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

[Oddball]

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".
.

No.

You either have an authoritarian state or you do not....Varying degrees of relative authoritarian control are irrelevant.....You either have cancer or you do not.

Capitalism is an economic model, not a political one....Socialism is both political and economic.....Black markets (nearly pure capitalism) exist organically outside any form of authoritarian gubmint control.....In fact, such authoritarian tyranny is the root of them being "black" markets.

 

[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.

So you don't want to answer.

Got it.
.

Mac, you work your ass off trying to pitch a commie-lite version of .GOV...I’m fascinated by it yet not at all surprised as this is the brown beggar in you speaking aloud.
Look bud, this isn’t complicated...good, productive, real Americans all agree with investing in infrastructure, military, public service personnel...fire, police etc.....But NOBODY wants to invest in wetbacks, their litters, whitetrash or ShaQuita and her weed harvest....or any other piece of shit human beings.
Sorry dude...that’s just the way good real Americans think.
You still confused?

 

[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".
.

No.

You either have an authoritarian state or you do not....Varying degrees of relative authoritarian control are irrelevant.....You either have cancer or you do not.

Capitalism is an economic model, not a political one....Socialism is both political and economic.....Black markets (nearly pure capitalism) exist organically outside any form of authoritarian gubmint control.....In fact, such authoritarian tyranny is the root of them being "black" markets.

So let me get this straight, and tell me if I'm wrong.

First, the actual poll question does not bring up socialism. I'm taking about the size of government.

You don't see anything on the planet in between the USA and Venezuela? Really?
.

 

[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.
.

Mac, you work your ass off trying to pitch a commie-lite version of .GOV...I’m fascinated by it yet not at all surprised as this is the brown beggar in you speaking aloud.
Look bud, this isn’t complicated...good, productive, real Americans all agree with investing in infrastructure, military, public service personnel...fire, police etc.....But NOBODY wants to invest in wetbacks, their litters, whitetrash or ShaQuita and her weed harvest....or any other piece of shit human beings.
Sorry dude...that’s just the way good real Americans think.
You still confused?

I realize you're consumed by skin color (just like your cousins on the Regressive Left, and I do love that), but perhaps you could just answer the question.

Don't be afraid. I won't laugh. It's a pretty straightforward question.
.

 

[RodISHI]

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".
.

No.

You either have an authoritarian state or you do not....Varying degrees of relative authoritarian control are irrelevant.....You either have cancer or you do not.

Capitalism is an economic model, not a political one....Socialism is both political and economic.....Black markets (nearly pure capitalism) exist organically outside any form of authoritarian gubmint control.....In fact, such authoritarian tyranny is the root of them being "black" markets.

What can we call portions they are calling capitalism a cancer when laws are skewed to enrich those who are already rich? Like Obama Care, taxpayer funds given to large corporations, taxpayer money spent to develop pharmaceuticals and technologies that is then given to corporations that charge our own citizens excessive costs to use or enjoy that can be purchased in other countries for little to nothing?

 

[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".
.

No.

You either have an authoritarian state or you do not....Varying degrees of relative authoritarian control are irrelevant.....You either have cancer or you do not.

Capitalism is an economic model, not a political one....Socialism is both political and economic.....Black markets (nearly pure capitalism) exist organically outside any form of authoritarian gubmint control.....In fact, such authoritarian tyranny is the root of them being "black" markets.

So let me get this straight, and tell me if I'm wrong.

First, the actual poll question does not bring up socialism. I'm taking about the size of government.

You don't see anything on the planet in between the USA and Venezuela? Really?
.

and as I said,,,the answer to the size of government is clearly laid out in the constitution,,,

you should take some time and read it before asking dumb questions

 

[XponentialChaos]

I voted yes.

 

[Oddball]

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".
.

No.

You either have an authoritarian state or you do not....Varying degrees of relative authoritarian control are irrelevant.....You either have cancer or you do not.

Capitalism is an economic model, not a political one....Socialism is both political and economic.....Black markets (nearly pure capitalism) exist organically outside any form of authoritarian gubmint control.....In fact, such authoritarian tyranny is the root of them being "black" markets.

What can we call portions they are calling capitalism a cancer when laws are skewed to enrich those who are already rich? Like Obama Care, taxpayer funds given to large corporations, taxpayer money spent to develop pharmaceuticals and technologies that is then given to corporations that charge our own citizens excessive costs to use or enjoy that can be purchased in other countries for little to nothing?

What the statist calls "capitalism" is not germane to what it really is: free people exchanging value voluntarily....When The State interferes by rewarding one player over another, capitalism -properly defined- is no longer in effect.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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".
.

No.

You either have an authoritarian state or you do not....Varying degrees of relative authoritarian control are irrelevant.....You either have cancer or you do not.

Capitalism is an economic model, not a political one....Socialism is both political and economic.....Black markets (nearly pure capitalism) exist organically outside any form of authoritarian gubmint control.....In fact, such authoritarian tyranny is the root of them being "black" markets.

