What would a socialist America look like?

[danielpalos]

Disappointing to see Will refusing to see the difference between real socialism and the Euro-socialism advocated by many Democrats.

It's an important discussion, but intellectual honesty would be required.

If you were being intellectually honest, you would admit that discussing the difference between real socialism and the Euro-socialism would be like discussing how either the lumpy light brown pile of turds is better than the sloppy wad of dark brown turds is a better fertilizer.

Marxist dogma, in all it's forms and stupid theories is a soft steaming pile of bullshit.

Period.

.

Government involvement in a nation's economic system lies on a continuum. It's not either/or.
.

I don't buy that. We can draw a distinction between laws and regulation that inadvertently impact the economy and those where interfering with the economy is the point. We can (and should) ban the latter.

Let's say the top individual rate is 35% and the government is spending at 37% of GDP.

Let's say we (a) increased the top rate to 60% and the spending to 65%.
OR....
Let's say we (b) decreased the top rate to 25% and the spending to 28%.

(a) would be "more" socialism, (b) would be "less".

We can play with semantics all day long, but Venezuela is "more" socialism than Great Britain.
.

Venezuela is a federal republic. Right wing management has those problems.

Thank Goodness, FDR was a left winger.

 

[dblack]

Disappointing to see Will refusing to see the difference between real socialism and the Euro-socialism advocated by many Democrats.

It's an important discussion, but intellectual honesty would be required.

If you were being intellectually honest, you would admit that discussing the difference between real socialism and the Euro-socialism would be like discussing how either the lumpy light brown pile of turds is better than the sloppy wad of dark brown turds is a better fertilizer.

Marxist dogma, in all it's forms and stupid theories is a soft steaming pile of bullshit.

Period.

.

Government involvement in a nation's economic system lies on a continuum. It's not either/or.
.

I don't buy that. We can draw a distinction between laws and regulation that inadvertently impact the economy and those where interfering with the economy is the point. We can (and should) ban the latter.

Let's say the top individual rate is 35% and the government is spending at 37% of GDP.

Let's say we (a) increased the top rate to 60% and the spending to 65%.
OR....
Let's say we (b) decreased the top rate to 25% and the spending to 28%.

(a) would be "more" socialism, (b) would be "less".

We can play with semantics all day long, but Venezuela is "more" socialism than Great Britain.
.

We're writing tax laws that deliberately promote or punish behavior. That's not why we grant government the power to levy taxes. The taxation power should be used to raise funds for the legitimate functions of government. We should not allow it to be used used as a general purpose tool to manipulate society.

And that's what Congress is doing. They've learned that "tax incentives" and mandates can be used to coerce behavior in ways that would be blatantly unconstitutional otherwise. Congress would never be able to get away, for example, with passing a straight up law that forced people to give money to its corporate sponsors - and punished them if they refused. Voters would rightfully complain and the Court would strike it down. But, as ACA has shown us, Congress can achieve exactly the same effect by framing the requirement as a tax-incentive/mandate.

It's not semantics. There's a very real and demonstrable difference between tax laws that equitably raise revenue, and those that serve as a carrot and stick to push people around.

 

[Mac1958]

Disappointing to see Will refusing to see the difference between real socialism and the Euro-socialism advocated by many Democrats.

It's an important discussion, but intellectual honesty would be required.

If you were being intellectually honest, you would admit that discussing the difference between real socialism and the Euro-socialism would be like discussing how either the lumpy light brown pile of turds is better than the sloppy wad of dark brown turds is a better fertilizer.

Marxist dogma, in all it's forms and stupid theories is a soft steaming pile of bullshit.

Period.

.

Government involvement in a nation's economic system lies on a continuum. It's not either/or.
.

I don't buy that. We can draw a distinction between laws and regulation that inadvertently impact the economy and those where interfering with the economy is the point. We can (and should) ban the latter.

Let's say the top individual rate is 35% and the government is spending at 37% of GDP.

Let's say we (a) increased the top rate to 60% and the spending to 65%.
OR....
Let's say we (b) decreased the top rate to 25% and the spending to 28%.

(a) would be "more" socialism, (b) would be "less".

