Reply With Quote
sick burn
Gerbilderp is an invalid
No women ever
Ever
sick burn
What cons utional rights are we losing because of incremental socialism?
"by definition, property has to be taken from the owners of the means of production, and that's not something that is usually able to happen peacefully, and in the US, it would basically be uncons utional." - You
Eminent domain comes to mind. Next is gun laws that infringe or completely violate the 2nd Amendment. Next would be 1st Amendment violations and infringements like the federal government taking over social media or censoring it, punishing companies for being too good.
I think it's fair to say that the Bill of Rights has been infringed upon numerous times and not always has the supreme court rectified it.
yeah, but that isn’t happening now as it relates to the means of production.
Eminent domain isn’t an intrusion on cons utional rights. It’s allowed by the cons ution. The only situation that would be the consequence of socialism is if something like a factory was commandeered by the government “for the public good” or something. Paying somebody just compensation for their home so a freeway can be built isn’t socialist or capitalist. Heck, right now it’s people on the right who seem to want the government to start regulating or absorbing large social media companies...Eminent domain comes to mind. Next is gun laws that infringe or completely violate the 2nd Amendment. Next would be 1st Amendment violations and infringements like the federal government taking over social media or censoring it, punishing companies for being too good.
socialism doesnt mean people cant own property
Neither the first nor second amendment are exclusive to socialism or capitalism so i don’t see how those really enter into the equation. You could easily have a socialist society where people have free speech and the right to bear arms and you could have a capitalist society with neither of those things.
It's not just means of production though. It's "property". Property is property. Erosion means inching closer, not complete loss, not yet. I don't think that's socialism, but what you posted is that socialism would be incrementally imposed. At some point the camel's nose is in your tent.
You're not talking about erosion. Do you know what erosion means? For example, the erosion of the health care system is leading to a higher mortality rate. That's not to say the healthcare system doesn't exist any longer. (hypothetically speaking).Eminent domain isn’t an intrusion on cons utional rights. It’s allowed by the cons ution. The only situation that would be the consequence of socialism is if something like a factory was commandeered by the government “for the public good” or something. Paying somebody just compensation for their home so a freeway can be built isn’t socialist or capitalist.
I said incrementally implementing socialism is indistinguishable from the erosion of cons utional rights. To remove capitalism bit by bit, you have to remove the means to resist and you have to remove the ability to rally the troops, because the US would not allow implementation of socialism. With big money backing capitalism, socialism would have to be a grass roots effort, and this country isn't really run by the virtue signaling mouth pieces of the media. It's run by corporate giants. To slowly implement one is to slowly erode the other.socialism doesnt mean people cant own property
Neither the first nor second amendment are exclusive to socialism or capitalism so i don’t see how those really enter into the equation.
About the "property" comment -
The answer is a society where the means of production—factories, mines, railroads, the energy sources, all things used to create new wealth—are owned publicly, not privately. And that means socialism—a society where private property has been abolished. Workers.org
Do you disagree with this or are you being creative by calling a toothbrush "private property"?
I just don't think the US will ever move to a full socialist system, and I'm not sure I would like that.
But, at the same time, it has always been a mixed socialist/capitalist system as the need arose. I get the concern with a creeping-in factor, but I'm less concerned with that in the US than anywhere else, mostly because the Cons ution enshrines private property protection, and Cons utional amendments are hard to come by.
Under that premise, it's difficult to see socialist program going beyond what the government already runs, and it would always be a mixed system.
I think real socialism is a fat pussy waiting to be ed, because it invites abuse at so many levels. This is made evident in countries around the world who took a pretend swing at it only to end up with some authoritarian regime in control. There will never been an "everyone is equal" society. Someone will need to lead them. That leader by nature isn't equal, they are above the others just as a manager in a company is above the workers and gets treated better because of it. It's why many people come to the US hoping to have a shot at individual success (family success). If it was as possible in a socialist system, it would exist on day one for anyone in the system. It would not make sense to have class structure in a purely socialist system, yet there would be that in any system, any at all. You cannot even stop kids, dressed exactly the same in private schools, from developing class structure. It's human nature.
Capitalism also invites abuse, but pure capitalism is basically every man for himself if it makes the most money for that person.
As usual, there's plenty of shades on this stuff. It eventually comes down to what people can and will put up with, and how co-opted government is.
Populist demagogues like Trump are as much a threat to democracy as full blown socialism. , like a good populist he uses free socialism to campaign, and this is what grates, coming from what's supposed to be the free market conservative. Of course, it's all a ruse, it always is, even in socialist countries.
