Socialism and the purpose of government

[dblack]

The debate over whether we should have more, or less, socialism in US government is largely a debate over the purpose of government. Socialists "believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically". That might sound relatively innocuous. But it's a radical claim, one we should consider seriously before indulging a more socialistic government.

The libertarian roots of the United States contradict this belief. In the US, neither society, nor the economy, is run democratically. Each is run collaboratively, voluntarily, by the individuals who make up society. Government merely serves as a "referee". Socialists want government to be the "coach".

and conservatives want laws against gays, atheists, communists, socialists, feminists, muslims and people who believe in evolution.....

conservatives want government to be a punitive, authoritarian nanny state

Yep. Many of them do. So what?

 

[anynameyouwish]

The debate over whether we should have more, or less, socialism in US government is largely a debate over the purpose of government. Socialists "believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically". That might sound relatively innocuous. But it's a radical claim, one we should consider seriously before indulging a more socialistic government.

The libertarian roots of the United States contradict this belief. In the US, neither society, nor the economy, is run democratically. Each is run collaboratively, voluntarily, by the individuals who make up society. Government merely serves as a "referee". Socialists want government to be the "coach".

and conservatives want laws against gays, atheists, communists, socialists, feminists, muslims and people who believe in evolution.....

conservatives want government to be a punitive, authoritarian nanny state

Yep. Many of them do. So what?

You said;

"Government merely serves as a "referee". Socialists want government to be the "coach".

to which I replied;

"and conservatives want laws against gays, atheists, communists, socialists, feminists, muslims and people who believe in evolution.....

conservatives want government to be a punitive, authoritarian nanny state "

to which you replied;

"Yep. Many of them do. So what? "

really?

so what?

so who cares if conservatives deny rights and possibly even criminalize gays and atheists and muslims....?


now tell me again how YOU believe in FREEDOM and RIGHTS for everyone!

I need a good fkn laugh.

 

[dblack]

The debate over whether we should have more, or less, socialism in US government is largely a debate over the purpose of government. Socialists "believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically". That might sound relatively innocuous. But it's a radical claim, one we should consider seriously before indulging a more socialistic government.

The libertarian roots of the United States contradict this belief. In the US, neither society, nor the economy, is run democratically. Each is run collaboratively, voluntarily, by the individuals who make up society. Government merely serves as a "referee". Socialists want government to be the "coach".

and conservatives want laws against gays, atheists, communists, socialists, feminists, muslims and people who believe in evolution.....

conservatives want government to be a punitive, authoritarian nanny state

Yep. Many of them do. So what?

You said;

"Government merely serves as a "referee". Socialists want government to be the "coach".

to which I replied;

"and conservatives want laws against gays, atheists, communists, socialists, feminists, muslims and people who believe in evolution.....

conservatives want government to be a punitive, authoritarian nanny state "

to which you replied;

"Yep. Many of them do. So what? "

really?

so what?

so who cares if conservatives deny rights and possibly even criminalize gays and atheists and muslims....?


now tell me again how YOU believe in FREEDOM and RIGHTS for everyone!

I need a good fkn laugh.

I don't know what you're getting at. This thread is about the purpose of government, as proposed by socialists. You want to beat up on "conservatives" - that's fine. I was just wondering what it has to do with the discussion.

 

[Zorro!]

The debate over whether we should have more, or less, socialism in US government is largely a debate over the purpose of government. Socialists "believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically". That might sound relatively innocuous. But it's a radical claim, one we should consider seriously before indulging a more socialistic government.

The libertarian roots of the United States contradict this belief. In the US, neither society, nor the economy, is run democratically. Each is run collaboratively, voluntarily, by the individuals who make up society. Government merely serves as a "referee". Socialists want government to be the "coach".

"Coach" is putting it pretty nicely, I think they want ONE HELL of a lot more control than that.

WEIRD, JUDGING BY WHAT YOU SEE IN THE MEDIA IT’S ALL THE RAGE: Poll: Majority say socialism is incompatible with American values. In general, the American people aren’t as stupid as those who purport to rule them.

BAN ALL THE THINGS! New Jersey Politician Wants To Ban All Bags — Paper or Plastic.

Working its way though the legislature right now is S2776. As written, the legislation would ban food service businesses and other retailers who have stores larger than 1,000 square feet from providing their customers with plastic bags. The bill would also naturally ban plastic straws.​

Naturally.

Smith stands a good chance of getting his paper bag ban through. He claims to already have the support of Senate leadership. The state’s grocery store association is also on board with the policy.

Still, one wonders what the practical effects of Smith’s amendment, as well as the wider plastic bag ban, will be.

A recent study of plastic bag bans in California found that the policy—while still reducing plastic bag consumption overall—did lead to a 120 percent spike in the purchase of smaller garbage bags.

As it turns out, the single-use plastic bags people used at the grocery store were hardly single-use at all, but rather were reused to line waste baskets or clean up after pets. When the free option disappeared, people simply started purchasing unprohibited garbage bags.

New Jersey’s bag ban would seem to have a similar potential for this kind of substitution. While it bars stores from handing out thinner plastic bags, it still allows them to provide customers with plastic tote bags provided they’re thicker than 10 mils.

As written, stores could well end up ditching their current carry-out bags for another type of thicker plastic bag, which would seemingly increase overall plastic consumption.​

More important however is the very real increase in official moral preening.