Blue mustache wrote:El Draque wrote:Dman, i hate that i am going to do this, but i guess it could be argued that expression is speech, so i could see where it COULD fall under the 1st, however, with that being said... Blue, no where in the first amendment does it say anyone has to believe what anyone else is sayingI am free to say im a toaster, it doesn't obligate you to call me General Electric.
Also, blue, we already know that you have issues with knowing forms of governments and economics so im going to give you as slide. Capitalism isnt the problem. You see capitalism has done more to lift people out of poverty than any other system, while socialism/communism has done more to bring more people down to object poverty
The proof is in Baltimore.
For someone who wants everyone to have an open mind, i have yet to hear you, with all the information you have been given, change one opinion. Maybe you just dont want to see, and thats fine, but atleast you know
Actually, I have changed opinions. I used to have a much different opinion on riots. I try to keep an open mind as much as possible, and with that open mind I found my current opinions. That means that all things considered I still believe what I do. What I don't understand is how socialism and communism could bring poverty. Sure, they don't bring wealth, but they don't bring poverty either. Its against their nature. There really is not much money to have in that kind of system, and everyone is more or less economically equal. Now I still believe that we have never seen either, but I guess that just depends on what you count as communism/socialism.
As for the freedom of expression thing, I guess I wasn't really thinking about it how you guys are. I mean it's a constitutional freedom to be able to wave a blm or a Trump flag around, and that ain't religion or speech. I guess expression could be counted as an extension of speech. As long as it's in a non-violent way, it's legal.
To simplify why socialism brings all but those in charge to poverty and here is why. On paper, you take all the goods that have been allocated by who ever wrote the paper and distribute everything equally and all is well. In reality, there are only so many goods to go around. Only so many trees, only so many cows, only so many people paying taxes. You take real world (meaning you can't just invent infinite goods, workers and capitol like in the paper), and try to fairly distribute all goods equitably, then you add in what Mel said, and what you have a is a few very bottom people being elevated, bu the rest of the population must be lowered to meet the rationed supply.
The reason people have been saying no one has ever done it right since the sixties, is on paper, with infinite resources, and with a fake population that only wants to live together and work in harmony, admittedly socialism looks fantastic and it does look like the answer. The sad thing is that with finite resources, and human nature, all those socialist states that have ended in pure communism or a dictator actually did it right, its just the inevitable result needed to control means of production, resources and population until it goes bankrupt.