What can we call portions they are calling capitalism a cancer when laws are skewed to enrich those who are already rich? Like Obama Care, taxpayer funds given to large corporations, taxpayer money spent to develop pharmaceuticals and technologies that is then given to corporations that charge our own citizens excessive costs to use or enjoy that can be purchased in other countries for little to nothing?

Your post touches on a good point:

Surely everyone can agree that the profit motive doesn't belong in some institutions.

 

[Oddball]

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".
.

No.

You either have an authoritarian state or you do not....Varying degrees of relative authoritarian control are irrelevant.....You either have cancer or you do not.

Capitalism is an economic model, not a political one....Socialism is both political and economic.....Black markets (nearly pure capitalism) exist organically outside any form of authoritarian gubmint control.....In fact, such authoritarian tyranny is the root of them being "black" markets.

So let me get this straight, and tell me if I'm wrong.

First, the actual poll question does not bring up socialism. I'm taking about the size of government.

You said "more capitalist or less", and I made the point that capitalism is apolitical...Socialism was mentioned as a contrast.

You don't see anything on the planet in between the USA and Venezuela? Really?
.

Is the USA's gubmint authoritarian or not?....Do they rule by force or not?...Don't haggle over degrees, it's a yes or no question.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

free people exchanging value voluntarily...

But that is not an accurate description of what actually results,over time. To which many people working full time and on welfare can attest.

 

[RodISHI]

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".
.

No.

You either have an authoritarian state or you do not....Varying degrees of relative authoritarian control are irrelevant.....You either have cancer or you do not.

Capitalism is an economic model, not a political one....Socialism is both political and economic.....Black markets (nearly pure capitalism) exist organically outside any form of authoritarian gubmint control.....In fact, such authoritarian tyranny is the root of them being "black" markets.

What can we call portions they are calling capitalism a cancer when laws are skewed to enrich those who are already rich? Like Obama Care, taxpayer funds given to large corporations, taxpayer money spent to develop pharmaceuticals and technologies that is then given to corporations that charge our own citizens excessive costs to use or enjoy that can be purchased in other countries for little to nothing?

What the statist calls "capitalism" is not germane to what it really is: free people exchanging value voluntarily....When The State interferes by rewarding one player over another, capitalism -properly defined- is no longer in effect.

Thank you. Mob rule and the gangster types are using the government and bureaucracies to apply their rules.

 

[TRFjr]

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".
.

the role of government is to insert control so the bigger the government the more control it can and will insert
and like every living mass if that mass has an impudent never-ending supply of food it will continue to grow unchecked
to limit growth and its control it gains you have to starve the beast

 

[Oddball]

free people exchanging value voluntarily...

But that is not an accurate description of what actually results,over time. To which many people working full time and on welfare can attest.

It's not an accurate description when people use The State to intervene....But as me exchanging value with my neighbor freely, it's the exact description.

 

[Oddball]

the role of government is to insert control so the bigger the government the more control it can and will insert
and like every living mass if that mass has an impudent never-ending supply of food it will continue to grow unchecked
to limit growth and its control it gains you have to starve the beast

Which is exactly why The State will never remain limited to its original box...."Minarchy" is a myth.

 

[Slade3200]

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".
.

Yes of course it is a continuum in reality. In partisan politics it is an all or nothing slippery slope game. Our politics has devolved into demonizing, stereotyping, and fear mongering. A fair, honest, objective debate is few and far between. Drama is what drives ratings and emotions and that’s what the media and our leaders play off of. We need a disrupter who can find success using good old fashioned character and integrity and intellect. Something to change the tides because we are neck deep in some really ugly crap and sinking fast

 

[TRFjr]

free people exchanging value voluntarily...

But that is not an accurate description of what actually results,over time. To which many people working full time and on welfare can attest.

if if your only option is trying to live on a minim wage job the problem is with you with your lack of skills or education, not the wage
learn a skill get an eduction and you wont have to live on minimum wage

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's not an accurate description when people use The State to intervene..

Sure, sometimes, but that doesn't contradict my point in any way whatsoever.

 

[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".
.

No.

You either have an authoritarian state or you do not....Varying degrees of relative authoritarian control are irrelevant.....You either have cancer or you do not.

Capitalism is an economic model, not a political one....Socialism is both political and economic.....Black markets (nearly pure capitalism) exist organically outside any form of authoritarian gubmint control.....In fact, such authoritarian tyranny is the root of them being "black" markets.

So let me get this straight, and tell me if I'm wrong.

First, the actual poll question does not bring up socialism. I'm taking about the size of government.

You don't see anything on the planet in between the USA and Venezuela? Really?
.

and as I said,,,the answer to the size of government is clearly laid out in the constitution,,,

you should take some time and read it before asking dumb questions

Is that a "yes" or a "no"?

Don't you want to say?
.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

free people exchanging value voluntarily...

But that is not an accurate description of what actually results,over time. To which many people working full time and on welfare can attest.

if if your only option is trying to live on a minim wage job the problem is with you with your lack of skills or education, not the wage
learn a skill get an eduction and you wont have to live on minimum wage

Ah yes, the libertarian fraud nonsolution.

Problem? Oh, I'll solve it: I shall point at peole and say, "do better!".