CDZ My choice or yours?

[dblack]

I hear all the complaints about socialism, and I agree that the picture you paint of it would be horrendous. Nobody I have ever met advocates socialism in that form.

Do you ever read? Check this out: What is Democratic Socialism? - Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)

Do you ever read your own links? Democratic Socialism is nothing like the government run totalitarian state you crazy right wingers portray. It sounds pretty damn good, even if you do hate and fear the word.

Let's have a look! Let's see - the very first line of the page I linked to:

Democratic socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically

Seems pretty clear. First, they want government running things. They want government running both the economy and society. Not sure how you steer around that one, but you're welcome to try.

Let me know if you ever reach that straw you're reaching for.

Nothin', huh?

 

[danielpalos]

Why do we as taxpayers have to keep bailing out capitalist?

We don't.

When the too big to fail gets bailed out by the govt. it is done with taxpayers monies....If you have missed the last two recessions then you missed out on corporations getting funds to help them stay afloat..and it has been going on since the Great Depression.

Yet, the right wing refuses to help the Poor, only the Rich. Equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation would only help our economy.

 

[Andylusion]

Why do Young Fukkers never seem to be aware of the classic "test cases" for socialism from recent history? Look at GERMANY and KOREA. In both cases, after a recent war, half the country went "socialist" and promptly went into the shitter, while the other half pursued freedom and capitalism ("western social democracy"), and thrived.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the one factor that destroyed East Germany and North Korea is SOCIALISM.

And yet we have Young Fukkers seriously suggesting that Socialism is the "way to go."

Un.

Fucking.

Believable.

Why do we as taxpayers have to keep bailing out capitalist?

Socialism.

In a capitalist system, you never bailout capitalists. The moment you bailout a company for failing, you are no longer engaged in Capitalism.

Milton Friedman was famous for saying "Capitalism is a profit and loss system. Profit encourages risk taking, and loss encourages prudence."

If you socialize the loss.... which in the very phrase... socializing is not capitalist..... if you socialize the loss, then you are destroying the capitalist system.

And when you say "bailout capitalists"... if you bail them out... that by definition makes them no longer capitalist. If they are collecting money from the government, that isn't capitalism. That is socialism. That makes them socialists, if they are collecting money from socialized control.

This is what is bothersome about all the arguments people put forward against capitalism.

They point to something socialist, and say "See capitalism doesn't work".

The tax payers should never have bailed out anyone. That is what Capitalists believe.

It was the conservative caucus in the house of representatives, that proposed an alternative plan to the bailouts

A House GOP alternative to the UAW bailout

Republican Study Committee Releases Alternative to Bailout Proposal | Human Events

It was capitalists conservatives who pushed for a no-bailout alternative. Not the left-wing socialists. Most socialists still to this day say things like "The bailout saved us from a depression"...

So who really in favor of bailing out the rich? The evidence is clear.

 

[oldsoul]

Except any one that doesnt want socialism bitch about basic govt services.
You guys have turned that into a cliche

I'm not sure what your point is. Sometimes government services do suck. You been to the DMV lately? That just means we need to improve how the DMV works. It doesn't mean that it doesn't serve a purpose that helps us all. There are lots of things that can only be done by the government. No private company could or would do them. Only an idiot would say that is the same as government control of everything.

But thats what im saying. The people that bitch about socialism arent bitching about basic govt service. Its a non sequiter is most cases

I have no idea what you're saying. But I will say that as a person who doesn't want socialism, all I really want is basic gov't service. Which probably is not the same think that others may think it is or should be. I do not think the gov't needs to be involved with SS, healthcare, or education, or housing, or a bunch of other things that I think do not fall under the purview of basic gov't functions at the federal level. Beyond the basic stuff, I don't think we should provide it at the federal level unless we have the revenue to pay for it.

Thats what im saying.
People that dont want socialism arent complaining about basic govt service. They are complaining about theft through taxation, unconstitutional fed programs, the govt regulating the market.
They are bitching about real things, not police and firemen.

Police and firemen are socialism. If they oppose socialism, they oppose police and firemen, and infrastructure, and----and----and. Either they have no idea what socialism is, and are just parroting right wing rhetoric, or they are liars. I suspect both.

That certainly is one way of looking at it. I look at it another way though. It goes like this:

There are certain things that there is a general consensus are outside of the general populations desire/ability to provide/do for oneself. Law enforcement, fire fighting, national defense, and regulating various activities are among these. Therefore, as a society, we have developed a means to pool (taxes) our resources (money) and to employ those with sufficient expertise (presumably) and desire to do/provide these things for us. Let me give you an example.

