Is helping other people always socialism?

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Is helping other people always socialism?

Posted: 10/4/2005 8:25:34 AM EDT

Whenever I see anybody suggest that the government might ever offer any kind of help in any form, there's always somebody who leaps for the S label.

I just want to understand. Is any kind of assistance (financial OR otherwise) to the civilian population considered to be socialism in your mind?

Posted: 10/4/2005 8:26:21 AM EDT

[#1]

Only if you are a far right wing liberaltarian and the person being helped is not you.

Posted: 10/4/2005 8:27:13 AM EDT

[#2]

When you take your money from your own pocket and give it to someone "in need" it's charity.
When the government takes your money from your pocket and gives it to those "in need" it's socialism.

Posted: 10/4/2005 8:29:41 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
When you take your money from your own pocket and give it to someone "in need" it's charity.
When the government takes your money from your pocket and gives it to those "in need" it's socialism.

A man wise beyond his years.

But the answer to the poll is "I like Pie" because of the word "always".

Posted: 10/4/2005 8:29:53 AM EDT

[#4]

I tend to think of the federal government doing anything other than provide for the common defense as socialism.

but I'm kind of an extremist

Posted: 10/4/2005 8:33:54 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
When you take your money from your own pocket and give it to someone "in need" it's charity.
When the government takes your money from your pocket and gives it to those "in need" it's socialism.

+1. ALWAYS makes the poll a bit difficult to answer, but 95%+ of the time, yes.

Posted: 10/4/2005 8:37:10 AM EDT

[#6]

Entitlements and welfare is socialism. A hand up when you're down is charity.

Welfare and programs like it are good ideas on paper but if people find out they can vote themselves free money they become bottomless pits.
If only people who had jobs and payed taxes got to vote how their money was spent the .gov would run a little differently.

Posted: 10/4/2005 8:42:56 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
When you take your money from your own pocket and give it to someone "in need" it's charity.
When the government takes your money from your pocket and gives it to those "in need" it's socialism.

+ a bunch

Posted: 10/4/2005 8:43:54 AM EDT

[#8]

Not always, just usually. The government helping people after a natural disaster for the sake of national security makes sense. There can't be a "militia" (and I don't mean the National Guard) if everyone's dead.

Giving people a free living just because they don't want to work is another thing, though.

Posted: 10/4/2005 8:47:41 AM EDT

[#9]

Keeping people dependent on Gov. is Socialism.
Penalizing great ability, skills, education level is Socialism.
They want their society clueless, lazy, addicted and uneducated to remain on the
Gubment teet. Its all about controlling the stupid masses

Posted: 10/4/2005 8:50:45 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
Entitlements and welfare is socialism. A hand up when you're down is charity.

Welfare and programs like it are good ideas on paper but if people find out they can vote themselves free money they become bottomless pits.
If only people who had jobs and payed taxes got to vote how their money was spent the .gov would run a little differently.

Exactly.

I'm not against 'helping people out'. The problem is that those people have an obligation to help themselves, also.

It's when the gov allows them to suck on the tit that it becomes socialism.

Posted: 10/4/2005 8:51:09 AM EDT

[#11]

There's an inherant contradiction at work.
Most people will refuse to accept money from an individual, saying they don't take handouts or charity. Yet they have no objection to accepting government aid.
It becomes much easier to take money, give money and accept money when the personal element is removed. It is easier to send a letter to somebody citing a law and demanding money on the basis of that law, than it is to persuade somebody that the money is being taken for a good reason. When I give my money to charity, either an organization or a person, I am using my own eyes and mind and judging whether the recipient is worthy of my money. I've watched people become redfaced angry and stuttering because their welfare check was 2 days late and they are being denied their "just due", but they suck it up and pretend to be proud when somebody tries to hand them a #20 or buys them a cheeseburger.
The personal element was removed in the first place because it made the flow of money unpredictable.

Posted: 10/4/2005 9:02:43 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
I tend to think of the federal government doing anything other than provide for the common defense as socialism.

but I'm kind of an extremist

The phrase is "provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty"

if thats socialism, then we've been socialist since 1789

Posted: 10/4/2005 9:03:32 AM EDT

[#13]

When you're forced to do it against your will, yes.

Posted: 10/4/2005 9:04:16 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
There's an inherant contradiction at work.
Most people will refuse to accept money from an individual, saying they don't take handouts or charity.

Tell that to all the homeless "veterans" with their "God Bless" signs that I pass everyday on the road. They have no problems holding both hands out. I understand what you're saying though. Some people have pride and some people have none.

I'd at least like to have a say in whether or not the +25% of my paycheck is partly going to keep some fat crackwhore mother of 5 in food stamps and cigarettes.

Posted: 10/4/2005 9:11:42 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
The phrase is "provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty"

if thats socialism, then we've been socialist since 1789

The ultimate goal of our entire system is to encourage both government and the people to "promote the general welfare"--namely, to work together for the common good.

