Are governments just protection rackets for the 1%?


#1

Are governments just protection rackets for the 1%?

Our political systems, regardless of who is elected or in power, have become tools of our oligarchs and are designed to insure that they retain their wealth. We are in fact and in reality ruled by our various oligarchs.

Do you recognize that fact?






#2

BREAKING NEWS: STATES IN CAPITALIST SOCIETIES ARE DESIGNED TO PROP UP THE CAPITALISTS AND THEIR SYSTEM!

up next: The Pope declares himself Catholic!


#3

Thanks for this.

Regards
DL


#4

Kinda’. That’s why we need to reform our current Democracy into a more tangible item. Limit terms, limit re-election, kill traitors, etc.


#5

Also breaking news: COMMUNISTS ABSORB ALL INTO THE STATE BECAUSE THEY ARE THE STATE!

A free market, when properly regulated, is the general consensus on the value of goods, and thus is the most democratic system. Now without regulations this can be hijacked by oligarchic monopalies, but you don’t need to overthrow the government to fix that, you just need stricter regulations which are properly enforced. Sorry to burst your bubble, but you can extinguish your molotov cocktail and go home now.


#6

This is not the case. Under capitalism, wealth determines political power. Even so called “ethical capitalism” is restricted by the maldistribution of wealth resultant from a free market, and further impeded by the manipulation of consumer demand through marketing, which of course, is done by those with large sums of wealth. This is inherent to capitalism, and under such a system, the authority figures are always going to be the ones calling the shots, and the beneficiaries of said system.


#7

You’re outdated view assumes that people are only getting their wealth by daddy money, this is not the case in the US. Most wealthy people work in high earning jobs or were very smart venture capitalists. Stop spouting things that are only applicable in 1910, the revolution failed and the revolutionaries starved themselves to death.


#8

No, it doesn’t. You do’t have to directly receive large sums of inheritance to gain an advantage. If you even come from a wealthy background, you are going to have an advantage in the economy. Those who are given an advantage through access to better facilities, environment, and opportunities, in addition to outright wealth are going to have more income and wealth. Even so, people are still receiving inheritance, and inequality is only growing.

Well of course they’re going to be in higher earning jobs, that’s obvious. However, the rich also have greater investment in stock, and more often than not come from rich families. Studies have shown that parental income greatly affects the income and general outcomes of their children. Not only that, but corporations themselves are able to use the state as a tool to further their own interests. The wealthy get wealthier, and the poor lose their share of the economy.

You have to been profoundly dense to think that the problems in capitalism just vanished after 1920. In the US, the top 1% own more than the bottom 50%, nearly 1 in 5 Americans can’t afford proper healthcare, nearly 1 in 10 Americans can’t afford the proper medicine, and 45,000 Americans die each year as a result of lack of basic healthcare. The income growth for the bottom 50% has stagnated, while it as continued to grow in countries with more social policies (still not truly socialist policies though), like in France. Workers are exploited every day through the extraction of surplus labor value, and economic crisis grows nearer with everyday, largely as a result of the crisis of overproduction. Capitalism is both unethical and unsustainable. You understand very little about the economic problems that plague mankind today.

Well by many metrics, quality of life actually increased in places like Revolutionary Catalonia and the Paris Commune.

Also, I’m not a tankie, but calories consumption in the USSR (which wasn’t even fully or truly socialist, but it was fairly collectivized) was actually higher than in the US till neoliberal reforms in the 1980s.
28276440_557789177911069_7775120902208636697_n


#9

So the solution to people having better childhoods is to force them into poverty or some form of state housing where there parents can’t raise them because it will be unfair.

The fact is they don’t just get money. They earn money by working in high earning jobs. What is unfair about getting accepted into an Engineering job after going to college for Engineering? You think that if you have money you are bad and if you don’t have money you are good. Simply put you are using Slave Morality to spout a ideology of hate and of oppression. On the topic of the corporations themselves, the corporate tax in the us is about 33%, meaning one third of all they made has to be given to the US, which is absurd, how do you expect any sane moneymaking individual or corporation to remain in the US if you try to raise the taxes even higher?

