Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Democracy and socialism is the answer. Every modern country has that. Our problem is garbage GOP propaganda machine and the GOP giveaway to the rich screw the rest.not to mention Wrecking the middle East and the world economy. The GOP always a disgrace and disaster lately. Like the last 50 years Jesus....That's why we have courts- Independent Courts.No, but you seem to be of the opinion that being "democratic" makes it all ok, and that's not so. Democracy isn't inherently just or good. It's primary benefit is that it's stable - if there's majority support for the government there's less likely to be a bloody revolution. But there's nothing righteous about majority rule. The majority is frequently (usually?) wrong and they shouldn't be allowed bully the minority willy-nilly.Yes. Do you think any one is defending communism here?Totalitarianism means dictatorship.totalitarian means a dictatorship
Sadly, that's not true. People can vote for astonishingly evil things.
As in the dictatorship of the proletariat, for example?
As in the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, which is what we experience.Totalitarianism means dictatorship.totalitarian means a dictatorshipTotalitarian means it is not democratic. or coming from the Democratic party either.
Sadly, that's not true. People can vote for astonishingly evil things.
As in the dictatorship of the proletariat, for example?
Hindenburg had to appoint him to something because his party got the most votes in the election. That's how the German government worked.No they did not he only got 33% of the vote or something but more than anyone else. And Hindenburg appointed him Chancellor big mistake. As usual you have no clue you dupes...They voted Hitler into office.Totalitarian means it is not democratic. or coming from the Democratic party either.
Sadly, that's not true. People can vote for astonishingly evil things.
If economic power is limited by the prohibition on coercion (whatever that means), who's your pick for the ultimate control of the monopoly of violence, elected officials who are (theoretically) responsible to the voters or rich, un-elected capitalist billionaires like Larry Fink or Bill Gates or Bezos or Dimon or Buffet?Because there is a profound difference between economic power and political power and each must be limited to ensure freedom. Economic power is limited by the prohibition on coercion. Political power is limited by the Constitution. Socialism seeks to combine the two and remove the limitations. That's why it's so dangerous and why it so often leads to totalitarian government.Why would you think democratic control of our economic decisions represents a bigger threat than oligarchic control of our economic decisions?So what?
The question is whether we want more socialism or less, whether state control over our economic decisions is a good thing and should be expanded, or a dangerous power that should be strictly limited.
What's your choice?Anyone who believes democracy is a good way to make decisions is a certifiable moron. The term "oligarchy" is virtually meaningless.
How does real estate affect the net worth of the rich?Well of course not doofus... We on the right have been saying this since before Ronald Reagan. Rich people do not end up suffering from socialist policies. They either end up in bed with the government, or they end up leaving. Rich from New York and California, leave for lower tax, less socialist states all the time. The rich in France left in droves. The rich in Russia moved to west Europe when Putin was cracking down.
The rich can run and hide (it is what they do best); however, they won't be taking all their private property with them.
https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/...l-estate-tycoon-is-a-warning-from-history-950
Coercive persuasion or brainwashing reduces a person's ability to think critically and independently, and one would have to be thoroughly brainwashed to believe a market economy accidentally delivers to each person exactly what they deserve. You don't have to look any further than the Oval Office to see that.As long as coercion isn't involved, then how is it unjust? You opinion on how much people should earn is purely idiosyncratic. It has no basis in fact.If you believe you have a moral right to your pre-tax income then you must believe an amoral market (at best) distributes incomes in a completely just manner.It's a moral right. What gives anyone else the right to it?Do you believe you have a right to your pre-tax income?Letting people keep more of their own money isn't a give away; however, welfare is a give away.
If so, is is a legal or a moral right?
So a cancer researcher earns more than some high-frequency parasite on Wall Street or a prissy New York real estate speculator, right?
They target the basis of Venezuela's economy in much the same way US sanctions have targeted Cuba with exactly the same motive: to destroy any alternative to the Washington Consensus.There are sanctions, but they are sanctions against individuals who are acting corruptly on the world market, at the expense of the Venezuelan people.
Venezuela-Related Sanctions
They target specific officials in the Venezuelan government, that are using the power of the government to screw over what little wealth is left in the country, and exporting it into hidden accounts out of the country.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/IF10715.pdf
"Broader Economic Sanctions In addition to targeted sanctions against individuals, President Trump has imposed broader economic sanctions on Venezuela because of the government’s serious human rights sabuses, antidemocratic actions, and responsibility for the deepening humanitarian crisis.
