Democratic Socialists, Do You Support the DSA?

[22lcidw]

They did you're just too stupid to realize it. The government, their licensing of businesses, their regulation and backing of currency, their maintenence of property rights is how you can be confident your dealing with legitimate businessmen, that if they aren't you have a means of recouping your losses and that whatever price you negotiate on, the value of currency you exchange won't be zero tomorrow.

Where do you see massive amounts of women dying in dangerous situations protecting others? You have reduced the people who protect them in a vile evil world.

 

[Curried Goats]

They don't maintain any of my property rights. I don't depend on govt for new business. You really don't know what you're talking about other than some professor regurgitating theoretical axioms out of a book. You're exposing your ignorance. I'd quit if I were you.

Sure..... they don't maintain your property rights. Who needs deeds or proof of ownership?

 

[Curried Goats]

Where do you see massive amounts of women dying in dangerous situations protecting others? You have reduced the people who protect them in a vile evil world.

 

[Grumblenuts]

No good deeds are left unpunished in Kansas anymore.

 

[dblack]

Listen moron, your options are to either have no businesses, businesses that are free to do whatever they want, or businesses that are regulated. Which of those do you imagine is preferable?

Nonsense. Unregulated doesn't mean free to do whatever they want. They still have to follow the same laws as the rest of us. It just means their business practices aren't dictated by the state in the name of convenience and conformity.

 

[Curried Goats]

Nonsense. Unregulated doesn't mean free to do whatever they want. They still have to follow the same laws as the rest of us. It just means their business practices aren't dictated by the state in the name of convenience and conformity.

All laws are regulation and no they don't follow the same rules as us. Where in your life do you get to limit your liability for your negligent actions?

 

[dblack]

All laws are regulation

No. They're not. Otherwise, we wouldn't have a special word for them. Regulations simply impose conformity for convenience sake. They don't protect rights.

Not all regulations are bad. But most of them are unnecessary and, almost always, serve the interests of some at the expense of others.

Where in your life do you get to limit your liability for your negligent actions?

Limited liability is special perk offered to corporations by the government. A "regulation". It should be abolished.

 

[Curried Goats]

No. They're not. Otherwise, we wouldn't have a special word for them.

That's not how logic works. We have multiple words for the same thing all over the English language.

Regulations simply impose conformity for convenience sake. They don't protect rights.

That's your opinion that you offer without actual argument or example.

Not all regulations are bad. But most of them are unnecessary and, almost always, serve the interests of some at the expense of others.

That's what all laws and regulations do. The interest you have in swinging your arms must stop at my nose for instance.

Limited liability is special perk offered to corporations by the government. A "regulation". It should be abolished.

If it were abolished commerce would cease. Let's say there is no such thing as limited liability. What happens if you own stock in a company and the company gets sued? As a stock holder, without that limited liability protection, they can come after your personal assets. Who would invest in anything at that point?

 

[dblack]

That's not how logic works. We have multiple words for the same thing all over the English language.

That's your opinion that you offer without actual argument or example.

LOL - sure, sure. You just ignored the argument, like you always do when you are faced with "inconvenient" facts.

That's what all laws and regulations do. The interest you have in swinging your arms must stop at my nose for instance.

Well, if you're claiming regulations are the same as laws, we can't really have a discussion. You're just playing your usual shell games.

If it were abolished commerce would cease. Let's say there is no such thing as limited liability. What happens if you own stock in a company and the company gets sued? As a stock holder, without that limited liability protection, they can come after your personal assets. Who would invest in anything at that point?

Investment would still happen. But people wouldn't invest in companies that were pushing the limits. As it should be.

As it is, investors simply go with the company that risks it all for profit, with no accountability. If you profit from the misdeeds of a company, you should be held, at least partially, accountable for the actions of that company. Limited liability is why CEO's are paid so much. They're essentially high-priced fall guys, as they will go to prison rather than the investors who hired them. Hired them with the directive - "do whatever you have to do to make a profit". If investors have skin in the game, the directive will be different.

 

[konradv]

I don't recall someone saving the money to start these companies, nor do I remember govt hiring employees for me, nor do I remember receiving money from the govt to start companies. If by my hiring employees that you mean a business owner doesnt do it by themselves? Thats a stretch.........since they are paid wages and benefits.

How did you get to your business? Dirt tracks? Who polices the money markets? Who protects you from having copyrights and patents stolen? Who makes sure the workforce has a modicum of education? Do we need more?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

How did you get to your business? Dirt tracks? Who polices the money markets? Who protects you from having copyrights and patents stolen? Who makes sure the workforce has a modicum of education? Do we need more?