1 in fave Americans can’t afford healthcare because the government is forcing their shitty brand of healthcare on them. Take Britain for example, their National Healthcare System (NHS) is nationalized, so, to a commie like yourself, you would have a wet dream over it. However things aren’t all sunshine and rainbows there because when you are actually sick, actually dying, or actually have a terminal disease that needs attention, the NHS will make you wait absurd amounts of time. And even then the good doctors, who aren’t making any money in this system move to the US or another country that doesn’t have nationalized healthcare because they won’t make as much money and the profit motive is deliberately removed. You get free healthcare but it is as good as free healthcare can get, which is sub par at best. The medicine is a result of the healthcare one. Likewise with the deaths, if the government pulled out the prices would drop. I do agree with some social policy, they are good for economic growth, like deregulation of Unions, pushing for worker/employer rights, etc. however I would either fight or flee from a nation that starts to make this the form of government and economy. Too much socialism leads to a reverse of a too much capitalism state, hunger, disease, war, and death.

For the month that Revolutionary Catalonia existed sure, however the Paris Commune was a bloodbath and lasted a whooping two months. Socialists fail to realized that people like to take unprotected land or their national land back, when you have an army made up of 16 year old untrained boys then you are destined to fail as a “Stateless Society”. Also about the hunger in the USSR, there were plenty of famines and half of them probably haven’t been declassified. Many people died from hunger, more than any in a post-WWII capitalist market.


#10

What are you talking about? I’m talking about creating equality of opportunity through creating a system in which workers aren’t exploited by their employers and aren’t drastically differently enabled to fall into poverty via the absence of most private capital generating property.

Often by stealing or from the stolen wages of other workers. They are able to reach such positions due to advantages they possess because of their socioeconomic situation, not personal merit.

No, I don’t. I want everyone to have enough money to comfortably survive (which is very possible). However, people with lots of money get it through advantages they didn’t earn, and frequently through unethical business strategies.

collective ownership of the means of production so that workers get the value of their labor is slavery
extracting surplus value from the labor of workers as to satisfy your own greed isn’t
okay

equality, democracy, and prosperity is hateful and oppressive
a system of literal oppression, fueled by greed and inequality isn’t
okay

Optimally, society would be libertarian socialist, but even so, a broader tax base and higher overall tax rates are preferable to most capitalist systems today, and are very possible. Look at the Nordic model. It’s still capitalism, but a generous welfare state, more public property, and heavy regulation on business is conducive to greater happiness and human development.

No it’s because they don’t have the fucking money lol. More people were able to get healthcare under the stingy Affordable Care Act, and that didn’t even do enough.

The NHS is actually ranked rather well as far as world healthcare systems go. Wait times are dependent on urgency, and until you can provide a substantial statistic to prove that wait times are long and universal healthcare is bad, you don’t have a point.

Goly gee, it is almost as if i don’t want to exploit the sick, crippled, and dying to make a profit. Supposed doctor shortages could be corrected with greater spending to incentive them to participate.

I’m a libertarian socialist just so you know. Libertarian socialism does not lead to such, and socialism in general leads to improvement in poverty and inequality, and by extension hunger (socialism doesn’t cause hunger as you may have been lead to believe), disease, and death. Greater public sectors with sufficient democracy have lead to greater human development, inequality, health, and happiness. An economy centered around public property would extol said virtues to an even greater degree.

It existed for three years lol.

Goly gee, it’s almost as if they were destroyed by authoritarian states trying to reassert their unjust authority over well functioning communities.

The economic system of public property worked well though. I’m not saying a libertarian socialist society has to be without means to defend itself. I’m just saying that a collective economy works, and that a form of defense from attack should be organized and run democratically.

Besides man-made famines resulting from unjust authoritarianism and poor natural conditions, what famines are you referring to? Also, could you substantiate your claim about classified famines?


#11

If you want to sugar coat it, sure. However this is what Moa, Lenin, Pol Pot, and all the other Socialists said before the started mass killings of everyone else. So this statement is true, however the means of achievements are through mass killings, property theft, and all other means of human suffering.

