden egg" Just as labor and managament cannot exist without each, wealth cannot exist without those that support it by their purchases. You might "personally" be able to assemble an automobile in a number of days, but if you wish to assemble more automobiles in less time, you are likely going to need help. It is a cooperative endeavor, the idea is to balance the wealthy stealing from the poor to enrich themselves and the poor stealing from the wealthy to enrich themselves.

There is a lot to be said for moderation despite its own imperfections.

Apparently you can. Or at least Paulson, Cox, and Bernanke can. They're always talking about free markets while they bail out banks. Foreign banks at that.

don't understand "free will".

"Free will is being a social human being or an anti-social human being."

Who says?

Hard labor or personal sacrifice isn't really "selling" something. But even if it was...it is YOURS to sell and the profits from it are YOURS.

Not the socialists.

Not the lazy you have to give to.

The link in my post refelcts my views quite well.

"Democracy" and "Republic"?......One can be a Democratic Republic.

"Democracy" to me suggests that citizens have a direct say as to who their leaders are and in the running of their country,policies etc."...."Republic" suggests the lack of a monarchy as an actual or symbolic head of state.

...it sounds like you are confused, but maybe we are, you check it out FP.

"" "Democracy" to me suggests that citizens have a direct say as to who their leaders are and in the running of their country,policies etc."...."Republic" suggests the lack of a monarchy as an actual or symbolic head of state.""

<link>

feature=related#

Seasoldier/Figuring out how to talk.

Seasoldier/Free Money And Labor

Good response genedio.