POLL: Does the size and role of government exist on a continuum?

[Mac1958]

I've been unable to get a straight answer from another poster on a different thread, so let's try this.

My position is that the size, scope, depth, breadth and authority of governments exist on a continuum. That a country can be, for example, "more" socialist or "less" socialist. "More" authoritarian or "less" authoritarian. "More" capitalist or "less" capitalist.

It seems pretty obvious to me, but I guess not to others.

So please vote and comment, thanks. I voted "Yes, obviously".
.

 

[progressive hunter]

I've been unable to get a straight answer from another poster on a different thread, so let's try this.

My position is that the size, scope, depth, breadth and authority of governments exist on a continuum. That a country can be, for example, "more" socialist or "less" socialist. "More" authoritarian or "less" authoritarian. "More" capitalist or "less" capitalist.

It seems pretty obvious to me, but I guess not to others.

So please vote and comment, thanks. I voted "Yes, obviously".
.

you can easily find your answer in the constitution,,,
its very clear about it

 

[Confounding]

Are you suggesting the world isn't black and white? How will small minds operate without that type of simplification?

 

[Mac1958]

I've been unable to get a straight answer from another poster on a different thread, so let's try this.

My position is that the size, scope, depth, breadth and authority of governments exist on a continuum. That a country can be, for example, "more" socialist or "less" socialist. "More" authoritarian or "less" authoritarian. "More" capitalist or "less" capitalist.

It seems pretty obvious to me, but I guess not to others.

So please vote and comment, thanks. I voted "Yes, obviously".
.

you can easily find your answer in the constitution,,,
its very clear about it

So you don't want to answer.

Got it.
.

 

[progressive hunter]

I've been unable to get a straight answer from another poster on a different thread, so let's try this.

My position is that the size, scope, depth, breadth and authority of governments exist on a continuum. That a country can be, for example, "more" socialist or "less" socialist. "More" authoritarian or "less" authoritarian. "More" capitalist or "less" capitalist.

It seems pretty obvious to me, but I guess not to others.

So please vote and comment, thanks. I voted "Yes, obviously".
.

you can easily find your answer in the constitution,,,
its very clear about it

So you don't want to answer.

Got it.
.

there is no answer that includes the constitution,

 

[Norman]

Instead of moving towards the direction of less America, let's move towards the direction of MORE America. That means more liberties, smaller government and a wall to keep unAmericans out.

 

[Mac1958]

I've been unable to get a straight answer from another poster on a different thread, so let's try this.

My position is that the size, scope, depth, breadth and authority of governments exist on a continuum. That a country can be, for example, "more" socialist or "less" socialist. "More" authoritarian or "less" authoritarian. "More" capitalist or "less" capitalist.

It seems pretty obvious to me, but I guess not to others.

So please vote and comment, thanks. I voted "Yes, obviously".
.

you can easily find your answer in the constitution,,,
its very clear about it

So you don't want to answer.

Got it.
.

there is no answer that includes the constitution,

So you don't want to answer.

Got it.
.

 

[Mac1958]

Instead of moving towards the direction of less America, let's move towards the direction of MORE America. That means more liberties, smaller government and a wall to keep unAmericans out.

So you don't want to answer.

Got it.
.

 

[Mac1958]

Clearly I should have had an "I don't want to answer" option.

 

[Confounding]

So you don't want to answer.

Got it.

I think your assertion is a little bit over his head. You're expecting too much.

 

[progressive hunter]

Clearly I should have had an "I don't want to answer" option.

or added an answer that includes the constitution,,,

 

[Mac1958]

So you don't want to answer.

Got it.

I think your assertion is a little bit over his head. You're expecting too much.

When they equivocate, I pretty much get my answer.

At some level, they know.
.

 

[Norman]

Instead of moving towards the direction of less America, let's move towards the direction of MORE America. That means more liberties, smaller government and a wall to keep unAmericans out.

So you don't want to answer.

Got it.
.

There is no correct answer to the question, because it is a question of definitions, and thus not even a meaningful question.

It's perfectly legitimate to define countries as either socialist or not socialist. For some reason you hate binary definitions, makes you look so nuanced to not have those around or something like that.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I've been unable to get a straight answer from another poster on a different thread, so let's try this.

My position is that the size, scope, depth, breadth and authority of governments exist on a continuum. That a country can be, for example, "more" socialist or "less" socialist. "More" authoritarian or "less" authoritarian. "More" capitalist or "less" capitalist.

It seems pretty obvious to me, but I guess not to others.

So please vote and comment, thanks. I voted "Yes, obviously".
.

I voted for number 3 Mac, even though I have no complaint.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Mac should learn some logic, either a country is socialist or it is not socialist. Where you draw the line is up to you

Haha haha

Thank you Mac for inducing these knee slappers from the tapdancers...

 

[Confounding]

It's perfectly legitimate to define countries as either socialist or not socialist.

Where do you draw the lines?

 

[BrokeLoser]

Mac needs to sell you on his version of government intervention...he insists on making the place cozier for his brown pet humans...He knows they need a heavy dose of commie-lite government. Sad really.

 

[Mac1958]

Mac should learn some logic, either a country is socialist or it is not socialist. Where you draw the line is up to you

Haha haha

Thank you Mac for inducing these knee slappers from the tapdancers...

I've gotten pretty much what I expected.

As I mentioned, when they equivocate it's clear they know the correct answer.
.

 

[Mac1958]

Mac needs to sell you on his version of government intervention...he insists on making the place cozier for his brown pet humans...He knows they need a heavy dose of commie-lite government. Sad really.

So you don't want to answer.

Got it.
.

 

[Norman]

What is the purpose of Mac's question?

I believe pretty much everyone with an over room temperature IQ has figured out. Since it's all on a continuum, moving a bit towards socialism is fine, because it's not the bad boogeyman Venezuela then. Of course, the point is ridiculously unnecessary and stupid, because even under binary definition moving need not break a threshold.

I find a problem with this, because America was founded to be a country that is as far from Venezuela as possible. To even contemplate such a move towards socialism means we are moving in regress. We move only towards more freedoms, liberties, and less people antithetical to those values in the country. If you don't agree with this, maybe it's not a country where you should reside.