No? If you are a doctor and you suck you get fired. If you are a shitty engineer you get fired, if you are a bad CEO you get fired or you go out of business. What is so hard to understand?

I disagree, there is no reason to work in your system; as it will just take all your earnings away to give to the next guy who chose not to work. Also you’re associating evil with how much wealth you have, again, most wealthy businessmen worked for their money, they worked and did well to earn a profit.

Slave morality is the opposite of master morality, the concept Nietzsche put forth was that masters view themselves as good and their slaves as bad, be it the conditions of living, the way of life and all other things that represent slaves. Slave morality is, as I said, the opposite of that. You think with slave morality, that is a pretty easy thing to see after reading your posts.

The general idea is that you get freedom, liberty and property. Those aren’t hateful. Forced equality and democracy (rule of the majority) is pretty bad, as it implies the use of force to achieve such means and takes chose away from the individual. Again with the 1910 model of capitalism, capitalists can’t “oppress” their workers, there was legislation that regulates corporations so that you can’t just screw your workers and greed natural and can be used as a reason to get things done, which is why profit motive is a thing. Inequality is natural as well, as long as most people get a similar upbringing and starting point, then their choices will determine their fate, they won’t just be poor forever.

Optimally, sadly we live in reality where the optimal choice is often far from the reality of things. The Nordic model can last only so long before it collapses in on itself. Also the tax rates are 40% or higher depending on which Nordic nation you live in, which is absurd and basically theft. I don’t owe the State anything other than what it takes to fund the Army, pave my road and sidewalk, and ensure that if I make a contract that the contract is enforced. You are a sad libertarian my dude.

Because the shitty government brand of healthcare exists. That is the reason it is more expensive, not because they want to kill people.

All of the stats will be from this public document, “https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/06/RTT-Annual-Report-2016-17-v0.9-final.pdf”

As at the end of March 2017, 90.3% of patients waiting to start treatment
(incomplete pathways) had been waiting up to 18 weeks.

In 2016/17, the median wait for admitted treatment was 10.0 weeks (Completed pathways)

In 2016/17, the median wait for non-admitted treatment was 6.0 weeks (Completed non-admitted pathways)

These waiting times for terminal items are absurd. If you had a market that offered a profit motive, a reason to have faster waiting times, better doctors and all around better care, then I can guarantee that three weeks would be a max waiting time.

If it doesn’t work, pump money into it? You’re a shitty economist. Also yes, people work for money even doctors. Crazy right?

No you’re the guy who gets the first bullet once the, “revolution” is over. Everything you stated here is pretty absurd and would require literally god to grace you with never ending resources and a fully loyal people.

The US existed for 242 years, the UK existed for 483 years, and the Revolutionary Catalonia existed for three years. Wow, what a place, my point stands. Your system is a failure due to both foreign policy and economic policy.

No shit? If they didn’t plan for this then they were stupid.

A collective economy doesn’t work and democratic armies don’t work. I’d need some examples of successful and long standings systems and armies for this point to be anywhere near somewhat valid.

1905, attempts at revolution restrict food production
1910, the revolution and civil war cut food production in half
1921-23 the first famine under the USSR happens, 16 million die and the US sends $20,000,000 for relief.
1932-33 the next famine starts when the USSR started to push for collectivization. (This is Holodomor) 40 million are killed.
1940 this one is understandable as it was because of WWII. Still 1 million people died.
1947 the last major famine one million die.


#12

These were really more state capitalist than socialist, and even so, I don’t advocate authoritarian socialism. Collectivization, in principle, is not theft, it is distributing the property of the community to the community.

You’ve greatly missed the point. I was saying it was not their merit that gave them superior socioeconomic dispositions. While it does necessitate a certain amount of merit, it is not the main contributing factor.

In my system, the community would collectively help each other out, and possibly use democratic organization to help out those who the community fails to help.

That is not at all what I advocate. You really don’t know what you’re talking about. I’m not talking about state capitalism, I’m talking about libertarian socialism.

Society should serve the majority, especially when that majority is impoverished by a powerful minority.