Attempting to put a house fire out with what resources are generally available to the occupants of said house would be futile. So, we agree to pay taxes, thus pooling our money, to employ properly trained and equipped fire fighters to do this for us. We could, instead, have a social agreement to assist our neighbors in such endeavors, and bring whatever resources we have, and are willing to bring to bear. However, given the advancements in technology, this is no longer seen as the best way of doing this. So, we continue to utilise government funded fire fighters. Given that our country is governed "By the people", it, therefore, stands to reason that, though I do not "sign their paycheck", I am, nevertheless, the employer (in part) of my local Fire Department, as such they answer to me (in part). Now, we have also decided that having every citizen part of the decision making process on a daily basis is impractical, therefore, again, we employ others to be our proxy in such matters.

Conversely, in Socialism, while they undoubtedly still have Fire Departments, the average citizen has NO means by which to effect how, when and where FD resources are procured and spent.

Having said all of that. The example of a FD is a poor example to use, to be kind. A much better example would be how we "help" "the poor". Under pure Socialism, it's the government's role to do all that is seen fit for "the poor". Under pure Capitalism, it is their own responsibility to provide for themselves, however, as a morale person I have a responsibility to my fellow person to help those who are struggling. This is why John Adams said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

 

[BULLDOG]

I'm not sure what your point is. Sometimes government services do suck. You been to the DMV lately? That just means we need to improve how the DMV works. It doesn't mean that it doesn't serve a purpose that helps us all. There are lots of things that can only be done by the government. No private company could or would do them. Only an idiot would say that is the same as government control of everything.

But thats what im saying. The people that bitch about socialism arent bitching about basic govt service. Its a non sequiter is most cases

I have no idea what you're saying. But I will say that as a person who doesn't want socialism, all I really want is basic gov't service. Which probably is not the same think that others may think it is or should be. I do not think the gov't needs to be involved with SS, healthcare, or education, or housing, or a bunch of other things that I think do not fall under the purview of basic gov't functions at the federal level. Beyond the basic stuff, I don't think we should provide it at the federal level unless we have the revenue to pay for it.

Thats what im saying.
People that dont want socialism arent complaining about basic govt service. They are complaining about theft through taxation, unconstitutional fed programs, the govt regulating the market.
They are bitching about real things, not police and firemen.

Police and firemen are socialism. If they oppose socialism, they oppose police and firemen, and infrastructure, and----and----and. Either they have no idea what socialism is, and are just parroting right wing rhetoric, or they are liars. I suspect both.

That certainly is one way of looking at it. I look at it another way though. It goes like this:

There are certain things that there is a general consensus are outside of the general populations desire/ability to provide/do for oneself. Law enforcement, fire fighting, national defense, and regulating various activities are among these. Therefore, as a society, we have developed a means to pool (taxes) our resources (money) and to employ those with sufficient expertise (presumably) and desire to do/provide these things for us. Let me give you an example.

Attempting to put a house fire out with what resources are generally available to the occupants of said house would be futile. So, we agree to pay taxes, thus pooling our money, to employ properly trained and equipped fire fighters to do this for us. We could, instead, have a social agreement to assist our neighbors in such endeavors, and bring whatever resources we have, and are willing to bring to bear. However, given the advancements in technology, this is no longer seen as the best way of doing this. So, we continue to utilise government funded fire fighters. Given that our country is governed "By the people", it, therefore, stands to reason that, though I do not "sign their paycheck", I am, nevertheless, the employer (in part) of my local Fire Department, as such they answer to me (in part). Now, we have also decided that having every citizen part of the decision making process on a daily basis is impractical, therefore, again, we employ others to be our proxy in such matters.

Conversely, in Socialism, while they undoubtedly still have Fire Departments, the average citizen has NO means by which to effect how, when and where FD resources are procured and spent.