"In August 2017, President Trump issued E.O. 13808, which prohibits access to the U.S. financial markets by the Venezuelan government, including Venezuela’s state oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A., or PdVSA, with certain exceptions to minimize the impact on the Venezuelan people and U.S. economic interests.
"The sanctions seek to restrict the Venezuelan government’s access to U.S. debt and equity markets.
"Among the exceptions are transactions for new debt by CITGO, owned by PdVSA; transactions by U.S. owners of Venezuelan/PdVSA bonds on secondary markets; financing for agricultural and medical exports; and short-term financing to facilitate trade."
Seriously? You really don't know what that means?? It means no matter how much money someone has they can't force you to bend to their will. That's the purpose of government - to protect us from that kind of crap. That's why we have laws. It's hard to believe you can blind yourself to this obvious fact.If economic power is limited by the prohibition on coercion (whatever that means)
who's your pick for the ultimate control of the monopoly of violence, elected officials who are (theoretically) responsible to the voters or rich, un-elected capitalist billionaires like Larry Fink or Bill Gates or Bezos or Dimon or Buffet?
They're still rulers under democracy, moron. Furthermore, Aristotle wasn't right about everything. He calls Anarchy a "deviant" form of democracy. It's not. Anarchy is the absence of government. Democracy is still government, and it's often oppressive.What's your choice?Anyone who believes democracy is a good way to make decisions is a certifiable moron. The term "oligarchy" is virtually meaningless.
Types of Governments - Fact / Myth
Getting rid of government altogether makes a lot of sense.Seriously? You really don't know what that means?? It means no matter how much money someone has they can't force you to bend to their will. That's the purpose of government - to protect us from that kind of crap. That's why we have laws. It's hard to believe you can blind yourself to this obvious fact.If economic power is limited by the prohibition on coercion (whatever that means)
who's your pick for the ultimate control of the monopoly of violence, elected officials who are (theoretically) responsible to the voters or rich, un-elected capitalist billionaires like Larry Fink or Bill Gates or Bezos or Dimon or Buffet?
The government has control of the monopoly of violence. That's what it does. If some rich people are bribing government for favors we need to root that out and punish them. But your solution is to get rid of rich people altogether. Which makes as much sense as getting rid of government altogether.
Economic power is formidable, I don't deny that. But it does have its limits. Socialism pretends to abolish economic power, but it doesn't. It just merges it with government. If we eliminate private entrepreneurship, ambitious people will pursue careers in government rather than careers in business. The same avarice and greed will be driving them, but they'll have all the tools of the state at their disposal.
Giving the bulk of economic power to government makes as much sense (and is essentially the same thing) as giving the coercive power of the state to wealthy interests.
Democracy and socialism is the answer.
You should also be willing to ask the question : "What role did government play in the creation of Apple Computers?" Starting with its official corporate charter and extending through decades of taxpayer-funded (government) research and development into revolutionary technologies like the Internet, GPS, and touchscreen display.Yea I’d say government is a very shitty vessel for solving our problems. Individuals on the other hand are very good at it. I’m typing on a device that would’ve been considered a supercomputer in the 90s...and it fits in my palm. It’s tech making the entire globe richer, giving the impoverished worldwide access to the internet where they can participate in things like commerce and education they could not have dreamed of 10 years ago. Made by the same company that took 40 some years to be worth what our government lost track of in 10.
This thread should be shut down. This is a capitalists nation. Socialism isn't found in this nation.
You should also be willing to ask the question : "What role did government play in the creation of Apple Computers?" Starting with its official corporate charter and extending through decades of taxpayer-funded (government) research and development into revolutionary technologies like the Internet, GPS, and touchscreen display.Yea I’d say government is a very shitty vessel for solving our problems. Individuals on the other hand are very good at it. I’m typing on a device that would’ve been considered a supercomputer in the 90s...and it fits in my palm. It’s tech making the entire globe richer, giving the impoverished worldwide access to the internet where they can participate in things like commerce and education they could not have dreamed of 10 years ago. Made by the same company that took 40 some years to be worth what our government lost track of in 10.
Apple received its early stage finance from the US government's small business Investment Company program. Venture capitalists entered only after government funding had gotten Apple to the critical proof of concept stage.
Considering everything government contributed to Apple's current $1 trillion market cap, it is also shameful that Apple refuses to should its fair share of the federal tax burden, imho.
Taxpayers Helped Apple, but Apple Won’t Help Them
brothers and sisters, this rigged economy is robbing regular Americans of wealth and wages
