A Message to Democratic Socialists, Democrats, and virtually all Republicans

[catbuffalo]

Keep blowing the corporations. You don't believe in liberty. The new order is the same as the old.

[chuska8383]

@catbuffalo Avoiding discussion? You've given no arguments, only insults.

I believe all corporations are illegal entities. The corporation in itself is a bullshit legal/liability/financial shield the elite receive from the government and, in return, the government get their cut through taxes, bribes, insider trading information, and free counterfeited money. If individuals have law X apply to them it ought to apply to all without exception. "Corporations" shouldn't exist.

[caseysavestheday]

Also, did you know that if a Canadian needs medical attention in the U.S. (vacation, whatever), that they will pay the U.S. hospital to stabilize the patient and then cover their cost for immediate transport back to a better Canadian medical center (airlifts, even, for emergencies) for higher quality care for a cost that they already pay into?

[caseysavestheday]

1. No, because I don't think Jefferson would understand the complexity of global and national markets over two centuries later because he did not possess some sort of clairvoyant ability that I'm aware of.

2. You're assuming a business monopoly is a benevolent entity; what if they're not? You're forgetting that these are terrible for small businesses & people seeking out the American dream of starting a business and making their living.

3. No, I'm not joking. Your America is horrifying.

[chuska8383]

@caseysavestheday

1. The Constitution was meant to be amended over time as the times changed, not reinterpreted to the whims of collectivist looters and fascist judges.

2. The intent of the monopoly does not matter. As soon as the monopoly begins to "price gouge" and raises prices or skimps on quality it opens itself up to competition. It is only through socialist collectivist legislation where a company is protected from competition ("for the greater good of course!") that there's danger

[catbuffalo]

@chuska8383

Governments protecting companies is not democratic at all. It's like talking to a wall with you guys.

[chuska8383]

@catbuffalo I agree. I don't support the special treatment the elite get from our corrupt politicians at all. And, by the way, I am curious - when you refer to me as part of "you guys" what group do you think I belong to?

[chuska8383]

@caseysavestheday

3. Again, this America has absolutely nothing to do with capitalism or the intent of the framers. This America is horribly collectivist, as fascist as the German Nationalist Socialists, as aggressive as the Huns, and more socialist than the formerly communist Chinese.

[caseysavestheday]

Here's a response question. You dont want government controlling means and production, right? Because it gives you no choice, right? Well, your unfettered free market system does the same thing; monopolies (in business, health care, etc.) form and become the only game in town. You have no choice but to buy from them. What progressives want is more democratic (people voting) control over business and monopolies. If you have to buy a product, you, a consumer, should have a say in how that's run.

[caseysavestheday]

@caseysavestheday And PS -- why do you have to pay into single-payer health care (like Medicare) and social security? (Im inferring that those are the "socialist" programs that you're referring to) Well, Ill throw Jefferson right back at you: it's the price we pay for a civilized society. Whats a shame is that Medicare isn't available for everyone, only seniors. Medicare for all: everyone pays, and everyone receives the benefits.

[chuska8383]

@caseysavestheday You're joking, right? You honestly think that Jefferson would advocate for socialized medicine and your reasoning is a vague reference to Rousseau's philosophy? Why didn't he then, in your view, advance this cause when he was alive? Why did he explicitly forbid such programs on the federal level by not making it one of the powers delegated by the constitution? What a shame Medicare isn't available to all? Sure...if you let me and those who don't want to participate to opt out?

[caseysavestheday]

@chuska8383 (I forgot to @tag you in the other responses, sorry) You will find that these social/health services are indeed in the Constitution: You'll find it under "promote the general welfare". The Confederate Constitution was the one that lacked it -- perhaps that's the Constitution you're thinking of when you speak about economic philosophy? Perhaps that's the Constitution you'd prefer?

