Voluntary Socialism

In order to allow everyone the utmost freedoms, why not just practice voluntary socialism?

Instead of liberal forcing me(who wants small government with no redistribution or safety nets) to live by their rules, why cant we all just live as we choose in a free country?

Liberals are free to establish communities that adhere to their philosophies. We would all be subject to the basic costs of basic infrastructures like: national defense, judicial system, water and highway systems along with state and local basic infrastructures but allow issues like: gay marriage, abortions, drug use, education, healthcare, retirement, food, clothing and shelter to be community based. Just like neighborhood homeowner associations, you could have community lifestyle associations.

Would this not allow everyone to have what they want?

 

What you are talking about is State's Rights. If the only job of the Federal government was national defense. Like NATO. Then the states could do everything else. Blue states could be like Sweden. Red states could serve up capitalism raw with no welfare state.

We can live together as Americans and everyone can live in a state to their liking.

 

Not exactly, I'm not saying that states get full control either. Yet, this country would be far better off with 50 social experiments than 1.

 

Good points. I believe the reason this does not happen is because indeed it is one nation of vultures, acting as freedom democracy: if America would actually act like one nation, one party, I think it would be more vulnerable, as to where now a lot of people who would hate America as a whole, just hate/blame one of the two parties

 

Correct. If America last 1,000 years. That means for the next 1,000 years Washington DC must get it right each and every time. However, if ultimate power is restricted to the state level, then politicians can make all the mistakes they want because the only thing they can destroy is their own respective state. The nation as a whole survives.

 

Most of the people who are such strong advocates for Socialism are "takers" and not "makers". Typically, they don't have a pot to urinate in, or a window to pour it out of, as the old saying goes... but they do have huge debts, and a strong, unending need for other people to give them things, forever and ever....

 

Liberalism, at its very core, is against individuals living how they want.

They wish to see everyone live as they think they should.

 

I wish it were as simple as the OP described. It is realistically possible to do exactly that... On a much smaller scale. But on a country-wide scale? Human psychology is a big (*)(*)(*)(*) you to that idea. It's essentially possible to give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about more than a hundred or so individuals at any given time. At the same time, you have other problems. Part of the issue with socialism is that it exists to help those in need, and very few people have friends that exist far out of their social class. And of course, people aren't going to want to give to those they don't know... There's a reason socialism always involves mandatory taxation; it just won't do what it's supposed to otherwise.

 

New York State is filled with "makers" and it is blue. I'm not for being a taker, but I'd like it if we shoved the partisan talking points to one side. Not everything is black and white.

 

This is patently untrue. People give to who they don't know all the time. There are charities for every human experience under the sun. We even have charities for animals. St Luke's Children's Hospital is a prime example of people caring about strangers.

Why don't you trust yourself? Do you believe you wouldn't help the poor unless the government stole the money from you?

 

Translation:

Socialists are whiny pig teat-suckers who need the money of the useful and productive to support their self-entitled piggishness.

 

I think she actually cares, but she's fallen into the false belief system that only government can accomplish things. She neither trusts herself or has faith in fellow humans. It is the type of caring that has "pity" attached, never realizing that the pitied feel contempt not love.

 

I think she trusts herself. I don't think she trusts you or anyone else though. Her version of socialism requires compulsion because no one is as moral as she is.

 

That can already happen, and has. Several blue states like Massachusetts already have comprehensive health care systems. But in my state, Florida, or local lefties would be opposed to that because they don't think they could get one passed on the state level and if they could, they would want someone else (the other states; the Federal gov't) to pay for it.

Of course, we are seeing the blue model break down in real time. California and Illinois are two states that are collapsing under the weight of their blue programs. For them, the solution is a federal bailout, so I just don't see much hope that states that voluntary choose socialism would be able to stop themselves from going to the other states to demand bail out when their programs collapse.

 

This is why we need to practice strict state's rights. The federal government handles national defense and foreign policy. The states handle everything else. Once states realize that there will be no rescue from the Federal government, they will be more likely to behave themselves. The reason that governments like California or Greece misbehaves is because they know a bailout is coming. The concept is called "Moral Hazard". Basically, "moral hazard" means bailout bad behavior and you will get more bad behavior.

 

IMO, freedom has been severly tainted due to decades of safety nets. Many Americans could/can not rap their heads around true freedom. At the base of this is religion. Some have a God and some have government as their savoirs.

As a believer in God, I do not look at death the same way as a non-believer. What is more important in my life is liberty and charity, while non-believers are focused on equality.

Neither belief system provides Utopia. Question is: should we force one on the other? I think not. I do not need to practice socialism or force another to believe my way to be happy. Yet, secularist feel the need to force my participation into their belief. The truth is that all humans live and die. Freedom nor big government will ever change this. One thing is for certain, a free country where the federal government protects the country and liberty, will never fall. But, one that practices forced equality will never last.

 

I like this idea. But explain to me more about how the property rights work. Do local communities (or more specifically local community authorities) also have jurisdiction over property rights? 'Cause practically speaking, they do.

 

I want liberals/progressives/marxist to live how they wish. I want to live how I wish. As long as we both agree that we need a small federal government to provide us both protect, we should both be able to live as we please.

Liberals, can you truly say you wish the same?

 

No. No. No. No. No.

Liberalism, at its very core, is about freedom for everyone, where everybody chooses how they live. Not just the rich people. Liberalism is about having the freedom to live as you would choose, not as your government or your boss would choose. At its extreme end, liberalism becomes anarchy because it's about not having bosses.

You're talking about the opposite of liberalism. You are the victim of a sick and twisted psychological attack. You have been utterly confused. And you're attacking something that I'm pretty sure you're actually in favor of.

 

A good and thoughtful post.

 

Yes, absolutely.

Now explain how property rights work under that system.

 

It's for the same reason that rich people want police. And a government that will use force to back up their contracts. Everybody else wanting taxes is basically the same thing.

 

And there is the rub. They do not wish the same for us. They "know" what's best and want to force us to bend to their vision of Utopia.

 

I have no particular love of the wealthy, but I want everyone to have the freedom that I want for myself. No more, no less.

 

If you give Liberals a chance, they can see the beauty of State's Rights. I have told them that they can have a cradle to grave welfare state and never fear the Red State taking it away from them. One frustration Liberal have are Red states stopping or rolling back the welfare state. That ends if welfare is practiced at the State level. Vermont can be socialist and it will never go away.