AOC is socialist. Is that bad?

1) No there aren't. There is only one kind ... and its proper name is COMMUNISM.

2) There are not 'modern socialist countries' in the Western World. All are Capitalist.

 

1) No it doesn't. That's robust Capitalism with social fringe benefits. And they WERE nice, but those days are numbered due to 'multiculturalism'. No nation can support such fringe benefits unless 99% of citizens participate.

2) They were successful ONLY when those nations remained lily white monocultures. Diversity is going to make them failures.

 

Sure, but we live in a physical reality of finite time/resources and governed by cause/effect. It is positively Disneyesque to imagine that ANY society of more than about 10 people can take the time and resources needed to evaluate the life history of impecunious First Worlders for extenuating circumstances. ESPECIALLY while children continue to starve to death, wars rage, and diseases proliferate uncured. It's outrageous, in fact.

 

1) planned because unless she was raped, she made a choice to engage in unprotected sex. unprotected sex can and does lead to pregnancy (as the average 10 year old knows), ergo she planned to expose herself to pregnancy. ergo she planned the pregnancy. unless you're saying women who have unwanted pregnancies are all stupider than 10 year olds? or is it just women in general you think are childish and unable to make adult choices?

2) every time you 'help' your 3 year old have a happier breakfast by giving him chocolate ice cream, you aid in his eventual downfall. every time you do your kids' homework for them, you contribute to their inevitable failure. I could go on all day. if you've lost sight of that fundamental article of psych 101 (the kindest thing can often be the 'cruelest'), you've literally abandoned the much harder work of kindness in favour of the instant gratification of 'pleasing'.

3) yes, we absolutely should endure pain every time we make a mistake. how in hell else are we supposed to learn anything? and there is no need to ramp up punishment, as stated. life will punish us quite well enough.

 

The only exception should be for widows/widowers. I don't care how you ended up single, if no one died you don't get to claim welfare with each subsequent kid. You should LOSE welfare with each subsequent kid.

Divorce is a CHOICE. And before that, marrying an ****** (who later treats you like crap, or is an addict, or fools around, etc etc) is also a CHOICE.

 

solving for simple poverty via market friendly means is a better capital solution.

 

Agreed - this is why we need to get rid of Red Establishment - They are even worse with respect to deficits "wealth redistribution/ stealing other peoples money" than Blue - and that is no easy bar to hurdle.

 

1. There are HUGE differences between communism & socialism. But you can refuse to see them. "Argue for your limitations, and sure enough they are yours." (Richard Bach)
2. Actually, they are a blend of capitalism & socialism, which takes the best elements of both worlds & combines them in a system superior to either alone.

 

Diversity actually strengthens a culture, but only as long as the various elements of that culture regard themselves as equals. Once any group within a culture becomes self-serving & arrogant toward others who are different, then diversity fails, along with that culture.

 

1. Since even your hypothetical 10 year old has enough sense to know it takes two to tango, why are you placing all the responsibility on the female side of the equation only. What about the male? Do you have different standards for people based on gender?
2. Love & helpfulness can take many forms, and any can result in unanticipated outcomes. But that should never dissuade us from seeking to give both as often as we can.
3. Pain is not necessary for most of us to learn. Nor should it be. Kind, supportive action can (and does) result in greater learning in others than pain or punishment or harshness ever does. Generally, the lessons learned are far more positive as well.

 

You sound very convinced & non-compassionate.
1. If welfare were only for widows or widowers, then no child of single parents would ever get welfare help. Since welfare is based on helping kids, then your argument would eliminate welfare altogether.
2. Welfare was formed as a process to help needy kids. Your argument destroys that core element of the entire program. So, your solution creates a new problem. What about that new kid whose parents aren't capable of offering the basic necessities of that kid's life? What about the innocent kid? You just gonna ignore him or her altogether?
3. Divorce is NOT always a choice. Often a divorce is decided on by only one member of a marriage & it get inflicted onto the other without choice. Your point is invalid.

 

having nothing but excuses instead of solutions is Bad. there is no provision for Excuses in the federal doctrine.

 

1) no, they are the same thing. collectivism.

2) no, they are capitalist, and just happen to spend some of their surplus on social programs. there is no collectivism going on.

 

1) I'm saying only widows should have access to sole parent welfare. Everyone else is there by choice, so no free lunch needed. And the best help we can give to children is to have only as many as you can comfortably afford, behave yourself, and stay married. I've done that, and encourage others to do the same. Your band aid 'solutions' are just that. Temporary wound management. A resistance to the real work of prevention.

2) Once again, my solution is for people who can't afford children to stop having them. That's actual prevention, not encouragement to keep having more, leaving them to the fates of the wind and welfare - an outrageously irresponsible and uncaring approach.

3) Divorce is preventable in 99.99% of cases. If you marry someone who is so flakey that they'll end up leaving you for some stupid reason, then you've made a bad choice. If you yourself are so terrible that no one could tolerate you long term, then you've made a choice to be an asshat.

It defies reason that you think adult humans are innocent victims of magical pixie dust and/or bad luck. Everything we are discussing is a matter of bad choices or good choices.

 

There is not much which is as lacking in compassion, as the lazy emoting of 'welfare' for those who made free choices to impoverish themselves. It's actually pretty disgusting.

 

Your definition of socialism as a "collective" is too extreme. Sure, there are examples of that extreme form of socialism, but milder forms do exist now & successfully. Democratic Socialism growing in America today is a very mild form that honors democracy & human rights. That's why this tirade against "socialism" is so misplaced and wrong.

 

If ALL recipients of welfare fell into your definition, I'd agree. But every case is an individual circumstance, and while a few will fall into your category, most won't. Those that don't, deserve better than you're giving them.

 

True. As I've said before: Communism is to socialism as fascism is to capitalism.

Socially responsible capitalism is the answer, and the Nordic model is the best example of it.

 

You are more hard-hearted than I. I find life is often more unpredictable than you seem convinced it is, and not everything is within our conscious control. Though I agree with you that most of our lives are what they are due to our choices. I am less rigid in condemning those who make poor choices than you, and I'm not against handouts to those in need. Your post focuses on making parents responsible for the results of their individual choices--which I agree we all are, but I'm more flexible in my outlook, because I know all humans make mistakes, and we're all human. Being inflexible not only increases the pain unnecessarily, but can have adverse affects on innocent children. I'd rather err on the side of compassion than judgmental rigidity.

 

Those 'milder forms' are capitalism which can afford largess. NOTHING socialist about it, at all.

Socialism is not what you think it is. It's minimum survival needs met for the most number. It's NOT largess.

The anti-socialism tirades are not at all wrong. They actually understand what it means. It's those who think they want it who are clueless.

 

Socialism is just one step away from communism.

 

Interestingly 95% of the right wingers who loosely throw around the term "communist" have no real idea what a "communist" really is. Most of them think that it's cool to use that term on those with whom they don't agree with.

 

On no planet apart from Disneyland are the physical constraints of existence (cause/effect,time,materials) infinite. It is outrageously irresponsible to even attempt to factor in the details of every individual's life journey leading them to poor choices. The very best we can ever do, and the MOST FAIR AND EQUITABLE we can ever hope to be, is to provide welfare only to those who have done nothing to cause their temporary impecuniousness.

 

Exactly. It's CAPITALISM. As I keep saying.

And it's only 'socially responsible' as long as society continues to be responsible. I hope you're able to grasp what that means.

 

Less than a step.