[chuska8383]

@caseysavestheday No, you don't understand the Constitution. Read the Federalist Papers. In pariticular read Federalist Paper #41, third to last paragraph, as written by James Madison himself. You socialists ignore what is clearly written in black and white and then force people like myself to go along with your utopian schemes at the barrel of a gun. If and only if you have read that paragraph will I continue to debate you on the matter of the general welfare clause.

[chuska8383]

@caseysavestheday An unfettered market does not create monopolies in almost all cases but rather leads to the greatest turnover rate between the haves and the havenots through the generations. If a monopoly does form in a free market, it does so only because it offers a good or service of such high quality and such low cost that no competitor may compete with it - which is great for the consumer and society as a whole and comes because that is what consumers choose contrary to your statement.

[chuska8383]

@caseysavestheday For your voting comment - you are assuming incorrectly (as is the basis for democratic socialism) that you have the right to vote on other people's property. You do not. If the company which makes the product is owned by someone else, you do not have a say in how the company is run. You may instead, however, choose not to do business with the company or form a company run the way you envision and, if it is more efficient, will take away market share.

[Tommyidol420]

Ask anyone from a socialist country how they like it there, they will give you one of two answers. "We love it!" or "I'm glad I don't live in America"

[chuska8383]

@Tommyidol420 Precisely and I agree - there is no longer any free market capitalist country in existence for a comparison. This is on purpose because such is the only way a socialist system can survive. Back when there was a system that was (very nearly) free market capitalist (the USA) millions of people immigrated here in waves, we had 90% of the world's gold, the highest wages, the highest standard of living, 60% of the world's industrial output, the cheapest goods, and the best quality.

[Tommyidol420]

@chuska8383 I'm a Democratic Socialist, and we still believe in profit. We just think the capital should be spread out more evenly. And we did have a huge influx of immigration, because the factories needed cheap labor, just like how we shipped them off to fight our wars. Then what happened? Too many workers. They started demanding things like rights and fair treatment. BAM! the doors slam shut. Acts are passed to regulate immigration all of a sudden.

[Tommyidol420]

@Tommyidol420 Then eventually jobs are shipped overseas, all in the name of profit. And this whole time, did anyone ever ask themselves what was right for the American people? No, because the money was too damn good. The government, the corporations, hell, your own boss don't give a shit. Because it's our job to be quiet, and be a good little slave ad be happy with our meager salaries.

[chuska8383]

@Tommyidol420 Tommy, I think you have good intentions but you are economicaly illiterate. Please don't be offended. When we were at the peak of our productivity and had the highest living standards we also paid the highest wages similar to Germany and Japan today. We've always competed against low wages and we used to win. The problem wasn't workers demanding their rights or "fair" treatment at all! It was the government imposing restrictions on job opportunities.

[chuska8383]

@Tommyidol420 And you are NOT a slave while at a job in a free market society - you only do what you choose to do. It is within a democratic socialist system that you are truly a slave with no rights and it is the government who "don't give a shit" wanting us to be "good little slaves" who must give up as much of our personal property to the socialist hoard as is seen fit. Why do you think all the jobs were here in the USA when we had the highest wages? What books have you read on economics?

[Tommyidol420]

@chuska8383 James Gwartney and Dwight Lee, "Common Sense Economics", which I hated, Steven Landsburg, "Fair Play" Gary S. Baker and Kevin M. Murphy, a little better but still seemed out of touch and "Social Economics: Market Behavior in a Social Environment". I don't need to tell you how I felt about this one. I'm new to the economics thing, granted I don't have a great understanding, but I have an idea, and from what I have learned Socialism seems more humane.

[Tommyidol420]

@Tommyidol420 I need to back track and broaden my scope I know, if you would like, go ahead and refer me to some reading.

[Tommyidol420]

@chuska8383 I need to back track and broaden my scope I know, if you would like, go ahead and refer me to some reading. (Repost, I replied to myself)

[Tommyidol420]

@chuska8383 Also I am a Democratic Socialist, and we still believe in profit, just more shared wealth, and we don't feel a need to "Pay" private owners of rights of man, like health care, or even education. Though I still feel there maybe room for privatised health care and education. That's choice.