We can play with semantics all day long, but Venezuela is "more" socialism than Great Britain.
.

We're writing tax laws that deliberately promote or punish behavior. That's not why we grant government the power to levy taxes. The taxation power should be used to raise funds for the legitimate functions of government. We should not allow it to be used used as a general purpose tool to manipulate society.

And that's what Congress is doing. They've learned that "tax incentives" and mandates can be used to coerce behavior in ways that would be blatantly unconstitutional otherwise. Congress would never be able to get away, for example, with passing a straight up law that forced people to give money to its corporate sponsors - and punished them if they refused. Voters would rightfully complain and the Court would strike it down. But, as ACA has shown us, Congress can achieve exactly the same effect by framing the requirement as a tax-incentive/mandate.

It's not semantics. There's a very real and demonstrable difference between tax laws that equitably raise revenue, and those that serve as a carrot and stick to manipulate society.

So are you saying a country is either 100% socialist or 0% socialist, and that's it?
.

 

[dblack]

If you were being intellectually honest, you would admit that discussing the difference between real socialism and the Euro-socialism would be like discussing how either the lumpy light brown pile of turds is better than the sloppy wad of dark brown turds is a better fertilizer.

Marxist dogma, in all it's forms and stupid theories is a soft steaming pile of bullshit.

Period.

.

Government involvement in a nation's economic system lies on a continuum. It's not either/or.
.

I don't buy that. We can draw a distinction between laws and regulation that inadvertently impact the economy and those where interfering with the economy is the point. We can (and should) ban the latter.

Let's say the top individual rate is 35% and the government is spending at 37% of GDP.

Let's say we (a) increased the top rate to 60% and the spending to 65%.
OR....
Let's say we (b) decreased the top rate to 25% and the spending to 28%.

(a) would be "more" socialism, (b) would be "less".

We can play with semantics all day long, but Venezuela is "more" socialism than Great Britain.
.

We're writing tax laws that deliberately promote or punish behavior. That's not why we grant government the power to levy taxes. The taxation power should be used to raise funds for the legitimate functions of government. We should not allow it to be used used as a general purpose tool to manipulate society.

And that's what Congress is doing. They've learned that "tax incentives" and mandates can be used to coerce behavior in ways that would be blatantly unconstitutional otherwise. Congress would never be able to get away, for example, with passing a straight up law that forced people to give money to its corporate sponsors - and punished them if they refused. Voters would rightfully complain and the Court would strike it down. But, as ACA has shown us, Congress can achieve exactly the same effect by framing the requirement as a tax-incentive/mandate.

It's not semantics. There's a very real and demonstrable difference between tax laws that equitably raise revenue, and those that serve as a carrot and stick to manipulate society.

So are you saying a country is either 100% socialist or 0% socialist, and that's it?
.

No. I'm saying that there's a very real and demonstrable difference between tax laws that equitably raise revenue, and those that serve as a carrot and stick to manipulate society. We and should act to ban the latter.

 

[Mac1958]

Government involvement in a nation's economic system lies on a continuum. It's not either/or.
.

I don't buy that. We can draw a distinction between laws and regulation that inadvertently impact the economy and those where interfering with the economy is the point. We can (and should) ban the latter.

Let's say the top individual rate is 35% and the government is spending at 37% of GDP.

Let's say we (a) increased the top rate to 60% and the spending to 65%.
OR....
Let's say we (b) decreased the top rate to 25% and the spending to 28%.

(a) would be "more" socialism, (b) would be "less".

We can play with semantics all day long, but Venezuela is "more" socialism than Great Britain.
.

We're writing tax laws that deliberately promote or punish behavior. That's not why we grant government the power to levy taxes. The taxation power should be used to raise funds for the legitimate functions of government. We should not allow it to be used used as a general purpose tool to manipulate society.

And that's what Congress is doing. They've learned that "tax incentives" and mandates can be used to coerce behavior in ways that would be blatantly unconstitutional otherwise. Congress would never be able to get away, for example, with passing a straight up law that forced people to give money to its corporate sponsors - and punished them if they refused. Voters would rightfully complain and the Court would strike it down. But, as ACA has shown us, Congress can achieve exactly the same effect by framing the requirement as a tax-incentive/mandate.

