would

.. so what stops them?

Last edited by Flint (11/27/2020 6:30 pm)

"would pay for it voluntarily"

I defy you to come up with a single thing that everyone in the country says is important enough that they would pay for.  There isn't one, not one, so what percentage of the population should be for something for the federal government to get involved?  51%?  75%?  99%?

henry_quirk wrote:

Flint wrote:

"would pay for it voluntarily"

wait, you wanna know why they don't pay for it voluntarily?

mebbe they don't value it, don' want it, and wouldn't pay for it on their own

Henry that goes against your own flow chart. We already know they value it and would pay for it. And that it's important.

So on the step 'would pay for it voluntarily'-- what's stopping them? What stops  a person from voluntarily exchanging money for goods and services that they need?

Last edited by Flint (11/27/2020 11:23 pm)

I defy you to come up with a single thing that everyone in the country says is important enough that they would pay for.

you're probably right...even food, which we all need, isn't important enough to some folks that they'd be willin' to pay for it voluntarily...we should respect their choices (and let them starve)


...what percentage of the population should be for something for the federal government to get involved?  51%?  75%?  99%?

I say if we're gonna empower a select few to oversee certain critical aspects of common livin', there ought to unanimity; unanimity of agreement about who oversees, what they oversee, etc.

unanimity, by the way, means 100% agreement: a high bar, yeah, but free men & women demand it

no unanimity, no oversight

tw wrote:

By following all right wing paths, what is discovered? 

You are a sociopath or psychopath.

and: by followin' all left wing paths we find:

you are a slave

and

you have stockholm syndrome

IC wrote:

Socialism says that people oppress each other, and won't voluntarily do the right thing.  That's why we need Socialism, they say.

But then, we should give strong, central control of all aspects of life to a group of people (the government) they say.

So we should give uncontested, centralized control to people who will oppress us?  That's the logic?

And that's exactly how it has played out it 100 percent of the situations in which Socialism has become the regnant system.  An "elite" of the governing have take over all aspects of life, and oppressed everyone else.  And in not a single case has is been otherwise.  From Russia and China to North Korea and Venezuela, from  Bulgaria and Albania to Zimbabwe or Tanzania, it's never been any other way.

Tell me, then, why Socialism will work THIS time, when every other time before it's resulted in tyranny, misery, oppression and economic collapse?  What makes North Americans so much wiser and better than all other human beings, so that we can make work a system that has betrayed the human race 100% of the time before?

 👍

I do believe that "thumbs up" signals agreement...although in some cultures, not so much. 

Flint wrote:

 

An "elite" of the governing have take over all aspects of life, and oppressed everyone else.

This is just a truism about human culture, regardless of the system of governance.

I don't disagree with you.  But the genius of constitutional democracy is that it places strict limits on the powers of that any of these corrupt human beings can wield...their terms are limited, their powers are circumscribed, and most importantly, the unalienable rights of their constituents are protected by law.  These are the only shields we have against tyranny...and they were set up not because the founders didn't know men were corruptible, but because they were absolutely certain they are corruptible.

So some systems of governance, like Monarchy and Socialism, allow the selfishness and oppressive tendencies of some men to run free...whereas other forms inhibit, restrict and oppose such inclinations.  And it's clear which we should wish to do, I think.
 

Flint wrote:

 

An "elite" of the governing have take over all aspects of life, and oppressed everyone else.

This is just a truism about human culture, regardless of the system of governance. It's true under what we call Democracy, or a Constitutional Republic, it's true under Communism or Socialism or whatever, because it's not the system that produces this result. It's greed, human nature, and the desire for power.

 
the 'murican system -- from the grievances listed in the declaration, through the remedy of those grievances in the constitution, to the practical expression of of those remedies in the day-to-day -- was to be a bulwark against  greed...*...and the desire for power...limited narrow governance was to be the way of things...men were to be empowered briefly, to perform a few necessary functions, on behalf of other men...they were to serve...these men were never meant to direct cultures, to pick winners, to enrich themselves, to exempt themselves from law they make or enforce or arbitrate...they were meant to burdened with stricture and obstacle and always left wanting









*I don't accept the idea human nature is naturally skewed toward greed...it's natural & normal to be self-interested, but greed is, I believe, a unnatural appetite

Flint wrote:

For context-- I don't know how we think the US might suddenly flip to Socialism, especially since there isn't a Socialist movement, no politicians or electable candidates support Socialism, and the theory of Socialism has never entered into mainstream discussion. No one is considering it or arguing for it.

So...you've never heard of Antifa, or BLM, or Neo-Marxist university professors?  You don't know that the Democrats have a guy named Bernie, among others, who are totally sold out to Socialism?  And you've never heard of the push for "universal health care" or "universal basic income," which are both pillars of Socialist propaganda?  Or even of politicians promising "free college"? 

Just asking.  It seems to me that unless you've been living under a rock, you've heard of Socialism.