[chuska8383]

@Tommyidol420 ...and so would participation in this democratic socialism be voluntary? If a person refused to pay into collectivized health care or public education would you exempt him from that portion of taxes or fees? Do you believe in the concept of personal property? If a person claimed personal property and denied you access to it, would you leave him alone? I am very skeptical of a socialist advocating choice but if you truly belive in a voluntary sort of socialism then we're okay.

[Tommyidol420]

Well for one thing Russia wasn't a socialist state. Another thing, we have a choice here? Does anyone really feel like they have a choice? I don't. I'm a slave to corporations, to my boss, to my government. Choice? Your kidding me. Socialism closes the gap between the guy who mops the floors, and the guy behind the big oak desk. Close the gap, then you have choice. Instead of working for someone, you work for yourself. Which is the only way people feel good about what they do.

[chuska8383]

@Tommyidol420 We don't have a choice - the corporations and the government have merged into a fascistic kleptocracy. Socialism does not close any gaps. Instead, it declares that theft is virtuous, and so it is only a matter of time until the entire system is corrupted and infected just like here in the USA.

[DoctorS8n]

Capitalist  pig!

[michaelchristopherj]

It's not an option because you live in the real world. Socialism is the best way to design a society.

[chuska8383]

@michaelchristopherj But that is not a universal opinion. You MUST morally give people an option. People deserve the right to be left alone. People's personal property is rightly that: their property to do with as they see fit, it is not the property of the tribe, collective, country, or king. In a free market, socialists would be free to be socialist and capitalists would be free to be capitalists. It is the socialists belief that they have the right to use violence which causes conflict.

[michaelchristopherj]

@chuska8383 I would be nice if we all could choose our ideal society. But we can't. I can't live in a socialist society, because there is none, at least based on the basic tenants of socialism. Find for me an anarchist society. A communist society. The only thing we can do is reform the societies we have. And the one we have now is extremely capitalistic, which is why I wonder why you aren't happy. And socialism has nothing to do with violence... quite the opposite.

[chuska8383]

@michaelchristopherj You state there is no socialist society per the basic tenants of socialism yet you live in a socialist society. I say that there is no capitalist society, our society doesn't even vaguely resemble capitalism and hasn't for one hundred years. Capitalism, properly defined, is a system in which personal property rights are held paramound, every interaction is voluntary, and force is never initiated. What is your definition of socialism? Why can't we chose our societies?

[michaelchristopherj]

@chuska8383 The basic universal definition of socialism is an economic system in which the workers have control over the means to production. It denies heirarchial structures and does away with unnecessary master-slave relationship found in the workplace. It does away with exploitation as seen in third world countries by big corporations in order to augment profit. America is, therefore, nowhere near a socialist society. It isn't perfect capitalism, but I don't know if we'd even want to see that

[chuska8383]

@michaelchristopherj Do you understand that such a system wherein the workers control production is impossible? If a worker decided to work harder than others and use more of his gains to increase his productive capacity than his peers he would soon be able to retire and become a capitalist? Who is responsible for this massive redistribution of wealth? How can you guarantee that this will be done fairly? Why do you think all centrally planned economies have faile in the past?

[chuska8383]

@michaelchristopherj And no, we don't agree on democracy. Democracy is an abhorent, terrible system. Democracy has become code for socialism. I want a Republic wherein natural rights of personal property, life, and liberty are guaranteed and not super majority may ever confiscate or infringe on those natural rights! Democracy is immoral. Just because 99% of the population decide to rob the other 1% of the population doesn't make the action moral. In fact, that is the rejection of morality.

[michaelchristopherj]

@chuska8383 Well, by democracy I meant republic, since a republic is a democracy. But since you brought it up, and I also believe in direct democracy, what if the representative decides to rob the 99%? Is power in the hands of a few more moral than power in the hands of the many? Your logic is very circular. You argue for one thing with arguments that could easily be used for the other. I think democracy only works with good education. Also, do you understand the "means of production," now?