It's not semantics. There's a very real and demonstrable difference between tax laws that equitably raise revenue, and those that serve as a carrot and stick to manipulate society.

So are you saying a country is either 100% socialist or 0% socialist, and that's it?
.

No. I'm saying that there's a very real and demonstrable difference between tax laws that equitably raise revenue, and those that serve as a carrot and stick to manipulate society. We and should act to ban the latter.

I'm talking about socialism. Government ownership of production and distribution and no private property.

It lies along a continuum, it's not either/or, as I keep seeing here. That's all I'm saying.
.

 

[dblack]

I don't buy that. We can draw a distinction between laws and regulation that inadvertently impact the economy and those where interfering with the economy is the point. We can (and should) ban the latter.

Let's say the top individual rate is 35% and the government is spending at 37% of GDP.

Let's say we (a) increased the top rate to 60% and the spending to 65%.
OR....
Let's say we (b) decreased the top rate to 25% and the spending to 28%.

(a) would be "more" socialism, (b) would be "less".

We can play with semantics all day long, but Venezuela is "more" socialism than Great Britain.
.

We're writing tax laws that deliberately promote or punish behavior. That's not why we grant government the power to levy taxes. The taxation power should be used to raise funds for the legitimate functions of government. We should not allow it to be used used as a general purpose tool to manipulate society.

And that's what Congress is doing. They've learned that "tax incentives" and mandates can be used to coerce behavior in ways that would be blatantly unconstitutional otherwise. Congress would never be able to get away, for example, with passing a straight up law that forced people to give money to its corporate sponsors - and punished them if they refused. Voters would rightfully complain and the Court would strike it down. But, as ACA has shown us, Congress can achieve exactly the same effect by framing the requirement as a tax-incentive/mandate.

It's not semantics. There's a very real and demonstrable difference between tax laws that equitably raise revenue, and those that serve as a carrot and stick to manipulate society.

So are you saying a country is either 100% socialist or 0% socialist, and that's it?
.

No. I'm saying that there's a very real and demonstrable difference between tax laws that equitably raise revenue, and those that serve as a carrot and stick to manipulate society. We and should act to ban the latter.

I'm talking about socialism. Government ownership of production and distribution and no private property.

It lies along a continuum, it's not either/or, as I keep seeing here. That's all I'm saying.
.

I understand. And I'm rejecting the effort to equate all government with socialism and the pretend it's a wash - which is what I see in your argument. There's a distinct difference between using government to protect our rights, and using it as a general purpose tool to control others. We can call out the latter and prohibit it.

 

[Mac1958]

Let's say the top individual rate is 35% and the government is spending at 37% of GDP.

Let's say we (a) increased the top rate to 60% and the spending to 65%.
OR....
Let's say we (b) decreased the top rate to 25% and the spending to 28%.

(a) would be "more" socialism, (b) would be "less".

We can play with semantics all day long, but Venezuela is "more" socialism than Great Britain.
.

We're writing tax laws that deliberately promote or punish behavior. That's not why we grant government the power to levy taxes. The taxation power should be used to raise funds for the legitimate functions of government. We should not allow it to be used used as a general purpose tool to manipulate society.

And that's what Congress is doing. They've learned that "tax incentives" and mandates can be used to coerce behavior in ways that would be blatantly unconstitutional otherwise. Congress would never be able to get away, for example, with passing a straight up law that forced people to give money to its corporate sponsors - and punished them if they refused. Voters would rightfully complain and the Court would strike it down. But, as ACA has shown us, Congress can achieve exactly the same effect by framing the requirement as a tax-incentive/mandate.

It's not semantics. There's a very real and demonstrable difference between tax laws that equitably raise revenue, and those that serve as a carrot and stick to manipulate society.

So are you saying a country is either 100% socialist or 0% socialist, and that's it?
.

No. I'm saying that there's a very real and demonstrable difference between tax laws that equitably raise revenue, and those that serve as a carrot and stick to manipulate society. We and should act to ban the latter.

I'm talking about socialism. Government ownership of production and distribution and no private property.