Govt didn't do that. Taxes from the private citizen created a job for a bureaucrat. No, we don't need more govt. We need less.

 

[konradv]

Govt didn't do that. Taxes from the private citizen created a job for a bureaucrat. No, we don't need more govt. We need less.

Who said we needed more? You’re moving the goalposts. You claimed they did nothing.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Who said we needed more? You’re moving the goalposts. You claimed they did nothing.

They didn't do anything. Any schmo can collect a document and keep it on record. Thats not producing anything.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

In the narrow debate over “limited liability” of corporations, or limited liability (combined with flexibility in tax status) as exists in millions of sole proprietorship businesses and private partnerships called LLCs … I agree they have been essential to modern capitalism and entrepreneurship. Legal entities like LLCs may seem unimportant to ordinary workers, but they are crucial to the existence of millions of small business owners.

Corporate structure and “limited liability” has proven historically even more crucial in society. It is quite impossible to imagine the Industrial Revolution arising in the West without them. Such developed forms of private ownership were precisely how capitalism assembled the capital needed to develope railroads, major industry, banking and modern finance capitalism in free Western societies.

Stock ownership is of course today overwhelmingly concentrated among the rich. The dream of a “peoples capitalism” has waxed and waned, but in reality in recent decades it has proven impossible to realize. Nevertheless, like private ownership of homes, cars, and small & medium size private businesses, ownership (and hybrid pension or mutual fund ownership) of stocks and bonds are still crucial for, and sought by, a good portion of our middle-class and professional classes … whose standard of living & quality of life in retirement largely depend on them.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Well, if you're claiming regulations are the same as laws, we can't really have a discussion.

law

noun

1. 1.
   the system of rules which a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and which it may enforce by the imposition of penalties.
   "they were taken to court for breaking the law"

regulation

noun

1. 1.
   a rule or directive made and maintained by an authority.
   "planning regulations"
   
   Similar:
   rule, ruling, order, directive, act, law,

You just ignored the argument, like you always do when you are faced with "inconvenient" facts.

dissemble

To dissemble is to try to deceive someone. Your little brother tried to dissemble when you asked if he ate the last doughnut, but the chocolate icing on his face gave him away.

^Substitute dblack for "Your little brother"

 

[dblack]

The curious thing is why so many people who call themselves Democratic Socialism deny the socialist part? That always raises the question: if they're not "really" socialists, why use the moniker?

The DSA doesn't mince words. They see democratic socialism as a path to a fully socialist country. But, it seems the Democratic Socialists of America aren't really democratic socialists. Or something.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Stock ownership is of course today overwhelmingly concentrated among the rich.

Was it different another day?

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

Was it different another day?

No, you’re right. Actually in some ways it was far worse. But those were days when Wall Street and popular ownership of stocks wasn’t so developed.

In earlier generations land was cheap, the frontier still open, and small farms and rural towns and simple artisanship & private business was widespread, taxation low or non-existent … and often there were “panics” and currency chaos. Life was harder.

Guess I just mean there were periods when optimism about capitalism was widespread and utopian dreamers believed that in the future popular stock ownership by common people could become so prevalent that the rich would own only a small minority of stock … and we could build a “democratic people‘s capitalism.”

Jeffersonians earlier had similar hopes for the future but tended to distrust all kinds of corporations, stock markets, urban-centered credit issuers & banks, as well as government itself. At least they were against them until they actually had to govern and develop or defend the country.

I guess some people still dream of returning to those simpler times.

 

[Dante]

Several people here on the board describe themselves as Democratic Socialists.

So?

Do they belong to the Democratic Socialist ofAMerica group? probably not.

next

 

[Dante]

No, you’re right. Actually in some ways it was far worse. But those were days when Wall Street and popular ownership of stocks wasn’t so developed.

In earlier generations land was cheap, the frontier still open, and small farms and rural towns and simple artisanship & private business was widespread, taxation low or non-existent … and often there were “panics” and currency chaos. Life was harder.

Guess I just mean there were periods when optimism about capitalism was widespread and utopian dreamers believed that in the future popular stock ownership by common people could become so prevalent that the rich would own only a small minority of stock … and we could build a “democratic people‘s capitalism.”

Jeffersonians earlier had similar hopes for the future but tended to distrust all kinds of corporations, stock markets, urban-centered credit issuers & banks, as well as government itself. At least they were against them until they actually had to govern and develop or defend the country.

I guess some people still dream of returning to those simpler times.

The US government gave land away. To people, to corporations...

Welfare.