In libertarian socialism, you will see greater liberty and prosperity via freedom from an oppressive bourgeoisie. Property is a bit trickier though, as owning private property that can produce capital restricts the freedom of the proletariat to have a stake in that capital producing property, and allows for wage labor to be implemented, and for the bourgeoisie to extract surplus value from the worker, meaning the workers don’t receive the full value of their labor. We don’t need bosses to run businesses, worker coops are already more productive than traditional businesses.

A society should follow the will of the people. Under capitalism, you have forced inequality. Equality is not forced in my brand of socialism, I want workers to control their own means of production, and as a result, outcomes will be more egalitarian. Even so, social programs under capitalism result in better outcomes, regardless of how they are imposed.

It really doesn’t. It provides greater quality of life for the individual, and allows them to pursue greater individual passions and hobbies. It gives them more control over their work, and a greater sense of purpose and fulfillment in the work place.

Capitalists do oppress workers, they pay them very little, and take the wealth generated from their labor as their personal profit. They then accumulate wealth and corrupt the political system, skewing laws and regulations in their favor, further increasing their own power and wealth at the expense of the public. Ownership of the means of production via private property violates the right of the working class.

This doesn’t justify it. Due to diminishing marginal utility attained from wealth, a more equal distribution of wealth produces more utility in general.

Well they don’t. Inequality is mind boggling, and people’s outcomes are largely dictated by their parents’. You’re delusional if you think there is anything even resembling equality of opportunity in our modern world.

Their choices are also dictated by the environment and culture they were brought up in, which is, you guessed it, affected by socioeconomic predisposition. Even following you train of thought, the laziness of a parent could then affect the outcomes of a child, such as what colleges they go to, how much they assist their child in their young adult life. That limits the quality of their outcomes, due to no fault of their own.

While that is true, it is useful in having an ideal society in mind, as that guides societal progress and direction.

I mean, it’s a pretty sustainable model, at least as far as social markets go. Their societies are doing quite well, and have been since the implementation of various socialist aspects into their economic system.

If some taxation is theft, then all taxation is theft. Even so, calling something theft says nothing about the actual moral integrity of the action. Definitions and terms are subjective and are used to describe what is done, not if that thing was morally integral. In Sweden, a good bit of their taxation is actually conducted on a local level, allowing for greater autonomy and democracy within communities. Even for taxation and spending on the federal level, Nordic tax systems allow for human development and happiness that far exceeds much, if not the entirety of the rest of the world. It produces more utility than more capitalist societies. I.e. it is a better society, so long as you are measuring goodness on the basis of happiness, which really is, or at least should be the ultimate goal for any society.

That requires taxation, and you are fundamentally okay with that, at least in principle. Level of taxation in any society is subjective, but fundamentally permissible, by both our admission. Saying high taxation is theft but low taxation is not is contradictory. It’s quite the non-argument.

Healthcare prices are rising regardless of how much the government is intervening. Government healthcare is actually quite a bit cheaper than private healthcare due to the profit motive, and the exploitation of inelastic demand. If you look at the facts, you will see you are wrong.

This says little about the urgency and volume of patients and their conditions. It excludes various data, evacuating your claims of any substantial weight.

Am I incorrect in saying that if incentive is increased, then supply for said service would not increase?

There are examples of functioning libertarian socialist societies, and even so, I don’t think libertarian socialism is very feasible in the modern world, but I think progress should be made to increase public property and to democratize the government. Social democracies work pretty well, and are probably as close to my ideals as we will get anytime soon. However, a gradual change in political systems and culture through advocacy for grater worker autonomy, political power, and public sector has the possibility to yield change.

Hence why I am hesitant in believing a libertarian socialist society could be implemented in our current world, but progress can be made towards one.

Except it wasn’t lol. Increased public property benefits the majority of people, and is a net good for society. This has been shown in various instances. In modern times, namely in social democracies.

They certainly considered it, and was sufficient for three years. Various factions, namely the fascists in Spain and the USSR tried to topple. Any society the size of Revolutionary Catalonia would have struggled to fend off various militant states.

I mean, systems have worked, but you somehow think being crushed by militant states that have more resources and power than the collective economy at its outset means that their economic system is shit.

Irrelevant, a collectivized economy hadn’t been implemented yet.

This was the result of poor agricultural conditions and resistance against collectivization, and perhaps was a result of intentional genocide.

The other famines mentioned were often a result of economic issues resulting from wars and war-time policy.

However, some of this was likely caused by inefficiency in central planning, however, decentralization of power in libertarian socialism (or more libertarian socialist systems) could help remedy some of this structural inefficiency.

Additionally, capitalism deprives various people of the necessary resources to survive or thrive, primarily in third world countries.


#13

It is, if I own say property, then if the government comes to my house and evicts me and tells me they’re making my house the new poor home, then it is theft. They are stealing my property. Property does not belong to the State unless it is bought at fair market value in in a voluntary exchange.

It is the main contributing factor. They would have gotten their by networking with higher ups, working hard, and getting a higher education.

And what happens to the minority in your democracy? We can democratically disenfranchise them, assault them, hate them, genocide them. Just because you call it a democracy doesn’t mean that it is good, and doubly if you call it socialist. The impact of Socialism on the world is famine, strife and death, nothing more and nothing less. The only examples you have shown me were the Pairs Commune and Revolutionary Catalonia which both fail miserably and were achieved through the murder and theft of individuals who, the majority of, were undeserving of murder and abuse.

In the US the majority is not impoverished. We have a huge Middle Class which is living better than any point of history prior. More people are becoming Middle Class too.

Bourgeoisie. Lets see, doctors, lawyers, law enforcement, military men, statesmen, store managers, corporate managers, labor unionists, the list goes on. This phrase is outdated and applies to the Middle Class which is the majority. As I said, get out of your 1910 mind set. The rest of your nonsense about property is incoherent at worst and barely understandable at best. If we didn’t need bosses to run a business then everyone would be running their own business. People don’t do things the hard way, bosses and leaders allow for people to get an understandable purpose for work, motivation to work, and direction of how to do the job.

A society should follow the will of the people, yes, however the will of the people (majority) can become tyrannical in itself which is why the US is a Republic first and a democracy second. Capitalism there is not forced inequality, no one is forced to be unequal as we have social mobility, you can get rich and you can get poor or you can remain where you stood; another lie you put forth. If you steal land from people and say you are acting as the majority then it is forced equality as you are acting upon them to steal their land, forcing them to give up their natural right to property. Social programs under capitalism can offer good benefits, however they should not create a welfare state where people are basically surfs to their government.

This point is invalid until you show me some proof of a, “Libertarian Socialist”, state that lasted more than, lets make this real and give an easily achievable benchmark of 15 years.

No? It seems to me you’re just reading out of the Communist Manifesto now. Private Property doesn’t violate the rights of the working class, as it is in itself a right of the everyman to own private property. PACs exist for a reason too, Unions have a PAC, Gun Rights activists have a PAC, everyone has a PAC that you can give some of your money to influence the political system.

I disagree completely, where in modern history have we ever stolen from people who work harder and it makes everyone work harder as a result? People need profit motive to work, if they don’t they’ll just do unproductive things all day.

I go to school with about 1000 people who have had approximately the same income amount as my parents, and I can tell you that the majority of people are in the Middle Class (or the bourgeoisie as you Commies like to put it). Most people, in reality, are off to a similar start.

This is understandable and I commend you for this one. However I think the best way to resolve this would be through the government offering intuitiveness to parents to parent well. They should also promote a culture of national betterment through individual betterment. As a nation is built on the individual and their willing participation in it.

True however it is good to also tell people the best and the worst and the probable.