Having said all of that. The example of a FD is a poor example to use, to be kind. A much better example would be how we "help" "the poor". Under pure Socialism, it's the government's role to do all that is seen fit for "the poor". Under pure Capitalism, it is their own responsibility to provide for themselves, however, as a morale person I have a responsibility to my fellow person to help those who are struggling. This is why John Adams said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Your example of a fire department is a perfect example of socialism, as are the other things you listed; Police military, etc.
As a country, we have decided it is in everybody's best interest to try to prevent most from falling behind and putting a drag on the country as a whole. We already decided large numbers of uneducated people would hurt us as a country. That's why we have a socialist education system. We already decided an inordinate amount sick people would hurt us as a country. That's why socialized medicine would help us like every other industrialized country in the world. We already decided too many poor and struggling people would hurt us as a country. That's why we have government assistance. Socialism is the most efficient way to do what we have already decided to do. There is nothing about socialism that forces us to have programs that we haven't already decided, that we need as a country

 

[oldsoul]

But thats what im saying. The people that bitch about socialism arent bitching about basic govt service. Its a non sequiter is most cases

I have no idea what you're saying. But I will say that as a person who doesn't want socialism, all I really want is basic gov't service. Which probably is not the same think that others may think it is or should be. I do not think the gov't needs to be involved with SS, healthcare, or education, or housing, or a bunch of other things that I think do not fall under the purview of basic gov't functions at the federal level. Beyond the basic stuff, I don't think we should provide it at the federal level unless we have the revenue to pay for it.

Thats what im saying.
People that dont want socialism arent complaining about basic govt service. They are complaining about theft through taxation, unconstitutional fed programs, the govt regulating the market.
They are bitching about real things, not police and firemen.

Police and firemen are socialism. If they oppose socialism, they oppose police and firemen, and infrastructure, and----and----and. Either they have no idea what socialism is, and are just parroting right wing rhetoric, or they are liars. I suspect both.

That certainly is one way of looking at it. I look at it another way though. It goes like this:

There are certain things that there is a general consensus are outside of the general populations desire/ability to provide/do for oneself. Law enforcement, fire fighting, national defense, and regulating various activities are among these. Therefore, as a society, we have developed a means to pool (taxes) our resources (money) and to employ those with sufficient expertise (presumably) and desire to do/provide these things for us. Let me give you an example.

Attempting to put a house fire out with what resources are generally available to the occupants of said house would be futile. So, we agree to pay taxes, thus pooling our money, to employ properly trained and equipped fire fighters to do this for us. We could, instead, have a social agreement to assist our neighbors in such endeavors, and bring whatever resources we have, and are willing to bring to bear. However, given the advancements in technology, this is no longer seen as the best way of doing this. So, we continue to utilise government funded fire fighters. Given that our country is governed "By the people", it, therefore, stands to reason that, though I do not "sign their paycheck", I am, nevertheless, the employer (in part) of my local Fire Department, as such they answer to me (in part). Now, we have also decided that having every citizen part of the decision making process on a daily basis is impractical, therefore, again, we employ others to be our proxy in such matters.

Conversely, in Socialism, while they undoubtedly still have Fire Departments, the average citizen has NO means by which to effect how, when and where FD resources are procured and spent.

Having said all of that. The example of a FD is a poor example to use, to be kind. A much better example would be how we "help" "the poor". Under pure Socialism, it's the government's role to do all that is seen fit for "the poor". Under pure Capitalism, it is their own responsibility to provide for themselves, however, as a morale person I have a responsibility to my fellow person to help those who are struggling. This is why John Adams said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Your example of a fire department is a perfect example of socialism, as are the other things you listed; Police military, etc.
As a country, we have decided it is in everybody's best interest to try to prevent most from falling behind and putting a drag on the country as a whole. We already decided large numbers of uneducated people would hurt us as a country. That's why we have a socialist education system. We already decided an inordinate amount sick people would hurt us as a country. That's why socialized medicine would help us like every other industrialized country in the world. We already decided too many poor and struggling people would hurt us as a country. That's why we have government assistance. Socialism is the most efficient way to do what we have already decided to do. There is nothing about socialism that forces us to have programs that we haven't already decided, that we need as a country

Explain to me how it is that NATIONAL government is the answer. Please be more thorough than just saying there is no other way that is better. Explain why a national government bureaucracy is the way to go, in your estimation. More to the point, why is a FEDERAL level bureaucracy better than 50 STATE level ones that can all try different approaches for the different situations within each state. How is it that one answer is the best way versus allowing each state to decide what is best in their state? Is diversity not the best answer when it comes to government?

To be clear, I am not opposed to a socialistic approach necessarily. I am opposed to people in California deciding what is best for Florida, or people in Georgia deciding what is best for Alaska. We have, quite possibly, the most diverse nation in the world, both demographically, and geographically. How could one answer possibly be what is best in all areas? Is it just to provide uniformity? If so, to what end? Could an acceptable level of uniformity be accomplished with some basic minimum parameters, then let the various states, or even counties, decide the specifics?

 

[sparky]

Sounds like a 10ther debate Old one .....i kinda like 10thers too....~S~

 

[BULLDOG]

I have no idea what you're saying. But I will say that as a person who doesn't want socialism, all I really want is basic gov't service. Which probably is not the same think that others may think it is or should be. I do not think the gov't needs to be involved with SS, healthcare, or education, or housing, or a bunch of other things that I think do not fall under the purview of basic gov't functions at the federal level. Beyond the basic stuff, I don't think we should provide it at the federal level unless we have the revenue to pay for it.

Thats what im saying.
People that dont want socialism arent complaining about basic govt service. They are complaining about theft through taxation, unconstitutional fed programs, the govt regulating the market.
They are bitching about real things, not police and firemen.

Police and firemen are socialism. If they oppose socialism, they oppose police and firemen, and infrastructure, and----and----and. Either they have no idea what socialism is, and are just parroting right wing rhetoric, or they are liars. I suspect both.

That certainly is one way of looking at it. I look at it another way though. It goes like this:

There are certain things that there is a general consensus are outside of the general populations desire/ability to provide/do for oneself. Law enforcement, fire fighting, national defense, and regulating various activities are among these. Therefore, as a society, we have developed a means to pool (taxes) our resources (money) and to employ those with sufficient expertise (presumably) and desire to do/provide these things for us. Let me give you an example.

Attempting to put a house fire out with what resources are generally available to the occupants of said house would be futile. So, we agree to pay taxes, thus pooling our money, to employ properly trained and equipped fire fighters to do this for us. We could, instead, have a social agreement to assist our neighbors in such endeavors, and bring whatever resources we have, and are willing to bring to bear. However, given the advancements in technology, this is no longer seen as the best way of doing this. So, we continue to utilise government funded fire fighters. Given that our country is governed "By the people", it, therefore, stands to reason that, though I do not "sign their paycheck", I am, nevertheless, the employer (in part) of my local Fire Department, as such they answer to me (in part). Now, we have also decided that having every citizen part of the decision making process on a daily basis is impractical, therefore, again, we employ others to be our proxy in such matters.

Conversely, in Socialism, while they undoubtedly still have Fire Departments, the average citizen has NO means by which to effect how, when and where FD resources are procured and spent.

Having said all of that. The example of a FD is a poor example to use, to be kind. A much better example would be how we "help" "the poor". Under pure Socialism, it's the government's role to do all that is seen fit for "the poor". Under pure Capitalism, it is their own responsibility to provide for themselves, however, as a morale person I have a responsibility to my fellow person to help those who are struggling. This is why John Adams said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Your example of a fire department is a perfect example of socialism, as are the other things you listed; Police military, etc.
As a country, we have decided it is in everybody's best interest to try to prevent most from falling behind and putting a drag on the country as a whole. We already decided large numbers of uneducated people would hurt us as a country. That's why we have a socialist education system. We already decided an inordinate amount sick people would hurt us as a country. That's why socialized medicine would help us like every other industrialized country in the world. We already decided too many poor and struggling people would hurt us as a country. That's why we have government assistance. Socialism is the most efficient way to do what we have already decided to do. There is nothing about socialism that forces us to have programs that we haven't already decided, that we need as a country

Explain to me how it is that NATIONAL government is the answer. Please be more thorough than just saying there is no other way that is better. Explain why a national government bureaucracy is the way to go, in your estimation. More to the point, why is a FEDERAL level bureaucracy better than 50 STATE level ones that can all try different approaches for the different situations within each state. How is it that one answer is the best way versus allowing each state to decide what is best in their state? Is diversity not the best answer when it comes to government?

To be clear, I am not opposed to a socialistic approach necessarily. I am opposed to people in California deciding what is best for Florida, or people in Georgia deciding what is best for Alaska. We have, quite possibly, the most diverse nation in the world, both demographically, and geographically. How could one answer possibly be what is best in all areas? Is it just to provide uniformity? If so, to what end? Could an acceptable level of uniformity be accomplished with some basic minimum parameters, then let the various states, or even counties, decide the specifics?

I would think it would depend on the program. Is it a national program, instituted at the national level, or something that only effect the local area? As far as school, the 3 rs should be standardized across the country. It doesn't matter which state you are from,readin, riting, and rithmetic are important and should be taught at a high level. Of course, there needs to be allowances for remedial as well as gifted programs for those who don't necessarily fit the level that most would benefit from. Refinery management might be offered on the gulf coast while agriculture courses might be more appropriate in the bread basket. In most cases we already know what works, so it would be dumb to have 50 separate programs just for the sake of having 50 programs.

 

[oldsoul]

Thats what im saying.
People that dont want socialism arent complaining about basic govt service. They are complaining about theft through taxation, unconstitutional fed programs, the govt regulating the market.
They are bitching about real things, not police and firemen.

Police and firemen are socialism. If they oppose socialism, they oppose police and firemen, and infrastructure, and----and----and. Either they have no idea what socialism is, and are just parroting right wing rhetoric, or they are liars. I suspect both.

That certainly is one way of looking at it. I look at it another way though. It goes like this:

There are certain things that there is a general consensus are outside of the general populations desire/ability to provide/do for oneself. Law enforcement, fire fighting, national defense, and regulating various activities are among these. Therefore, as a society, we have developed a means to pool (taxes) our resources (money) and to employ those with sufficient expertise (presumably) and desire to do/provide these things for us. Let me give you an example.

Attempting to put a house fire out with what resources are generally available to the occupants of said house would be futile. So, we agree to pay taxes, thus pooling our money, to employ properly trained and equipped fire fighters to do this for us. We could, instead, have a social agreement to assist our neighbors in such endeavors, and bring whatever resources we have, and are willing to bring to bear. However, given the advancements in technology, this is no longer seen as the best way of doing this. So, we continue to utilise government funded fire fighters. Given that our country is governed "By the people", it, therefore, stands to reason that, though I do not "sign their paycheck", I am, nevertheless, the employer (in part) of my local Fire Department, as such they answer to me (in part). Now, we have also decided that having every citizen part of the decision making process on a daily basis is impractical, therefore, again, we employ others to be our proxy in such matters.

Conversely, in Socialism, while they undoubtedly still have Fire Departments, the average citizen has NO means by which to effect how, when and where FD resources are procured and spent.

Having said all of that. The example of a FD is a poor example to use, to be kind. A much better example would be how we "help" "the poor". Under pure Socialism, it's the government's role to do all that is seen fit for "the poor". Under pure Capitalism, it is their own responsibility to provide for themselves, however, as a morale person I have a responsibility to my fellow person to help those who are struggling. This is why John Adams said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Your example of a fire department is a perfect example of socialism, as are the other things you listed; Police military, etc.
As a country, we have decided it is in everybody's best interest to try to prevent most from falling behind and putting a drag on the country as a whole. We already decided large numbers of uneducated people would hurt us as a country. That's why we have a socialist education system. We already decided an inordinate amount sick people would hurt us as a country. That's why socialized medicine would help us like every other industrialized country in the world. We already decided too many poor and struggling people would hurt us as a country. That's why we have government assistance. Socialism is the most efficient way to do what we have already decided to do. There is nothing about socialism that forces us to have programs that we haven't already decided, that we need as a country

Explain to me how it is that NATIONAL government is the answer. Please be more thorough than just saying there is no other way that is better. Explain why a national government bureaucracy is the way to go, in your estimation. More to the point, why is a FEDERAL level bureaucracy better than 50 STATE level ones that can all try different approaches for the different situations within each state. How is it that one answer is the best way versus allowing each state to decide what is best in their state? Is diversity not the best answer when it comes to government?

To be clear, I am not opposed to a socialistic approach necessarily. I am opposed to people in California deciding what is best for Florida, or people in Georgia deciding what is best for Alaska. We have, quite possibly, the most diverse nation in the world, both demographically, and geographically. How could one answer possibly be what is best in all areas? Is it just to provide uniformity? If so, to what end? Could an acceptable level of uniformity be accomplished with some basic minimum parameters, then let the various states, or even counties, decide the specifics?

I would think it would depend on the program. Is it a national program, instituted at the national level, or something that only effect the local area? As far as school, the 3 rs should be standardized across the country. It doesn't matter which state you are from,readin, riting, and rithmetic are important and should be taught at a high level. Of course, there needs to be allowances for remedial as well as gifted programs for those who don't necessarily fit the level that most would benefit from. Refinery management might be offered on the gulf coast while agriculture courses might be more appropriate in the bread basket. In most cases we already know what works, so it would be dumb to have 50 separate programs just for the sake of having 50 programs.

You seem to want to focus on education. Ok, let's talk education. Now you claim that "In most cases we already know what works,..." Really?

https://i0.wp.com/factsmaps.com/wp-...rage-score-of-mathematics-science-reading.png
Are you sure? Seems we may be able to learn something from the U.K., and even more from Germany, Canada, and Estonia (of all places). So let's look at how the a few states stack up:

Are you still sure we don't need to do some experimenting to find a better solution here? Further, what tells you that students in NYC will learn the same way as rural North Dakota students?

 

[BULLDOG]

Police and firemen are socialism. If they oppose socialism, they oppose police and firemen, and infrastructure, and----and----and. Either they have no idea what socialism is, and are just parroting right wing rhetoric, or they are liars. I suspect both.

That certainly is one way of looking at it. I look at it another way though. It goes like this:

There are certain things that there is a general consensus are outside of the general populations desire/ability to provide/do for oneself. Law enforcement, fire fighting, national defense, and regulating various activities are among these. Therefore, as a society, we have developed a means to pool (taxes) our resources (money) and to employ those with sufficient expertise (presumably) and desire to do/provide these things for us. Let me give you an example.

Attempting to put a house fire out with what resources are generally available to the occupants of said house would be futile. So, we agree to pay taxes, thus pooling our money, to employ properly trained and equipped fire fighters to do this for us. We could, instead, have a social agreement to assist our neighbors in such endeavors, and bring whatever resources we have, and are willing to bring to bear. However, given the advancements in technology, this is no longer seen as the best way of doing this. So, we continue to utilise government funded fire fighters. Given that our country is governed "By the people", it, therefore, stands to reason that, though I do not "sign their paycheck", I am, nevertheless, the employer (in part) of my local Fire Department, as such they answer to me (in part). Now, we have also decided that having every citizen part of the decision making process on a daily basis is impractical, therefore, again, we employ others to be our proxy in such matters.

Conversely, in Socialism, while they undoubtedly still have Fire Departments, the average citizen has NO means by which to effect how, when and where FD resources are procured and spent.

Having said all of that. The example of a FD is a poor example to use, to be kind. A much better example would be how we "help" "the poor". Under pure Socialism, it's the government's role to do all that is seen fit for "the poor". Under pure Capitalism, it is their own responsibility to provide for themselves, however, as a morale person I have a responsibility to my fellow person to help those who are struggling. This is why John Adams said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Your example of a fire department is a perfect example of socialism, as are the other things you listed; Police military, etc.
As a country, we have decided it is in everybody's best interest to try to prevent most from falling behind and putting a drag on the country as a whole. We already decided large numbers of uneducated people would hurt us as a country. That's why we have a socialist education system. We already decided an inordinate amount sick people would hurt us as a country. That's why socialized medicine would help us like every other industrialized country in the world. We already decided too many poor and struggling people would hurt us as a country. That's why we have government assistance. Socialism is the most efficient way to do what we have already decided to do. There is nothing about socialism that forces us to have programs that we haven't already decided, that we need as a country

Explain to me how it is that NATIONAL government is the answer. Please be more thorough than just saying there is no other way that is better. Explain why a national government bureaucracy is the way to go, in your estimation. More to the point, why is a FEDERAL level bureaucracy better than 50 STATE level ones that can all try different approaches for the different situations within each state. How is it that one answer is the best way versus allowing each state to decide what is best in their state? Is diversity not the best answer when it comes to government?

To be clear, I am not opposed to a socialistic approach necessarily. I am opposed to people in California deciding what is best for Florida, or people in Georgia deciding what is best for Alaska. We have, quite possibly, the most diverse nation in the world, both demographically, and geographically. How could one answer possibly be what is best in all areas? Is it just to provide uniformity? If so, to what end? Could an acceptable level of uniformity be accomplished with some basic minimum parameters, then let the various states, or even counties, decide the specifics?

I would think it would depend on the program. Is it a national program, instituted at the national level, or something that only effect the local area? As far as school, the 3 rs should be standardized across the country. It doesn't matter which state you are from,readin, riting, and rithmetic are important and should be taught at a high level. Of course, there needs to be allowances for remedial as well as gifted programs for those who don't necessarily fit the level that most would benefit from. Refinery management might be offered on the gulf coast while agriculture courses might be more appropriate in the bread basket. In most cases we already know what works, so it would be dumb to have 50 separate programs just for the sake of having 50 programs.

You seem to want to focus on education. Ok, let's talk education. Now you claim that "In most cases we already know what works,..." Really?

https://i0.wp.com/factsmaps.com/wp-...rage-score-of-mathematics-science-reading.png
Are you sure? Seems we may be able to learn something from the U.K., and even more from Germany, Canada, and Estonia (of all places). So let's look at how the a few states stack up:

Are you still sure we don't need to do some experimenting to find a better solution here? Further, what tells you that students in NYC will learn the same way as rural North Dakota students?

I don't particularly care to change the subject to schools. I only used schools as an example.

 

[oldsoul]

That certainly is one way of looking at it. I look at it another way though. It goes like this:

There are certain things that there is a general consensus are outside of the general populations desire/ability to provide/do for oneself. Law enforcement, fire fighting, national defense, and regulating various activities are among these. Therefore, as a society, we have developed a means to pool (taxes) our resources (money) and to employ those with sufficient expertise (presumably) and desire to do/provide these things for us. Let me give you an example.

Attempting to put a house fire out with what resources are generally available to the occupants of said house would be futile. So, we agree to pay taxes, thus pooling our money, to employ properly trained and equipped fire fighters to do this for us. We could, instead, have a social agreement to assist our neighbors in such endeavors, and bring whatever resources we have, and are willing to bring to bear. However, given the advancements in technology, this is no longer seen as the best way of doing this. So, we continue to utilise government funded fire fighters. Given that our country is governed "By the people", it, therefore, stands to reason that, though I do not "sign their paycheck", I am, nevertheless, the employer (in part) of my local Fire Department, as such they answer to me (in part). Now, we have also decided that having every citizen part of the decision making process on a daily basis is impractical, therefore, again, we employ others to be our proxy in such matters.

Conversely, in Socialism, while they undoubtedly still have Fire Departments, the average citizen has NO means by which to effect how, when and where FD resources are procured and spent.

Having said all of that. The example of a FD is a poor example to use, to be kind. A much better example would be how we "help" "the poor". Under pure Socialism, it's the government's role to do all that is seen fit for "the poor". Under pure Capitalism, it is their own responsibility to provide for themselves, however, as a morale person I have a responsibility to my fellow person to help those who are struggling. This is why John Adams said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Your example of a fire department is a perfect example of socialism, as are the other things you listed; Police military, etc.
As a country, we have decided it is in everybody's best interest to try to prevent most from falling behind and putting a drag on the country as a whole. We already decided large numbers of uneducated people would hurt us as a country. That's why we have a socialist education system. We already decided an inordinate amount sick people would hurt us as a country. That's why socialized medicine would help us like every other industrialized country in the world. We already decided too many poor and struggling people would hurt us as a country. That's why we have government assistance. Socialism is the most efficient way to do what we have already decided to do. There is nothing about socialism that forces us to have programs that we haven't already decided, that we need as a country

Explain to me how it is that NATIONAL government is the answer. Please be more thorough than just saying there is no other way that is better. Explain why a national government bureaucracy is the way to go, in your estimation. More to the point, why is a FEDERAL level bureaucracy better than 50 STATE level ones that can all try different approaches for the different situations within each state. How is it that one answer is the best way versus allowing each state to decide what is best in their state? Is diversity not the best answer when it comes to government?

To be clear, I am not opposed to a socialistic approach necessarily. I am opposed to people in California deciding what is best for Florida, or people in Georgia deciding what is best for Alaska. We have, quite possibly, the most diverse nation in the world, both demographically, and geographically. How could one answer possibly be what is best in all areas? Is it just to provide uniformity? If so, to what end? Could an acceptable level of uniformity be accomplished with some basic minimum parameters, then let the various states, or even counties, decide the specifics?

I would think it would depend on the program. Is it a national program, instituted at the national level, or something that only effect the local area? As far as school, the 3 rs should be standardized across the country. It doesn't matter which state you are from,readin, riting, and rithmetic are important and should be taught at a high level. Of course, there needs to be allowances for remedial as well as gifted programs for those who don't necessarily fit the level that most would benefit from. Refinery management might be offered on the gulf coast while agriculture courses might be more appropriate in the bread basket. In most cases we already know what works, so it would be dumb to have 50 separate programs just for the sake of having 50 programs.

You seem to want to focus on education. Ok, let's talk education. Now you claim that "In most cases we already know what works,..." Really?

https://i0.wp.com/factsmaps.com/wp-...rage-score-of-mathematics-science-reading.png
Are you sure? Seems we may be able to learn something from the U.K., and even more from Germany, Canada, and Estonia (of all places). So let's look at how the a few states stack up:

Are you still sure we don't need to do some experimenting to find a better solution here? Further, what tells you that students in NYC will learn the same way as rural North Dakota students?

I don't particularly care to change the subject to schools. I only used schools as an example.

An example that falls flat when one looks, critically, at the facts.

 

[sartre play]

Looked, cant find any large numbers of people who are members of either the communist party or members of the socialist party, looks like a political ploy to discredit one party by saying they are leaning to far in a direction that the other major party is against?
Both party's leaders have major problems in relating to the average working American.

 

[candycorn]

I’ve paid quite a bit for the police, fire, sewer workers, sanitation workers, county hospitals, etc in the various communities where I have lived. I’ve called 911 about 4 times in my life (all for other people I’m blessed to say). At my current job, I pay about 3X the national average in income taxes give or take. To somewhat quote Sam Seaborn, “I don’t get 3 votes on election day, the police don’t come to my house 3X faster and my water isn’t 3 times hotter or cleaner”. I pay these taxes because it is the only way that society is going to work. And it does work. Is it messy? Yep. Is it perfect? No. It’s pretty much what our framers said…in order to make "a more perfect union.” Add that to the unfinished pyramid on the back of a $1 bill and you get what America is all about in my view. It isn’t that we’re perfect…its that we want to be perfect

 

[oldsoul]

I think most Americans like to make their own choices. They like the idea that they get to spend their money any way they want to. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, right? Essentially, most of us like to decide for ourselves how we are going to go about pursuing whatever our idea of happiness is. I'm guessing that most of us also do not like somebody else telling us what our idea if happiness should be, and also setting limits on how much happiness we deserve.

Well that's what socialism is, somebody else making your decisions for you whether you like it or not. How's that for equality, hmm? Ok, maybe not ALL your decisions, at least not yet. But have you considered what the trend has been here in the US over the past century or so? Whether you realize it or not, your rights and liberties have been reduced and by more than you think.

Do you think that the best player on the team should be paid the same as the worst? How about the best actors, musicians, teachers, doctors, whatever? No doubt some will strive to be the best they can be anyway, but how many won't bother? How much poorer will that make us as a society?

What does socialism to do innovation if there's no incentive for the results? Whose going to bust ass to develop something new if there's no reward? Been to Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela lately?

Do you really think that under socialism there wouldn't still be a ruling class living like kings? What makes you think things will be any different from an equality and social justice point of view? Or any kind of justice, do you think you will get the same justice as the well-connected, or will they skate and you get screwed?

So you have a decision to make. Do you want to live in a country where no matter how hard you work, no matter what you do or how much you succeed, you simply won't improve your lot?

Do you want to benefit from your own success or would you prefer to let the government take over and use your benefit to pay everyone else?

In short, how much control do you want the gov't to have over your life? Do you want to make your own choices, or leave it to somebody else?

The topic fails as a false dilemma fallacy.

No one advocates for ‘socialism,’ America will not become ‘socialist,’ and the thread premise is yet another example of the ignorance of ‘socialism’ common to most on the right.

And if not ignorance, then it’s an example of the dishonesty and demagoguery common to most on the right, nothing but a ridiculous conservative lie.

Ok, you seem to believe that you know more about what socialism is, and what that would mean in practice. So, please, by all means, explain to us all how socialism works, so we can all understand at the same level as you do. I do not make this request with any sarcasm, snark, or other "gotcha" in mind. (Though I fear that it may seem that way because I do understand where socialism inevitably leads). Hey, maybe I could learn something about this though. Who knows.

Typical. Given a golden opportunity, and WEEKS of time. The result? crickets...

 

[dblack]

Looked, cant find any large numbers of people who are members of either the communist party or members of the socialist party, looks like a political ploy to discredit one party by saying they are leaning to far in a direction that the other major party is against?

And? I mean, that's exactly what it is. The Republicans are saying that the Democrats are pushing for more socialism. That's true, isn't it?

 

[Natural Citizen]

I hear all the complaints about socialism, and I agree that the picture you paint of it would be horrendous. Nobody I have ever met advocates socialism in that form. We currently have a mix of socialism and capitalism. Our police, fire departments, military, and infrastructure are all socialism. No private company could or would be able to provide those things for us in a purely capitalist system. You also seem to forget the times capitalism drastically failed and it took socialism to bail us out. The crash of 29 was the result of failed capitalism run unchecked. Only a substantial dose of socialism was able to dig us out of that. The Bush crash was not quite as bad, but only a socialist bail out could save us from total collapse. Why do you have a hard time understanding that no private company can build and maintain the infrastructure that all private corporations have to have to stay in business?

That's the dumbest stuff I've read in quite some time. lol.

 

[blackhawk]

As I understand it the medicare for all deal being pushed by some Democrats would do away with all employer provided health insurance that would take away my choice and sounds like socialism to me. If the government has the power to do that what other choices could they take away from you? People should remember the more power you give the government the more it wants and once you give it to them it's all but impossible to take it away from them everyone should really take some time and think about this before going down this road.