Flint wrote:

would

.. so what stops them?

 
what stops who from what?

more detail, please

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

what is the basis of the % you're proposing?

voters?  

voters who vote?

white men who onw property?

all persons?

Who counts when deciding who decides is at the core of what defines the group that exercises the power of governance of our constitutional federal republic.

BigV wrote:

what is the basis of the % you're proposing?

voters?  

voters who vote?

white men who onw property?

all persons?

Who counts when deciding who decides is at the core of what defines the group that exercises the power of governance of our constitutional federal republic.

I have no idea except they would have to be taxpayers  or the question wouldn't apply.
It would have to be a majority but is half +1 enough or a stronger mandate?

Flint wrote:

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?

 
either I don't understand your question, or you don't understand the chart

try again: strive for clarity

By following all right wing paths, what is discovered? 

You are a sociopath or psychopath.

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?

 👍

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.

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

Are fire departments socialist, IC?

Name one Socialist.

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'd like you to define Socialism please, let's get our terms straight before we begin the ad hominem attacks.

What is Socialism?