Air America Radio is a failure.....GOOD!!!
POSTED BY: Skywalken
UPDATED: Saturday, May 21, 2005 09:18
VIEWED: 10998
PAGE 4 of 8
Quote:Following the Marius Reform that is true, but not before. Prior to the Marius Reform the Romans fielded their militaries just like the Greeks, with aristocratic militias. And they conquered all of Italy, successfully waged two wars with Carthage, Macedon and conquered Greece - without a standing army.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Actually...
I can't speak for the Greeks, but the Romans had some pretty conventional armies, issued standardized equipment by the government, provided rations, weapons, transportation, etc...
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm not sure that holds to a no-tax militia. Because any aristocrats would have collected taxes within their fiefdoms and used the proceeds to equip the troops.
I don't know where the Greeks got their armor and weapons, but it seems to be pretty likely that if you're going to have an army with standardized training and equipment, taxes are involved somewhere.
The only type of government where taxes would be unnecessary is a type where the government owns all production... in which case the citizens are essentially slaves, paid nothing, given government staples, and told what to do. I think that's socialism?
I'd rather have taxes if that's the case.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
The only type of government where taxes would be unnecessary is a type where the government owns all production... in which case the citizens are essentially slaves, paid nothing, given government staples, and told what to do. I think that's socialism?
That is called totalitarianism. Socialism if very different.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
How does Socialism work?
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Certainly money was involved. The Roman Republic was largely ruled by patrician families who owned land and other resources which they worked in various ways through the employ of slaves. The patricians fielded the armies and they owned the means of production. While patricians did collect taxes for the State it was not to field armies. The Roman military during the Republic was a private military owned by the patrician families and employed by the State. It was a working relationship between private enterprise and the government. So taxes are not necessarily required to field an army. The Romans and the Greeks demonstrate that. Whether or not that is preferable to a standing army supplied through taxes or can even be modified to suit today’s world is debatable.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I'm not sure that holds to a no-tax militia. Because any aristocrats would have collected taxes within their fiefdoms and used the proceeds to equip the troops.
Quote:An extreme form of socialism, yes. But one could argue that the Roman Republic was more similar to an extreme capitalist state. It probably became more of a socialism when it became an Empire. The Marius Reform was a part of that transition from Republic to Empire in which Roman power was centralized on the Senate and later the Emperor. It is not that the military necessarily must be supported through taxes but rather it is a centralizing of power on the state that it is.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
The only type of government where taxes would be unnecessary is a type where the government owns all production... in which case the citizens are essentially slaves, paid nothing, given government staples, and told what to do. I think that's socialism?
Quote:One truth in the universe is that Lefties will always try to portray Socialism as flawless and incorruptible, despite the large number of totalitarian socialist states.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
How does Socialism work?
Socialism works as you said, the government owns the means of production. That’s socialism by definition. -------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=socialism
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
There is a large difference between controling and/or planning the economy (please note the word "often" above, read: not always) and "the government owns the means of production" (quote Finn) or "the government owns all production" (quote AnthonyT).
I have also never seen Socialism portrayed as "flawless and incorruptible" (quote Finn). You'll have to provide quotes with link from somewhere outside the US for me to beleive that. But, if you're right, that should be easy because the "Lefties" "always" (quote Finn) do it.
Actual definitions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
In modern socialist theory, it is in the pursuit of the goal of creating a democratic society that has a responsible people and a sympathetic government that would form the backbone of an ideal welfare state.
Please also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state before jumping to conclusions.
There are three main interpretations of the idea of a welfare state:
* the provision of welfare services by the state.
* an ideal model in which the state assumes primary responsibility for the welfare of its citizens. This responsibility is comprehensive, because all aspects of welfare are considered; a "safety net" is not enough. It is universal, because it covers every person as a matter of right.
* the provision of welfare in society. In many "welfare states", welfare is not actually provided by the state, but by a combination of independent, voluntary, mutualist and government services.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Exactly as AnthonyT said.
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=socialism
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
Socialism is a system in which the means of production are owned by the government. Try to come to terms with it.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Um, that is the dictionary.com definition which seems to be a dated definition. If you would look at the wikipedia modern definition, you'd see that.
That is something that you need to come to terms with.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Ah, I see. So if the definition in the dictionary doesn’t agree with what you want to be true, then go find some internet site that will tell you what you want to hear. That’s classic, Vizzini. However, you’re full of crap. A definition isn’t “dated” because you don’t like it.
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Um, that is the dictionary.com definition which seems to be a dated definition. If you would look at the wikipedia modern definition, you'd see that.
That is something that you need to come to terms with.
Here’s the definition from my Hardcover Merriam-Webster dictionary (copy write: 1991):
Socialism: “any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.”
Oh, but this can’t be true!!! INCONCEIVABLE!!!!!!!
I guess Wikipedia is the foremost authority on definitions in the English language? Oh, and my dictionary is dated 1991, so if your definition is "modern" I supposed 14 years ago must be archaic! Are you twelve?
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Listen to me you arrogrant peice of shit. Socialism isn't something that can be nailed down in one sentence. It is a broad term that encompases a range.
There is many ways that a government can administer the means of production. The way you are using this term (you stated that AT was right), states that the government would own all production.
So then, the government owns all the facilities in a country that is Socialist?!?!? This is pure crap.
In your definition there is a word "advocating" which means that the government advocats it, but it is not necessary to actually have it.
In my definition posted above, there is the word "often" means not necessarily.
My wiki link provides a much better explination of the term. You should read it, you might learn something.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME