One could argue that this country was founded on socialistic principles, at least in some fashion. America was founded with the principles of freedom from oppression, freedom from tyranny, freedom of religion, the intent to allow all citizens opportunity, not just the rich.

 

How are those principles considered socialist? Principles of freedom, less interference from government and self reliance, yes. But socialism relies upon reliance from the government and compromises freedom and liberty.

And? Considering there are more women in the workforce and more women in college they may have an important voice.

 

Pshaw! Those women should learn their place and get back in the kitchen! Their men will tell them what (and when) to think!

 

I missed the part where I said anything negative or that women didn't/shouldn't make up the work force. I was just stating, from observation, that colleged aged females tend to lean much further left than any other group of individuals that I've encountered. Nothing good nor bad about it.

How are those principles considered socialist? Principles of freedom, less interference from government and self reliance, yes. But socialism relies upon reliance from the government and compromises freedom and liberty.

 

Considering the principles of the societies they left, they're positively Marxist. English aristocracy, for one. Suppression of the lower classes, tyranny by the government and aristocracy, even the shop-class over the poor....

Considering the principles of the societies they left, they're positively Marxist. English aristocracy, for one. Suppression of the lower classes, tyranny by the government and aristocracy, even the shop-class over the poor....

 

I'm not sure I follow. One of the principles of the founding country was a government that was as hands off as possible, where your place in society (such as in aristocracy), doesn't determine your success, you are responsible for your success. Socialism on the other hand is extremely hands on and limits innovation and freedom to pursue what you want.

I missed the part where I said anything negative or that women didn't/shouldn't make up the work force. I was just stating, from observation, that colleged aged females tend to lean much further left than any other group of individuals that I've encountered. Nothing good nor bad about it.

 

I was just stating that this may be a very important demographic considering their position in society these days.

I'd love to see the demographics of the 43 %. I imagine many/most of them are female college students.

 

:popcorn:

I love how people consider unions socialism. First, we had pretty good run with unions, and now we have busted em up and things have gone to pot.

 

Second, you guys are all for free market, (supposedly) except for unions. Aint nothing but people banding together and marketing their labor. They are applying free market principles with regard to their labor. The problem is our country is controlled by a dozen billionaires who don't want labor to have value.

 

Feel the Bern! And bring on them young college aged girls!

Anyone in favor of unions must be for monopolies, correct?

I Second, you guys are all for free market, (supposedly) except for unions. Aint nothing but people banding together and marketing their labor. They are applying free market principles with regard to their labor.

 

Should everyone be able to band together and market their labor as you call union activity? Because as the laws are now, if I were to try to band together with other CPAs and control our prices and salaries, agents from the Justice Department or the FTC would file anti trust charges against me for promoting anti competitive market tactics. However, the government allows certain trades to conduct said anti competitive tactics. To say that union behavior is applying free market principles is plain and simply wrong and is a lack of understanding of economics. Applying free market principles would be those in unions not working together to enforce prices and wages but competing with each other where the better employees earn better wages and prices like other professions legally barred from union behavior (CPAs, attorneys, architects, actuaries, etc..). Those in the mentioned professions can start professional associations to promote standards in their profession (Bar Association, Amer Inst of CPAs) but cannot engage in anti competitive activities.

Should everyone be able to band together and market their labor as you call union activity? Because as the laws are now, if I were to try to band together with other CPAs and control our prices and salaries, agents from the Justice Department or the FTC would file anti trust charges against me for promoting anti competitive market tactics. However, the government allows certain trades to conduct said anti competitive tactics. To say that union behavior is applying free market principles is plain and simply wrong and is a lack of understanding of economics. Applying free market principles would be those in unions not working together to enforce prices and wages but competing with each other where the better employees earn better wages and prices like other professions legally barred from union behavior (CPAs, attorneys, architects, actuaries, etc..). Those in the mentioned professions can start professional associations to promote standards in their profession (Bar Association, Amer Inst of CPAs) but cannot engage in anti competitive activities.

 

That's a bunch of word salad. We are talking about unions, not groups of attorneys and architects. Just plain goofy. Professionals have protection for their labor because you have to have a license to engage in the business. That's marketing power.

43% is about 56% low.

I love how people consider unions socialism. First, we had pretty good run with unions, and now we have busted em up and things have gone to pot.

 

Second, you guys are all for free market, (supposedly) except for unions. Aint nothing but people banding together and marketing their labor. They are applying free market principles with regard to their labor. The problem is our country is controlled by a dozen billionaires who don't want labor to have value.

 

Feel the Bern! And bring on them young college aged girls!

 

Then pass right to work and make union membership optional. That's a real free market,

That's a bunch of word salad. We are talking about unions, not groups of attorneys and architects. Just plain goofy. Professionals have protection for their labor because you have to have a license to engage in the business. That's marketing power.

 

Electricians have to be licensed, plumbers have to be licensed. By your post I assume you don't believe electricians and plumbers should be unionized.

One could argue that this country was founded on socialistic principles, at least in some fashion. America was founded with the principles of freedom from oppression, freedom from tyranny, freedom of religion, the intent to allow all citizens opportunity, not just the rich. However, again, one could argue that we've evolved away from a governmental oppression to a corporate oppression and returned as well to economic oppression.

 

Love ya RM but what you described is the exact opposite of socialism.

Considering the principles of the societies they left, they're positively Marxist. English aristocracy, for one. Suppression of the lower classes, tyranny by the government and aristocracy, even the shop-class over the poor....

 

RM you've never been more wrong than your previous post I commented on. What you described in that post was complete opposite of socialism. Socialism is control by a central government there is no freedom.