It lies along a continuum, it's not either/or, as I keep seeing here. That's all I'm saying.
.

I understand. And I'm rejecting the effort to equate all government with socialism and the pretend it's a wash - which is what I see in your argument. There's a distinct difference between using government to protect our rights, and using it as a general purpose tool to control others. We can call out the latter and prohibit it.

The amount of control a government has over others lies along a continuum as well.
.

 

[danielpalos]

I don't buy that. We can draw a distinction between laws and regulation that inadvertently impact the economy and those where interfering with the economy is the point. We can (and should) ban the latter.

Let's say the top individual rate is 35% and the government is spending at 37% of GDP.

Let's say we (a) increased the top rate to 60% and the spending to 65%.
OR....
Let's say we (b) decreased the top rate to 25% and the spending to 28%.

(a) would be "more" socialism, (b) would be "less".

We can play with semantics all day long, but Venezuela is "more" socialism than Great Britain.
.

We're writing tax laws that deliberately promote or punish behavior. That's not why we grant government the power to levy taxes. The taxation power should be used to raise funds for the legitimate functions of government. We should not allow it to be used used as a general purpose tool to manipulate society.

And that's what Congress is doing. They've learned that "tax incentives" and mandates can be used to coerce behavior in ways that would be blatantly unconstitutional otherwise. Congress would never be able to get away, for example, with passing a straight up law that forced people to give money to its corporate sponsors - and punished them if they refused. Voters would rightfully complain and the Court would strike it down. But, as ACA has shown us, Congress can achieve exactly the same effect by framing the requirement as a tax-incentive/mandate.

It's not semantics. There's a very real and demonstrable difference between tax laws that equitably raise revenue, and those that serve as a carrot and stick to manipulate society.

So are you saying a country is either 100% socialist or 0% socialist, and that's it?
.

No. I'm saying that there's a very real and demonstrable difference between tax laws that equitably raise revenue, and those that serve as a carrot and stick to manipulate society. We and should act to ban the latter.

I'm talking about socialism. Government ownership of production and distribution and no private property.

It lies along a continuum, it's not either/or, as I keep seeing here. That's all I'm saying.
.

Social-ism starts with a Constitution that defines it.

 

[dblack]

We're writing tax laws that deliberately promote or punish behavior. That's not why we grant government the power to levy taxes. The taxation power should be used to raise funds for the legitimate functions of government. We should not allow it to be used used as a general purpose tool to manipulate society.

And that's what Congress is doing. They've learned that "tax incentives" and mandates can be used to coerce behavior in ways that would be blatantly unconstitutional otherwise. Congress would never be able to get away, for example, with passing a straight up law that forced people to give money to its corporate sponsors - and punished them if they refused. Voters would rightfully complain and the Court would strike it down. But, as ACA has shown us, Congress can achieve exactly the same effect by framing the requirement as a tax-incentive/mandate.

It's not semantics. There's a very real and demonstrable difference between tax laws that equitably raise revenue, and those that serve as a carrot and stick to manipulate society.

So are you saying a country is either 100% socialist or 0% socialist, and that's it?
.

No. I'm saying that there's a very real and demonstrable difference between tax laws that equitably raise revenue, and those that serve as a carrot and stick to manipulate society. We and should act to ban the latter.

I'm talking about socialism. Government ownership of production and distribution and no private property.

It lies along a continuum, it's not either/or, as I keep seeing here. That's all I'm saying.
.

I understand. And I'm rejecting the effort to equate all government with socialism and the pretend it's a wash - which is what I see in your argument. There's a distinct difference between using government to protect our rights, and using it as a general purpose tool to control others. We can call out the latter and prohibit it.

The amount of control a government has over others lies along a continuum as well.
.

Are you equating government control with socialism? They're not the same thing.

 

[Mac1958]

So are you saying a country is either 100% socialist or 0% socialist, and that's it?
.

No. I'm saying that there's a very real and demonstrable difference between tax laws that equitably raise revenue, and those that serve as a carrot and stick to manipulate society. We and should act to ban the latter.

I'm talking about socialism. Government ownership of production and distribution and no private property.

It lies along a continuum, it's not either/or, as I keep seeing here. That's all I'm saying.
.