The Nazis did one good thing and that was help the Swedish and Norwegian build their economic systems. However I read an article a while back that pushed for the cultural connection to work, which we don’t really have here in the US. Here is the paragraph and source, “A common misconception is that the Nordic countries became socially and economically successful by introducing universal welfare states funded by high taxes. In fact, their economic and social success had already materialized during a period when these countries combined a small public sector with free-market policies. The welfare state was introduced afterward. That the Nordic countries are so successful is due to an exceptional culture that emphasizes social cohesion, hard work, and individual responsibility.” (Sanandaji 5) https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/07/nordic-democratic-socialist-model-exposing-lefts-myth/
Sadly the migrant crisis is breaking this social cohesion. However I disagree with National Socialism just as much as I do normal Socialism.

The amount kinda’ does have something to do with it. It become theft once the government does what it isn’t meant to do with your taxes. If I give you five dollars to run to the store and get me a soda for us to share and you bring back chips then you stole five bucks from me, even though I willingly gave you five dollars. Morality has nothing to do with law. Law is amoral unless you live in one of those messed up theocracies of the Middle East or something.

Again, I’d disagree. See my prior example.

It was the governments released data document. Urgent care only applies to injuries and life threatening conditions. However even so if you were to have cancer or something, you will have to wait the average 18 weeks with the other incomplete pathway individuals, as you will need care every so often.

You are in the way about it. Will these incentives beat out the other countries prices for service? If so you’ll come to a deficit, if not then a whole lot of people will go with no doctors or lower quality ones who can’t work in the other countries.

What examples, give me one that lasted more than 15 years and didn’t have to kill dissenters en mass.

So what are you? A dreamer or a man of action? I admire your compassion for people, however it is not based in reality. There working class is the middle class now, the men who were slaves are free and we are doing so much better now than we did one hundred years ago.

I don’t believe that just because you steal from the bourgeoisie (who are in the majority) makes a net “good” (which is subjective) for society. The Social Democratic Nations (the Nordic joints) all have a cohesive race, culture, and language. Places like the US, UK, and most European countries don’t. I would agree with you if the Axis won WWII, but they didn’t.

Which is why a revolutionary state doesn’t work. It requires a break away movement, which leads to the original state and near by enemies or allies of the original state to act hostile.
Reform > Revolution

One of the responsibilities of the state is to provide defense. They showed the world that it is unreasonable to start a revolution and then raise a strong and trained army out of it, which is why we left such an ideology in the background of history.

The fact is people don’t want to collectivize and often times Socialist states are participants during war or in a conflict.

Look at Zimbabwe (and what will happen to South Africa in the future if things don’t change). Those people there stole the land from the farmers they tried to collectivize it and the logistics of the command economy failed miserably, thus they need to be put on life support by the UN, getting money and food pumped into it by foreign exports.


#14

Well I don’t think I’m going to convince you it’s not theft, since we seem to fundamentally disagree, but regardless of whether we think it is theft or not, we can still debate the merit of such. Many industries would benefit by being in the public sector. This doesn’t even have to be the government mind you, it can just be owned by the workers.

It’s really not. Take a look at this study, the conclusions are on page 65.


"The effect of parental income is positive for all outcomes included in this review. These outcomes include cognitive test scores, socio-emotional well-being, mental health, behavioural problems, several measures of health, teenage childbearing, educational outcomes, and future economic status."

There are some problems with democracy, but direct control over the political process is vital in curbing corruption and giving the average person political power. If there exists a disconnect between people and the state, then the middle men are going to be subject to the whims of wealthy individuals who will greatly influence the governmental outcomes. What I mean by socialism is democracy in the workplace, via control of the means of production by the workers who are the actual producers.

Their economic systems did not fail miserably, it worked quite well. While it may not be the model for defense from foreign attack, it demonstrates that a collective economy is a feasible alternative to capitalism. I also cited the general success and happiness of countries as the public sector becomes larger.

The top 1% own more than the bottom 50%. They are not impoverished my international standards, but are made much less wealthy than they otherwise would be. Roughly 50% of the US population is lower class. The United States, for various geopolitical reasons, was able to get a head start of development when compared to other countries. Capitalism is not the only system that generates wealth.

Well you are factually incorrect that the middle class is the majority.