[chuska8383]

@michaelchristopherj Nobody may ever rob anybody else. Nobody may ever initiate force, violence, or coersion of any kind on someone else and the only time force may be used is in response to force for purposes of self defense. The power to compromise or destroy private property rights does not belong to anyone, not even 99.9999% of the people. I believe in real equality under the law, the Rule of Law, not the Rule of Men or the tyrrany of the majority. Such logic isn't circular at all.

[michaelchristopherj]

@chuska8383 But you say tyranny of the majority, as if there isn't a tyranny of the few. Anything can be tyrannical. The majority is least likely to be tyrannical, especially since it doesn't have anyone to be tyrannical against. Are the people going to be tyrannical on the few? Even if they were to, which is worse, tyranny of the few or of the many? The rule of law is the rule of men, because it is created by men, is it not? Your fear of a mob-like many, I think, is not accurate.

[chuska8383]

@michaelchristopherj And per my understanding of Austrian Economics, production comes from underconsumption and savings. Thus, any private property has the potential to become a means of production. I understand what you mean and what you want, I just honestly don't think it is as good a system wherein people have the right to be left alone. Do you agree with me that socialism by its very definition is involuntary? Do you agree with my assertion that involntary altruism is theft?

[michaelchristopherj]

@chuska8383 People do have the right to be left alone. I don't even know what you mean by that. In a libertarian capitalist society, people don't have the right to be left alone. They HAVE to work under a tyranny in order to SURVIVE. I mean, you libertarians say that there is a choice, which negates slavery, but you forget that you HAVE to in order to SURVIVE. So in reality, there is no choice. If anything, a socialist economy allows people to truly be left alone.

[chuska8383]

@michaelchristopherj You say people have the right to be left alone. In a socialist system, if I had saved up my money and had invested to buy something that would be considered a "means of production" ...would I have a choice NOT to have my property nationalized for the common good? Does the burgeousie or the wealthy or the manufacturing corporations ever have a choice whether or not their property will be nationalized? No, they don't. You NEVER have a choice in socialist participation.

[michaelchristopherj]

@chuska8383 Well, one, it would depend on what kind of socialist system you're talking about. You're referring to a system where land is in common ownership. But I think you're missing the point of democratic socialism. The main point of democratic socialism is the government, workplace and services. What you're referring to is a more libertarian socialist outlook. Democratic socialism doesn't typically mean the abolition of private property, but an individual could promote both.

[chuska8383]

@michaelchristopherj Well, if you solely promote socialist systems that are strictly voluntary, participation is never forced and private property (including land and production) can rightfully remain in the hands of common people...then I believe that we are actually talking about the same basic system: freedom. So while we would choose different paths and actions in a free society, I wouldn't force my ways on you and you'd do the same for me so we could coexist and trade with each other.

[michaelchristopherj]

@chuska8383 Sure. But I'm quite sure if there were a socialist system, no one would want an alternative. In fact, I'm positive of this. Just ask those who work in socialist factories in Wisconsin (like two prominent ones, I think).

[michaelchristopherj]

@chuska8383 I assume you're a libertarian. If so, you should know that Reagan and Milton Friedman, both libertarianesques, created a more obvious crony capitalism and helped enlarge the gap between rich and the poor. Basically, capitalism is a deception that can never work. Free markets is a dream that would never result in positive growth for the general welfare. Socialism is a system that thinks of people as a whole, not just individuals. Like Ayn Rand promoted. It is egoism and selfishness.

[chuska8383]

@michaelchristopherj Again - the system that Reagan and Friedman advocate is NOT NOT NOT capitalism. When you give the government and central banks power to regulate the money supply (a vital planck in socialist society per Lenin, by the way!) you no longer have a free market. You say free markets can't work becuase you have simultaneously been told that you can't let people choose their system and that force MUST be used on your fellow slave citizens. You've been taught freedom fails!