I understand. And I'm rejecting the effort to equate all government with socialism and the pretend it's a wash - which is what I see in your argument. AnY RuI

The amount of control a government has over others lies along a continuum as well.
.

So are you saying a country is either 100% socialist or 0% socialist, and that's it?
.

No. I'm saying that there's a very real and demonstrable difference between tax laws that equitably raise revenue, and those that serve as a carrot and stick to manipulate society. We and should act to ban the latter.

I'm talking about socialism. Government ownership of production and distribution and no private property.

It lies along a continuum, it's not either/or, as I keep seeing here. That's all I'm saying.
.

I understand. And I'm rejecting the effort to equate all government with socialism and the pretend it's a wash - which is what I see in your argument. There's a distinct difference between using government to protect our rights, and using it as a general purpose tool to control others. We can call out the latter and prohibit it.

The amount of control a government has over others lies along a continuum as well.
.

Are you equating government control with socialism? They're not the same thing.

You brought it up. I have already provided a definition.

Never mind.
.

 

[dblack]

No. I'm saying that there's a very real and demonstrable difference between tax laws that equitably raise revenue, and those that serve as a carrot and stick to manipulate society. We and should act to ban the latter.

I'm talking about socialism. Government ownership of production and distribution and no private property.

It lies along a continuum, it's not either/or, as I keep seeing here. That's all I'm saying.
.

I understand. And I'm rejecting the effort to equate all government with socialism and the pretend it's a wash - which is what I see in your argument. AnY RuI

The amount of control a government has over others lies along a continuum as well.
.

No. I'm saying that there's a very real and demonstrable difference between tax laws that equitably raise revenue, and those that serve as a carrot and stick to manipulate society. We and should act to ban the latter.

I'm talking about socialism. Government ownership of production and distribution and no private property.

It lies along a continuum, it's not either/or, as I keep seeing here. That's all I'm saying.
.

I understand. And I'm rejecting the effort to equate all government with socialism and the pretend it's a wash - which is what I see in your argument. There's a distinct difference between using government to protect our rights, and using it as a general purpose tool to control others. We can call out the latter and prohibit it.

The amount of control a government has over others lies along a continuum as well.
.

Are you equating government control with socialism? They're not the same thing.

You brought it up. I have already provided a definition.

Never mind.

No, it's important to be clear. And, it seems to me, you're trying to muddy the debate by equating all laws and government with socialism. Socialism, in most any of its incarnations, embraces increased government control over our economic decisions. It's a very specific kind of government control. It's not the same thing as laws against murder, for example.

So trying to claim that it's all a continuum, and that the only decision we have to make regarding socialism is how much we want, is disingenuous. Socialism, like theocracy, expands government power in a very specific and identifiable way. We can prevent it. And we should.

 

[danielpalos]

What true socialist nation-State doesn't have a Constitution? It all starts there.

 

[Mac1958]

I'm talking about socialism. Government ownership of production and distribution and no private property.

It lies along a continuum, it's not either/or, as I keep seeing here. That's all I'm saying.
.

I understand. And I'm rejecting the effort to equate all government with socialism and the pretend it's a wash - which is what I see in your argument. AnY RuI

The amount of control a government has over others lies along a continuum as well.
.

I'm talking about socialism. Government ownership of production and distribution and no private property.

It lies along a continuum, it's not either/or, as I keep seeing here. That's all I'm saying.
.

I understand. And I'm rejecting the effort to equate all government with socialism and the pretend it's a wash - which is what I see in your argument. There's a distinct difference between using government to protect our rights, and using it as a general purpose tool to control others. We can call out the latter and prohibit it.

The amount of control a government has over others lies along a continuum as well.
.

Are you equating government control with socialism? They're not the same thing.

You brought it up. I have already provided a definition.

Never mind.

No, it's important to be clear. And, it seems to me, you're trying to muddy the debate by equating all laws and government with socialism. Socialism, in most any of its incarnations, embraces increased government control over our economic decisions. It's a very specific kind of government control. It's not the same thing as laws against murder, for example.