On the other hand, you have serious societies that understand that capitalism and the private sector lining their pockets is not always the solution to everything or in the best interest of the population at large, and when there's a value to society above profit, like healthcare for example, a mixed system works well.
So, there's no silver bullet here, nor the supposed black or white of full socialism vs full capitalism. There's degrees of shades, which obviously makes this much more complicated to discuss, especially when people just flat out scream communism, which is a different thing altogether.
And we know these variables already. There's no secret society of well intended people. It only takes a few bad apples to spoil the cart.
They all run on giving to people. They always have. It's just different people who get promised free .Populist demagogues like Trump are as much a threat to democracy as full blown socialism. , like a good populist he uses free socialism to campaign, and this is what grates, coming from what's supposed to be the free market conservative. Of course, it's all a ruse, it always is, even in socialist countries.
Nothing works that well. When you have 7 billion people on the Earth and an incredibly lower population of caregivers, everyone will not receive equal or even adequate care. Narrow that down to a country of 330m people with X number of non-payers and Y number of non-registered. Now you have a system where the payers and registered have to foot the bill for the rest, for anyone to have decent medical care. Sure you could bring care to an average which would be better for some and worse for some, if that's the goal. Having been part of a somewhat universal HC system (military) I would have to pass. I might change my mind if I was on the tier end of the stick and I don't deny that. That's why I've worked my entire adult life to not be there. I imagine it's the same for you as well, you likely came from a worse situation than I did since you grew up in a 3rd world hoping for grain drops and Hershey bars from the GIs.On the other hand, you have serious societies that understand that capitalism and the private sector lining their pockets is not always the solution to everything or in the best interest of the population at large, and when there's a value to society above profit, like healthcare for example, a mixed system works well.
Just saying.
But this country has a history of witch hunting communism and sorta battling it (though not really). You cannot expect people to welcome socialism with open arms when it means cutting from them to give to people they deem to have never worked for . You know the Little Red Hen story... people afraid others are going to freeload off of them. What do you expect, our own families do it.So, there's no silver bullet here, nor the supposed black or white of full socialism vs full capitalism. There's degrees of shades, which obviously makes this much more complicated to discuss, especially when people just flat out scream communism, which is a different thing altogether.
But that happens with every economic model though (capitalism as well). We pretend that's it's a silver lining that's the private sector ing us over instead of the government, but we're getting butt ed anyways.
It would be plain stupid to try to apply a cookie-cut system to every country. Countries have different population density, education capacities, inherent natural risks, etc. And healthcare systems come in many shapes and forms also. From government picking up the tab of basic care and mandating catastrophic insurance, to mixed systems where government offers the average service you mention, plus the private sector offering a 'concierge' type of service for those that can afford it. To full blown government provided healthcare. Just a cursory look worldwide shows a major palette of options. And frankly, the only reason there hasn't been more reform in the US is simply profit protection. Be it pharma, hospitals, etc.
Yes, I have great health insurance now, but then I also appreciate when I was a kid and I had an accident, I could go to a hospital, get some xrays, even stay overnight if necessary, and don't put my family 20k under. Sure, things have changed, and I've also worked hard for that, but I'm also cognizant that a lot of people work hard and don't make it, or haven't made it yet, and a tough break can seriously set you back. I'm not worried about me right now, I'm concerned with the vast majority of people that are not in my situation. It's on me not to forget about being on that other side of the coin, having been there, and I know there are better ways.
I don't expect people to welcome socialism with open arms, but I also think that as the gap widen between the have and have nots, we're just going to have to face it at some point. Just like now pre-existing conditions is a relatively sacred cow, things are going to keep moving that way mostly out of necessity and under a different mantra from socialism, even if that's eventually what it is. And it's because it's the right call.