[michaelchristopherj]

@chuska8383 Reagan and Friedman actually loosened up regulations and allowed corporations to bypass union laws and exploitation barriers. (And the Soviet's weren't socialists. Lenin was a right wing deviation of marxism.) Milton Friedman even called himself a libertarian, I believe, and is hailed by free market proponents now. The truth is, corporations must exploit people in order to increase their profit, therefore they create a tyranny worse than government and not accountable to the people.

[chuska8383]

@michaelchristopherj "Corporations must exploit people in order to increase their profit" THIS IS A MARXIST LIE. In a free market corporations can't force you to do anything; all they can do is compete with one another and offer the consumer goods and services which are perceived to be the best quality a mutually agreed upon price. It is socialists who exploit people because the consumer/citizen isn't given a choice, "your money or your life!" is the only avenue from gov't and authoritarians.

[michaelchristopherj]

@chuska8383 Tell that to a thirteen year old girl in El Salvidor that MUST subject herself to ridiculous wages in order for her family to survive. If they do survive. Where else would this girl find money? What else choice does she have? She is a slave! Look in Bangladesh, China, Guatemala. Most of the underdeveloped world works in these conditions. That's 80% of the world's population. It is exploitation, and wage slavery. When profit motive is the only motive, exploitation's a given.

[chuska8383]

@michaelchristopherj Ugh! You socialists are so economically illiterate! Per the El Salvador comment...look...if you were to FORCE a system upon the world (which I know you would just love to do in pursuit of your utopia) where the government were to nationalize all personal property rights that is subjectively labeled as means of production and then hand it over equally to all those who are subjectively labeled workers you would have MORE poverty and LESS production, not the other way around!

[chuska8383]

@michaelchristopherj Human beings are egoistic and selfish. Nobody can ever truly follow alruist mentality. There is no actual "whole" of society to serve; only the aggregation of individuals! Every example throughout history of rulers taking from their people has always been said to be for the common good or good of the state or is done by those that are ordained by god or the people. You're still practicing the same, tired failed systems of the past with different labels by not allowing choice

[michaelchristopherj]

@chuska8383 Humans beings are egoistic and selfish, so therefore our economic system must propagate this immorality, which ends in death and destruction? Evolutionary biologists will tell you that higher beings, primates specifically, have a strong trait of altruism, and I don't see how one can even come out against altruism. Seems like a strange stance to defend. Kings, by the way, require a hierarchal structure, which socialism does away with, and in some cases a state is nonexistent.

[chuska8383]

@michaelchristopherj Look at what you are arguing for! One side concedes that human beings will never, ever agree on everything. They say that you may never initiate violence or force on another human being; that people should be free to choose their society and laws and that all individuals shall have natural rights which may never be violated even by a super majority. The other side declares that "utopia" is a system wherein you have no personal property rights and are a slave to the state!

[michaelchristopherj]

@chuska8383 Actually, like I said, socialism is mostly a stateless society, so the "slave to the state," theory is flawed there. Socialism is mostly STATELESS and before conservative libertarianism, there was libertarian socialism. Furthermore, I never said that people will never agree on anything. People can, and have in the past agreed on things. We agree on democracy no? There was a time when that was highly debated on.

[chuska8383]

@michaelchristopherj I define a slave as someone who does not fully own their body, labor, or wages. If, in a socialist society, personal property is partially or fully abolished and handed over to the collective, then that person is, in fact, a slave. You've merely transferred the handle of the whip from the plantation owner to a random bureaucrat who feigns representation of "the people" or "the common good" which is the same as every other authoritarian system. And, again, why no choice?