"I don’t understand what he’s saying so it doesn’t matter."
okay

This is also incorrect. Due to focus on the well-being of its workers, worker coops often tend to prioritize increasing the wealth of its employees over expansion and competition. They are much better for the employees, and are simultaneously more productive. Unfortunately, this comes at the price of competitiveness. That is one reason why I think society needs to change to favor cooperatives more than traditional businesses.

Workers can do those same things, if not better.

Well yea, there is. While a minority own the means of production, they can and will dominate industry, and due to their possession of the means of production, laborers are more often than not forced into wage labor in which their bosses take a certain amount of the value created by their labor for their own profit. In worker collectives, there can be managers who are experienced or skilled, and help guide the cooperative, but they don’t take wages from their fellow employees. Social mobility, as demonstrated by the previous study I cited, is actually rather low under capitalism. Delusions about the “American Dream,” have really skewed the perception of such.

The economic systems worked, but were destroyed by foreign states. Like I also said, local autonomy in Sweden combined with a fairly large public sector, and Nordic countries in general demonstrate that increased public sectors and local autonomy work quite well.

They still have a motivation to better their economic circumstances. You’re making a moot point. Increased equality doesn’t get rid of all incentive to work. It promote increased happiness and well-being.

A subjective and vague anecdote. What lovely evidence you have there.

Well the Nordic countries aren’t socialist, first and foremost. Anyway, it is fair to say that most of their development was in more capitalist times, however, I think a more thorough analysis on the effect the large welfare has had on human development and happiness. Regardless, a collective mindset has long benefited these countries, even if their economies were formally neoliberal. The collective model they boast coincides with the highest human development and happiness in the world, and I feel it is a bit of a stretch to say that they two are not interrelated.

Then it’s just a matter of determining how much is taxed and what is it spent on. Taxation is fundamentally permissible, it is just a pragmatic matter in its implantation.

Morality has everything to do with the law. While not eveyone agrees on the law or morality, law is the implementation of policies that the people believe are morally sound grounds on which to base societal conduct.

I mean, when people need care urgently, they get it faster. Need is a better basis of distribution than ability to pay.

Well, France has managed to make its universal healthcare system into one of the worlds’ best through fairly high healthcare spending, although, per capita, it is still cheaper and superior to the United States’ healthcare.

Outcomes are what matter when determining morality. The bourgeoisie steal from the working class, it is merely returning their unpaid profits.

That’s why I typically think drastic reform is more feasible than outright revolution.

I’m fine with a state of sorts, so long as it is democratic enough, and leaves a good portion of the public sector to voluntary worker cooperatives.

Capitalism has been forced upon several third world countries, many of which have actually seen growth decrease due to the introduction of said markets.


#15

Term limits quite literally don’t do anything, if the system is corrupt to the core each new candidate will reflect this. As the term limit system in the USA proved. Hell term limits where introduced because presidents where too popular, not because of corruption


#16

If you want to work at a coop or employee owned place, why don’t you apply to one? What is the problem with letting people do as they want and having the choice to work for a coop or a corporation. They both offer benefits and having both choices just means people are able to do more and as they want in their lives. If we’re to appease each other why can the system of Socialism not just apply to places and people who want it to?

The most important factor here, in my opinion, would be the educational outcomes; as that would lead to higher scores on the other outcomes. How would we go about reforming the public education sector? This would be a better talking point than outright revolution.

I like what we have here in the US. It is stability, representative enough to be a democracy, and isolated enough to protect minorities, racially, politically, and religiously. The idea of total democracy is extremely unstable and can lead to what happened in Nazi Germany, South Africa (modern), or France during the Revolution.

I would disagree. The sudden removal of a huge population in a small area, of course there will be excess. However long term it wouldn’t work. Sadly they failed on other terms before they did economically. Anyways, are there any modern examples of this system in place that actually work?

If people aren’t impoverished then they won’t see a reason to revolt. It takes a massive event to make people angry enough to rise up against the status quo. Capitalism offers people a chance to get into the middle class, it also offers them a chance to fail and fall into poverty. Social mobility is what it offers and as long as social mobility exists your fantasy of a Socialist Revolution will never happen. Things are good as they are now, there is no reason to risk loosing everything, causing massive pain and human suffering for a utopia that has been attempted at multiple times and failed multiple times.