So trying to claim that it's all a continuum, and that the only decision we have to make regarding socialism is how much we want, is disingenuous. Socialism, like theocracy, expands government power in a very specific and identifiable way. We can prevent it. And we should.

I asked you a direct question: "So are you saying a country is either 100% socialist or 0% socialist, and that's it?"

Your answer: "No".

Great. Then we agree. Socialism exists along a continuum. That's the first of two points I'm making. The second point is that many who constantly scream SOCIALISM don't appear to understand that seemingly obvious fact.

I'm not talking about protecting our rights, or using government as a general purpose tool to control others, or what we should or should not prohibit, or equating all laws and government with socialism. Those are issues that you have brought up. I've made this as clear as I can. And I provided the clearest example I could: Venezuela is further along on that continuum than Great Britain.

Are you saying that isn't true? You already agreed that a country is not either 100% or 0% socialist, so there must be something between those two numbers.
..

 

[Pete7469]

I'm talking about socialism. Government ownership of production and distribution and no private property.

It lies along a continuum, it's not either/or, as I keep seeing here. That's all I'm saying.
.

That's the thing. Government is involved in any economic system if it prints the money. There is no avoiding that.

What we do not need because it is clearly detrimental is government CONTROL of the economy. Everyone in a nation is part of an economic system, every business, every individual in the government and the entity itself are part of it. When people inside the government use power to manipulate the economy for any other purpose than to promote national prosperity you get into trouble. Whatever degree of communism you want to embrace, the euroweenie system or the stalin system, you are building a shit sandwich and everyone is forced to take a bite.

I oppose anyone, I don't care how rich they are, being forced to pay for things they don't want.

I will always loose that fight though, because the politics of envy and hate have so warped the minds of some folks that you now have hordes of dependents convinced they're entitled to live in squalor but still get fat on other people's money.


.

 

[boedicca]

George Will nails it again. George F. Will: Would Socialist America Be Much Different?

tl;dr - A: About like it does now.

...

What is socialism? And what might a socialist American government do?

In its 19th-century infancy, socialist theory was at least admirable in its clarity: It meant state ownership of the means of production (including arable land), distribution and exchange. Until, of course, the state “withers away” (Friedrich Engels’ phrase), when a classless, and hence harmonious, society can dispense with government.

After World War II, Britain’s Labour Party diluted socialist doctrine to mean state ownership of the economy’s “commanding heights” (Lenin's phrase from 1922) — heavy industry (e.g., steel), mining, railroads, telecommunications, etc. Since then, in Britain and elsewhere, further dilution has produced socialism as comprehensive economic regulation by the administrative state (obviating the need for nationalization of economic sectors) and government energetically redistributing wealth. So, if America had a socialist government today, what would it be like?

Socialism favors the thorough permeation of economic life by “social” (aka political) considerations, so it embraces protectionism — government telling consumers what they can buy, in what quantities and at what prices. (A socialist American government might even set quotas and prices for foreign washing machines.)

Socialism favors maximizing government’s role supplementing, even largely supplanting, the market — voluntary private transactions — in the allocation of wealth by implementing redistributionist programs. (Today America's sky is dark with dollars flying hither and yon at government's direction: Transfer payments distribute 14 percent of GDP, two-thirds of the federal budget, up from a little more than one-quarter in 1960. In the half-century 1963-2013, transfer payments were the fastest-growing category of personal income. By 2010, American governments were transferring $2.2 trillion in government money, goods and services.)

Socialism favors vigorous government interventions in the allocation of capital, directing it to uses that farsighted government knows, and the slow-witted market does not realize, constitute the wave of the future. So, an American socialist government might tell, say, Carrier Corp. and Harley-Davidson that the government knows better than they do where they should invest shareholders' assets.

Mike Lee's office displays two piles of paper. One, a few inches high, contains the laws Congress passed in a recent year. The other, about 8 feet tall, contains regulations churned out that year by the administrative state's agencies.)

Socialism favors vast scope for ad hoc executive actions unbound by constraining laws that stifle executive nimbleness and creativity. (Imagine an aggrieved president telling, say, Harley-Davidson: “I've” — first-person singular pronoun — “done so much for you.”)