[michaelchristopherj]

@chuska8383 Now you're exaggerating. You're willing to call collective ownership slavery, but a corporate authoritarian is just... a healthy exchange of wealth for labor? You're considering one thing utter slavery and the other ideal? You don't see the hypocrisy in that? And I'm not economically illiterate, you just don't understand what I said. The "means of production," is not property. That line has nothing to do with property rights. It has to do with working... productivity, in other words.

[michaelchristopherj]

@chuska8383 And, this system has existed before, so saying that it impossible is just a misunderstanding of socialism. Look at the Spanish Civil War in 1936 or the Paris Commune in 1871. Socialism, in its true form, has existed before, and everyone in said societies absolutely loved it. The entire idea of socialism would be too long to explain for a youtube post, but if you read some Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn, they outline how a socialist society works. And it is has worked before.

[chuska8383]

@michaelchristopherj Look...you and many others think socialism works. Fine. But there are others who don't WANT socialism. They have studied with rigor economics and morality and philosophy and they disagree with you. Free market capitalists allow everyone to pursue their own systems and you would be free to be socialist. On the other hand, the great thinkers you mention don't offer a choice. "SOCIALISM OR DEATH!" is the battle cry. Why do you think your system isn't willing to allow choice?

[michaelchristopherj]

@chuska8383 Dude, I wish I could create for you a world with a free market capitalist system, just like I wish I could make for myself a socialist system. Unfortunately, both of us have no choice but to succumb to whatever the majority opinion dictates. And as it stands now, socialism is the most popular philosophical and political ideology in the world. That's no exaggeration. So the future probably will have lots of socialism in it. The US is one of the least socialist, so you should be happy.

[chuska8383]

@michaelchristopherj In a free market capitalist society you would be free to be socialist! I would be free to be capitalist! We would be allowed to disagree and those who didn't like their society could choose thus guaranteeing that the people would live in a society and rules they felt was the best! Capitalism is the only system that allows this choice! The reason why socialism is the most popular is because it is backed by the elite because socialism gives them total control!

[michaelchristopherj]

@chuska8383 How does capitalism give a choice? If it had a choice I'd be in a socialist system yesterday. And socialism doesn't give elite power, quite the opposite. It's popular because this world has more poor than rich. That is why. The underdeveloped nations make up 80% of the population. You and me, sitting comfortably behind laptops, sending message across the world, are in the 20% of the developed world.

[chuska8383]

@michaelchristopherj Okay, please remember this: THE SYSTEM WE ARE IN NOW IS NOT CAPITALIST. THE USA IS NOT CAPITALIST, WE ARE FIAT CORPORATIST/FASCIST. Capitalism is a system wherein you may do as you wish with your personal property and all interactions are voluntary. Socialism is by definition always involuntary so they label fascism as capitalism to hide this fact. Socialism increases poverty. The reason why 20% of the world is developed is because they are/have been closer to capitalism.

[michaelchristopherj]

@chuska8383 We are a capitalist state. You romanticize the idea of capitalism with these neoliberal phrases and almost communist language, but the reality is clear. Capitalism leads to fascism. At least laizzes fare capitalism. Businesses will always seek power within the state, and if the government is too small to regulate these businesses, then it will be overrun by them. And you're saying we are closer to capitalism but aren't capitalism? Make up your mind.

[chuska8383]

@michaelchristopherj Again, look at the definition of capitalism. The only way capitalism can become fascism is if the government is used to enforce monopolies, create exceptions to laws, regulate the money supply, or is (in particular) used to violate property rights! And the only way the government is able to do these things is because of collectivist/socialist minded people like yourself who think the government should have the right to redistribute wealth! We WERE closer to capitalism.

[michaelchristopherj]

@chuska8383 I said nothing about government, and monopolies absolutely do not need government. Look during FDR's term in office, where he was openly against corps, yet still, industrial monopolies manifested themselves. Milton Friedman and Ronald Reagan were not collectivists. Laizzes fair capitalism is a system that brings about extremes. This libertarian fantasy where everything in the economy will just equalize itself out has beeen proven wrong. Corps will always seek to destroy for profit.