No? All it takes is a quick google search my guy. I’ll do it for you though.
“In percentage terms, 51% of adults lived in middle-income households, 29% in lower-income households and 20% in upper-income households.”

You were talking about how it stinks that wage labor can come to fruition and how it is bad. You just used a ton of Commie jargon. However we disagree entirely as I don’t think wage labor is theft, but you do.

If I was incorrect then the US markets would be made up of coops. If a coop is more productive then how is it not able to compete? Production and price is all you need to ensure that you have a viable business.

I don’t agree. To be self-employed takes a special set of skills that not everyone has. If every had the ability to work for themselves then everyone would be, there would be no reason for a boss.

I disagree completely. Social mobility is only restricted for first (and sometimes second) generation immigrants. There is also the educational, media, and cultural influences that advocate for stagnation and a life of vice rather than virtue. This is a societal problem however and will be fixed with careful attention by those who see it.

The Nordic countries are built and run as capitalist markets and have welfare states. I looked into it a tad and it is quite interesting. The best part is their PM had to say that they weren’t pinkos.

No they don’t, if the state offers them a living standard then they will take that over a day of hard work. Which is why I disagree with basic income and welfare.

https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=zVsTDAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=welfare+state&ots=xHjF0kJzU8&sig=xjjtt5GUBZl8WBXtJstV5cPPaiQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

I like to include real world experience in my statements.

I agree with you on the collective mindset ideal and them not being Socialist (the just call themselves that). However I don’t think we should make our State a welfare state. I already said that if the race, language, and culture are similar then it may work as, ideally, the culture would push for a work centered life and collective mindset. However this is not how it is in the US, so I cannot see it working.

Yea. That’s why we have Congress. They give a budget and all so we know what is being spend on what, and they vote on it.

Sure, but law is not what is on the paper, it is the act and ability to enforce the law.

If I had stabbed my self sure, however if I had a terminal disease the waiting time would be whatever the incomplete pathways wait time. I would hope the improve these times, however I don’t see that happening unless the incentive for better and more doctors to arrive is increased.

That is because the USA’s healthcare system is in not wanted by most of the Congressmen who strip it down. However if we got rid of the system the private healthcare cost would decrease.

I agree in some manner, however slow reform will be the most stable for any nation and can best ensure the safety of the citizens.

If someone wants to start a voluntary worker coop, let them. If they want to start a multinational corporation, let them. I don’t see the problem with allowing people to chose to work for people for a wage.

I can agree, I believe we should economically isolate these places and allow their markets to develop naturally however the people within them want them to. I don’t like the ideas of international aid, economic intervention, or any interactions that are unnecessary.

In general I am starting to understand your view more, however I cannot find myself able to agree with it. Our fundamental ideals are at odds and I am quite dug into my position as you are.


#17

Limit re-election, this means you can only run so many times. Just because you’re demoralized enough to not run doesn’t mean other people aren’t. Look at Trump, he is the opposite of establishment, the Conservative establishment abhor him, just as the Liberal establishment abhor him. Also note, kill traitor. That means their life is on the line if they try to do anything against the will of the people of the USA.


#18

hahahahhaahahha, except when he cucks to them every other moment and attempted to join it several times (and was rejected). The billionaire is totally that. I will give you that he is stuipid enough to engage in trade wars with literally no strategy to them , that certainly was going against the grain.

Define “will of the people”, that isnt going to be easy to measure.


#19

Not an argument, I don’t care if you like Trump or not, however it was still a shock to the conservative establishment that he actually got elected.

That means if they embezzle money (e.g. spending money on things that aren’t on the budget.)


#20

I literally dont care about trump, I think shit would be similiar levels of bad with Hillary. As a european i actually see some benefit in him, he is quite literally discrediting the USA as a world leader, pulling out of the paris agreement, supporting “clean coal”, damading the reputation of free trade (the USA pushed this for DECADES). Turning his back on various human rights issues like torture. The global perception of the USA is weaker then ever and this i find is a good thing, less US influence is a good thing.