Similar - but one key difference. We currently are not sent to re-education camps or executed for disagreeing with the Prog Orthodoxy. If the Socialists assume complete power, then those of us who are heretics will be forced to conform or be destroyed.

 

[danielpalos]

quibbling over nothing. the right wing doesn't have any valid arguments they just appeal to emotion with their use of Socialism.

 

[Mac1958]

I'm talking about socialism. Government ownership of production and distribution and no private property.

It lies along a continuum, it's not either/or, as I keep seeing here. That's all I'm saying.
.

That's the thing. Government is involved in any economic system if it prints the money. There is no avoiding that.

What we do not need because it is clearly detrimental is government CONTROL of the economy. Everyone in a nation is part of an economic system, every business, every individual in the government and the entity itself are part of it. When people inside the government use power to manipulate the economy for any other purpose than to promote national prosperity you get into trouble. Whatever degree of communism you want to embrace, the euroweenie system or the stalin system, you are building a shit sandwich and everyone is forced to take a bite.

I oppose anyone, I don't care how rich they are, being forced to pay for things they don't want.

I will always loose that fight though, because the politics of envy and hate have so warped the minds of some folks that you now have hordes of dependents convinced they're entitled to live in squalor but still get fat on other people's money.


.

That's fine, but the same point applies. Government control (and that's a good word here) of the economy also exists on a continuum. The question is where, and that is ultimately decided at the ballot box.

There's plenty of space between 100% socialism and none.
,

 

[Pete7469]

That's fine, but the same point applies. Government control (and that's a good word here) of the economy also exists on a continuum. The question is where, and that is ultimately decided at the ballot box.

There's plenty of space between 100% socialism and none.
,

Are you sure?

What about during periods of transition or in places where there is no government to speak of. Somalia, Peshawar and parts of Afghanistan I've been in are ungovernable. The government has little if any impact on the people there let alone an economy yet it functions fine. During the transition from USSR to failed state, the economy went from total control to zero, yet somehow people bought food, goods and services. Economies can exist entirely without government. In our prison system the inmates have their own economy. Sure it's based on Ramen Noodles and ass blood, but the prison itself can't control it.

Economies and governments are not contingent upon each other, although government cannot exist without economy. Trade between people can exist without a government. It did for most of our existence. There was NO SOCIALISM until the late 1700's as it's defined, it wasn't even a concept drawn out until Engels came along.. So if you ask me, we were better off when there was none.

.

 

[Mac1958]

That's fine, but the same point applies. Government control (and that's a good word here) of the economy also exists on a continuum. The question is where, and that is ultimately decided at the ballot box.

There's plenty of space between 100% socialism and none.
,

Are you sure?

What about during periods of transition or in places where there is no government to speak of. Somalia, Peshawar and parts of Afghanistan I've been in are ungovernable. The government has little if any impact on the people there let alone an economy yet it functions fine. During the transition from USSR to failed state, the economy went from total control to zero, yet somehow people bought food, goods and services. Economies can exist entirely without government. In our prison system the inmates have their own economy. Sure it's based on Ramen Noodles and ass blood, but the prison itself can't control it.

Economies and governments are not contingent upon each other, although government cannot exist without economy. Trade between people can exist without a government. It did for most of our existence. There was NO SOCIALISM until the late 1700's as it's defined, it wasn't even a concept drawn out until Engels came along.. So if you ask me, we were better off when there was none.

.

Well, it's 300 years later now, and the amount of government in the lives of people in various countries exists along a continuum, depending on the country.

I'm not making a value judgement on socialism, nor am I saying what should be. I'm just pointing out what I'd think is the obvious.
.

 

[Pete7469]

Well, it's 300 years later now, and the amount of government in the lives of people in various countries exists along a continuum, depending on the country.

I'm not making a value judgement on socialism, nor am I saying what should be. I'm just pointing out what I'd think is the obvious.
.

My impression was that you were asserting you have to have SOME socialism, as minimal as it might be.

Regardless I'd prefer NONE. However when it really comes down to it, leave my Bill of Rights alone and you can have all the socialism you want. You can have collective farms, gulags, purges, I don't care as long as I get a gun and ammo too.

And stay off my lawn.


.