Situation might change but for me it is quite straight forward at the moment in Western Civ
I want my genous nations socialist and my multiculturalism countries capitalistic
this is what i'm fundamentally not understanding. why is socialism, even "full blown" socialism inherently a threat to democracy?
its not even a case of me advocating for it. i wouldnt be in favor of a full socialist system either... because we simply dont have data points to suggest that it can actually be implemented the way people envision, plus practically speaking there are cons utional issues re: property rights. earlier in the thread i suggested social democracy... capitalist system with robust safety net, is probably the best we can strive for to address the issues capitalism (an undoubtedly successful model, albeit with flaws that have emerged and grown)
but if socialism just means the people (or in a smaller scale, like in worker co-ops, workers) own the means of production as opposed to a capital investor/owner... its not inherently anti-democratic. you can still vote for people in government to decide on tax rates, social spending, etc.
its not to say that you cant have corruption in government under a socialist model... the disconnect i'm having is just that i dont see the logical connection between socialism and threatening democracy
i'm not trying to get into a war of words here... trying to act in good faith.
what i meant is right now in the US we aren't seeing eminent domain being used to seize the means of production (ie government taking over a private business and saying "we own this now"). and if we ignore the means of production and just focus on property, generally, then that doesn't intrinsically have anything to do with socialism. socialism doesnt mean people cant own property... so i dont see why eminent domain relating to personal property (or residential real estate) is relevant to a discussion about socialism. that is something in place with or without socialism
well, i considered erosion to be the gradual destruction of something.You're not talking about erosion. Do you know what erosion means? For example, the erosion of the health care system is leading to a higher mortality rate. That's not to say the healthcare system doesn't exist any longer. (hypothetically speaking).
is eminent domain something you consider to be an erosion of property rights... even though eminent domain has been allowed since the cons ution was ratified, with or without socialism?
so i guess this is where we have a disconnect.I said incrementally implementing socialism is indistinguishable from the erosion of cons utional rights. To remove capitalism bit by bit, you have to remove the means to resist and you have to remove the ability to rally the troops, because the US would not allow implementation of socialism. With big money backing capitalism, socialism would have to be a grass roots effort, and this country isn't really run by the virtue signaling mouth pieces of the media. It's run by corporate giants. To slowly implement one is to slowly erode the other.
there is nothing inherent to socialism that requires the erosion of free speech or a right to bear arms... and that was my point. you could have a "free society" with free speech, and heck, the entire US bill of rights under a socialist economic system.
now when you say that you have to remove the means of resist "because the US would not allow implementation of socialism"... i feel like you are conflating things. obviously if the american people dont want socialism, it's not going to happen, because in that case, candidates running on socialism would never get elected to implement it in the first place. but if there was a grassroots mass desire for it... they'd elect those people and you would no longer need to "remove the means to resist" to implement it just you wouldnt have to remove those means to implement any other policy.
the reason i dont think you can ever flip a "socialist" switch in the US is because the 4th amendment will protect the business/commercial property rights of the owners. so if i owned an automobile factory, the state can't just come and say "we are taking this, sorry you can no longer own it."
and if your point is that a despotic US regime would try to implement socialism by force against the desire of the people (thereby necessitating the erosion of the 1st/2nd amendments), i also dont really see how that happens given that all these officials would necessarily be democratically elected in the first place
this is all just theoretical mumbo jumbo because i agree the US would never (nor do i think it should) just do away with capitalism.
but general point im making is that there is nothing fundamentally undemocratic about socialism... or that there is nothing inherent about socialism which means we'd have to strip away free speech, etc. the only thing that would be stripped is the ability of individuals to own the means of production and profit off of wage labor
Americans start arguing zone defense when discussing economy.
American Dream is better slogan and more effective than X is our Strength
Build the road is more effective than Building bridges
Most of us came here and continue to because we feel confident in our skills and work ethic. So where is the ladder
Last edited by FrostKing; 08-18-2020 at 05:31 AM.
I suspect that 20 years from now when your lawyer/doctor household is raking in the dough and raising a couple of kids, that you will have much more objection to the bolded than you do now.
What's the point of "making it" if you end up in the same situation regardless?
How do you have a system like socialism AND porous or even open borders AND undo ented immigrants AND 50% obesity?
Just curious who's going to be willing to do all that free work.
Americans dont know what true socialism or capitalism is.
They claim DNC is socialist or even said Obama was socialist. Both completely false
They also claim US is capitalist economy when government bails US companies and banks with trillions on a yearly basis. Thats not capitalism.
Both have been bas ized to confuse and trick average american lemming.
Says the Trump supporter
typical pro-Capitalism assholes spouting Red Herring(s)
Which politician is promoting all yall's Red Herring of "pure" socialism with full collectivism?
Capitalism and Capitalists have and are ing America, is why America "can't have nice things"
Last edited by boutons_deux; 08-18-2020 at 11:13 AM.
Read the first paragraph of that post.
And unless one runs their own private practice, neither a lawyer nor doctor owns the means of production
Coming from the guy who thought the Kodak deal was communist
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