Is the common good to enable the population to be dependant upon those who work? And by doing so create criminals who believe they are entitled to more than what they are willing to work for.

The Preamble of the constitution is clearly an introduction to the document and a statement of purpose. It was never intended to be construed as law.

Yet "Promote the general welfare" has been used through out our history as a justification for all manors of federal involvement in our lives and usurpation of power from the States.

The limited powers of the federal government are CLEARLY laid out in the constitutions articles and thes limits are again supported by the 10th amendment.

I'm pretty sure the forefathers didn't think promoting the general welfare was going to later be interpreted as supporting the welfare state. The word welfare was written in a completely different context.

Posted: 10/4/2005 10:45:34 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
When you take your money from your own pocket and give it to someone "in need" it's charity. When the government takes your money from your pocket and gives it to those "in need" it's socialism.

Exactly. The difference between charity and socialism is that the 'gubment takes your money from you first, then decides what to do with it under socialism; instead of you deciding where to send your money to by exercising free will with charity.

Posted: 10/4/2005 10:48:46 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
When you take your money from your own pocket and give it to someone "in need" it's charity.
When the government takes your money from your pocket at gunpoint if necessary and gives it to those "in need" it's socialism.

I added a bit to make a point (in red). Forced "charity" is socialism--liberals are always so damned "compassionate" with other people's money.

Posted: 10/4/2005 10:58:16 AM EDT

[#18]

No. But when the .gov helps (gives) it is always socialism.

Posted: 10/4/2005 11:15:12 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
When you take your money from your own pocket and give it to someone "in need" it's charity.
When the government takes your money from your pocket and gives it to those "in need" it's socialism.

What about this, If you belong to a church and membership is manditory (like in Middle ages) and they automatically take a 10% tithe out to give to the "needy" of your church. Is that Socialism? and if so then are all Christian churches of the past and some today, Socialist????

Posted: 10/4/2005 11:17:18 AM EDT

[#20]

Please see the Constitution, and the authorized role of gov't.

Posted: 10/4/2005 11:38:33 AM EDT

[#21]

Depends: some policies may seem socialist in the short run, but generally help keep our market straight shooting and fairly consistent.

Posted: 10/4/2005 11:50:08 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
Quoted:
When you take your money from your own pocket and give it to someone "in need" it's charity.
When the government takes your money from your pocket and gives it to those "in need" it's socialism.

What about this, If you belong to a church and membership is manditory (like in Middle ages) and they automatically take a 10% tithe out to give to the "needy" of your church. Is that Socialism? and if so then are all Christian churches of the past and some today, Socialist????

What are you talking about?

Membership manditory?

Automatically take a 10% tithe? No church I have ever visited requires a bank account number for automatic drafts.

If you choose to be a member of the church, then you decide how much to give that church. If that church gives out money in a way you don't see fit, you can go on to the next church or even stay home if you like.

Try to sit at home and don't pay taxes to the government, and you will soon have a come to Jesus meeting of a different sort.

Posted: 10/4/2005 3:16:30 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
Quoted:
When you take your money from your own pocket and give it to someone "in need" it's charity.
When the government takes your money from your pocket and gives it to those "in need" it's socialism.

What about this, If you belong to a church and membership is manditory (like in Middle ages) and they automatically take a 10% tithe out to give to the "needy" of your church. Is that Socialism? and if so then are all Christian churches of the past and some today, Socialist????

If I had any pic that had something with a pancake on its head, I would post it now, because that did not make sense.

Posted: 10/4/2005 3:19:02 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
When you take your money from your own pocket and give it to someone "in need" it's charity.
When the government takes your money from your pocket and gives it to those "in need" it's socialism.

What about this, If you belong to a church and membership is manditory (like in Middle ages) and they automatically take a 10% tithe out to give to the "needy" of your church. Is that Socialism? and if so then are all Christian churches of the past and some today, Socialist????

If I had any pic that had something with a pancake on its head, I would post it now, because that did not make sense.

I think he's being sarcastic.

Posted: 10/5/2005 5:41:55 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
If I had any pic that had something with a pancake on its head, I would post it now, because that did not make sense.

Oolong strikes again.

Posted: 10/5/2005 5:43:47 AM EDT

[#26]

The Military is socialism in it's best and most effective form…

ANdy

Posted: 10/5/2005 6:01:15 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
The Military is socialism in it's best and most effective form…

ANdy

Over here, across the pond, its part of our COnstitutional Republic.

Posted: 10/5/2005 6:12:55 AM EDT

[#28]

Helping people is not socialism. Socialism isn't about helping people, it's about controlling people.

Posted: 10/5/2005 6:16:23 AM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
Helping people is not socialism. Socialism isn't about helping people, it's about controlling people by making them so dependent on the .gov they can't function without the .gov's "help".

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Is helping other people always socialism?

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us