Heard a great question yesterday, one reasonable people should ponder

With you and the Austrian anarchists, I'm sure we're in for wonderful Monty Python-esque treat

 

lol. nothing but diversion? I must be right and you must be wrong. Government is socialism and You have no valid rebuttal.

 

all terms in our Second Amendment are plural and collective.

 

Yeah .. no, I've lived it. In various iterations, over decades. The reality is nothing like the Bourgeoisie 'socialists' think it is.

 

My 'rebuttal' is that the only form of socialism/communism which will ever work is the voluntary form. Ergo it will never work, and therefore cannot exist, on a large scale.

Want to be a socialist? Start living collectively, at home, today. Many First Worlders don't, and the most likely not to are Progressives. Imagine that.

 

You and the unabomber were once roommates?

 

Ah. The good old ad hom.

 

socialism works all the time. Government is socialism anywhere we have a mixed market economy.

 

I fully expect the Cafe Socialist to think socialism (when/if they actually encounter it) is some kind of freaky sci fi. It's par for the course.

 

Thank you for clarifying that the content of your posts falls under the category of "freaky sci fi".

That explains a lot!

 

Ah, the good old ad hom.

 

Yes, the old "I need a calculator to do math and you use your head, so you must be evil/insane" comfort demonisation.

 

Probably easier to just accept that your knowledge of Socialism is sorely lacking.

 

People are afraid that they will "lose". I don't understand it, but I see it all the time. It brings out the worst in people.

 

I understand it. It's human. We're all susceptible to it, but not all of us use it as impetus to explore our assumptions. Sometimes that unwillingness is a result of having a social circle which is callow and fickle in its loyalties and affections. Those dependent upon such groups will be terrified of falling (even accidentally) out of lockstep. They learn to live in a permanent state of mild panic. Like peasants lorded over by monks in the middle ages .. forever in fear of saying the wrong thing, and being burned at the stake.

Meantime, you know you have quality friends when they don't really care what your politics are. They may spout partisan dribble here and there, but they'd never ditch you over politics.

 

Yet another ironic PROJECTION of your own shortcoming in this regard duly noted for the record.

 

To get the job they want in the FIELD they want.
@mitchscove
Even when people retire or they have someone else paying their way,
they still prefer certain activities and interests over others.
So they will still pursue those.

As for universal everything, just ask people under what terms would they agree
to pay for everything? And you will get different answers.
Some will pay for military and veterans to get health care but not welfare for people to "freeload" who are able bodied.
Others want to pay for the poor or working families until they get education and job training to become self sufficient.

I believe that payments can be required as penalties and restitution for crimes, abuses or violations against victims.
But not forcing people to pay for things against their will, consent or beliefs if they have not incurred costs, debts or damages that compel them to pay.
People cannot be deprived of liberty without either consent or due process to prove wrongdoing for which they owe debt, damages or penalty by law.

That's fine to promote a basic standard for everyone,
but it can't violate the principle of "no taxation without representation."

If people are going to pay into a "faith based" program, they have to consent to the terms.
Again, in order to make it mandatory, it could be tied to restitution for crime or abuse
so that party is compelled to pay back costs they actually incurred. But for people who
committed no such violation, I would respect their freedom to voluntarily participate, donate,
or invest under terms they agree to pay into. Similar to giving people freedom to fund
the religious charity of their choice they trust with their donation to represent standards they agree to fund.

 

Yes and No @Derideo_Te
Even when people have the best of intentions,
going through Party and Govt enables corporate interests to hijack the process
with politics, bureaucracy, and monopoly for elitist agenda taking power and resources
from the people.

The real change and reform happens directly on the grassroots level first, and then the people
can become empowered with leverage to compel govt to serve the people not private interests that control the game from top down.

Anyone who preaches or teaches the opposite, that people should rely on "top down govt"
are telling the lies for political propaganda.

Even Obama who went to DC thinking he could get things done differently
found out when you get there, the system tells you what you can and cannot do, not the other way.
So his intended reforms got twisted with politics and compromised.

We need to stop telling these lies and believing you can change and dictate things from the top down.
Human nature doesn't work that way, NOBODY agrees to be forced or told what to do
by hostile political factions taking control and mandating by majority dominance over each other.

What works in the longrun is people deciding and working out effective solutions
we can mutually agree on as representing all our interests equally, so it truly reflects the best interests and consent of the public. Then taking those solutions to govt from the bottom to the top.

 

This is bullshit.

There is a book called Scientific Management about the effect of Socialism / Communism on the human condition. It's all about measurable metrics and humans absolutely will in mass work to the lowest common denominator.

 

How do you explain the third world then? They merely strive to survive, nobody excels. Liberals promise free stuff because they know most people are lazy and want free stuff. I don't think you understand human nature or how it relates to the world you can see around you...

 

Dear @Guyzilla and @HB Surfer
I agree with both of you in different contexts:
1. When given the FREEDOM to work for oneself where you determine your own reward
YES people naturally strive to excel at what they love and do best.
2. However, in a fixed system that doesn't pay by merit,
I agree with @HB Surfer that people will do the minimum to get paid.

Both things are true within given circumstances.

For example when you look at companies that have both set pay and hourly pay:
A. the managers that are paid a salary, regardless how long they have to stay and work,
will usually finish their job requirements even if it means working longer for the same set pay.
That is the condition they agreed to work under for a certain salary - to stay until the job is completed.
B. As for the hourly workers that get paid more if they work longer hours,
they would go home after a set schedule if they weren't paid more to stay longer.
If they were going to get paid the same amount no matter if they worked 6 hours or 8 hours or 10 hours,
they would work the minimum to get paid and then leave.

The common factor is that people AGREE and CHOOSE the terms and conditions of payment.

So @Guyzilla if you and others believe in paying certain benefits for everyone,
by all means, set up such a system for you and other adherents who BELIEVE and COMMIT to such a system.
Pay for it yourself and all the people you believe in supporting this way!

This is similar to churches and charities agreeing to volunteer and donate help to the poor, homeless or sick
regardless of any ability to pay back the help. Those nonprofits run VOLUNTARILY where people CHOOSE
to donate or to participate.

So if you believe in paying for charity, then just like religious organizations,
you are free to set up a system of donations under whatever terms you agree to.

But the same way churches and religious organizations aren't authorized to FORCE taxpayers to fund their charity programs,
neither can govt operate as a faith based organization.

Taxpayers have a right to CONSENT to how their money is spent they are paying for govt programs
that are supposed to REPRESENT the public.

If everyone AGREES to terms and conditions, then it's public policy.
If people do not agree on terms of charitable contributions, then it stays private,
just like any other church or charity nonprofit is expected to operate, by voluntary donation or participation, not forced by law!