This plan doesn't include Jefferson, if you were actually paying attention. This plan would create California (which was pretty much the coast from the Bay Area to Los Angeles), Southern California (which was the Southern half of the state excepting California), and Northern California (which was the northern half of the state. If this plan was allowed on the ballot, it would end up with Northern California splitting into Jefferson and another state.
It's not mythical when it has been proposed and the leaders of the Jefferson movement are working with the state legislature as it is supposed to be done. Remember, that is how we got West Virginia.
Fictitious: adjective - not real or true, being imaginary or having been fabricated.
The supposed "State of Jefferson" is not real, it is currently imaginary as it only exists in the warped minds of a handful of bitter bigots who hate the supposed "wicked" tax paying, law abiding citizens of San Francisco and Los Angeles.
Do you want to know why there is such a push for California to be broken up? It is because there has been no changes made to the number of state legislators in the legislative body since at least 1891 leaving only 80 Assemblymen to represent a population of nearly 40 million people compared to a population of nearly 2 million in 1900. The entire state has very little representation inside its own state government as they all vote for a maximum of 80 seats in the Assembly with an additional 20 seats in the State Senate. Compare this to PA's House which has 203 members and Senate which has 50 members and a population of just under 13 million. California needs to add seats to its legislature to create a proportional representation of its population, or let parts of the state secede to create that proportional representation.
Why would California ever make itself smaller, weaker and less influential so a few nutbags feel more comfortable? Move to a freaking smaller state or something, FFS.
Oh, it's not mythical? Then perhaps you can point out where the state of Jefferson is on the map? The one I'm looking at only has 50 states. As for WV, it didn't become a state until it separated from the Confederacy and later joined the Union in the 1860's, more than 150 years ago. So it's highly doubtful states will be splitting up in this time period.
I said proposed multiple times. And, since it is in the process; it is like the building that hasn't been built yet; but the plans are there. Do you call that building mythological?
It's not mythical when it has been proposed and the leaders of the Jefferson movement are working with the state legislature as it is supposed to be done.
It is when you have no support from any of the Oregon counties that would make up this "state" and can't even Siskiyou Co. (CA) citizens to vote for it (down 55-45, not even close). Humboldt and Del Norte are no goes. All you've got are the sage brush counties of NE California and tiny Tehama. IOW, this is the reason the word "mythical" is always attached to this "state."
And the state senate is twice as bad. 40 senators for 40,000,000 residents. The Jefferson movement is in court to try to increase the number of assembly persons and senators greatly. New Hampshire has an assembly of 400 for just over 1,000,000. That should be a minimal number. 400 representatives, 60 senators, one per county with two elected at large. That would end the effort to create a state of Jefferson.
Siskiyou voted against changing its county name only. It is all in for Jefferson. There are counties where their rino governments beholden to the iv drip of extra Southern California tax dollars coming here have not been supportive but the citizens have simply gone around them to get the declarations.
Siskiyou voted against changing its county name only.
Bullshit. They voted on 'establishing the Republic of Jefferson Territory within the boundaries of Siskiyou County'.
A Siskiyou County Jefferson Republic Territory Question ballot measure was on the June 3, 2014 election ballot for voters in Siskiyou County, California, where it was defeated.
It is all in for Jefferson.
Obviously NOT.
There are counties where their rino governments beholden to the iv drip of extra Southern California tax dollars coming here have not been supportive but the citizens have simply gone around them to get the declarations.
'Declarations' that are POINTLESS! The FACT is that 'the citizens' COULD just gather enough signatures to get a measure on the ballot BUT y'all DO NOT have enough support to do that DO YOU HA? So stop whining about rinos and admit that you can't get even the small amount of support that you need.
To get a declaration to take to the capital one needed a vote of the supervisors of a county or a voter referendum or the signed petitions of over half of the registered voters in a given county. Each of the Jefferson counties used one of the three valid measures. Humboldt, Del Norte, Alpine are not part of our present movement. The siskiyou county thing was way above the proposed State of Jefferson and was not endorsed by the leadership of the state of Jefferson effort. At any rate the seeded article really as it turns out has absolutely nothing to do with the state of Jefferson, so take your animus toward this region and its people elsewhere.
Sadly, they can't base Senators on counties due to a Supreme Court ruling from 1964requiring all state Representatives and state Senators to be elected based on population not on land. This ruling even affected states that actually had a similar set-up to the US Senate with 2 Senators per county. This ruling made Nebraska eliminate their Senate completely and go to a Unicameral system. Frankly, in my opinion, the Supreme Court actually overstepped its bounds as it should have ruled based on the system set up under the US Constitution (where each state has 2 Senators, which is representation based on land not on population) and whatever the state Constitutions stated for each individual state:
What surprises me is that the 29 counties that are not represented by the Oregon legislature and Governor haven't moved for seceding from Oregon. Remember, the only counties in Oregon that end up electing the Governor are Lane, Benton, Lincoln, Washington, Multnomah, and Hood River; however, it seems to switch between Clatsop and Tilamook as to which way they go. In 2016, Clatsop voted for Kate Brown, in 2014 it was Tilamook voting for Kitzhaber. Yes, the majority of the population lives in Lane (Eugene), Benton, Lincoln, Washington, Multnomah, and Hood River counties, with the last 3 being part of the Portland metro area. But, their needs are quite different than the people living in Marion (Salem), Deschutes (Bend), Douglas (Roseburg), etc.
It's not mythical when it has been proposed and the leaders of the Jefferson movement are working with the state legislature as it is supposed to be done. Remember, that is how we got West Virginia.
West By-God Virginny was a direct result of the slavery debate and the secession of Virginia.
Jefferson is not going to happen because there are enough people who support this libertarian pipedream. It's a solution in search of a problem that does not exist, except in the eyes of a very few. Recreating Alabama on the west coast would only cause problems.
It’s nothing more than a call out seed. And it wouldn’t have been that if he’d used the actual headline for the seeded article. I was leaning against the proposal before the black robed majority took it out of the people’s hands.
That may be the case X, but you do bring this on yourself a lot of the time with the seeds you post. You’re lucky you’re my favorite severely right leaning member here on NT. John called me out for sticking up for you.
Actually, it seems that nobody really liked this measure. It's entirely possible that it would create 3 blue states so the jefferson people didn't like it because the northern part included San Francisco. The state of jefferson's plan is a blatant attempt to gerrymander state lines for political gain. Their goal is to carve a blue state out of California. I, personally don't like the idea of setting the precedent of gerrymandering state lines. Next thing we would have the Repubs carving Alabama and Kentucky into dozens of little statelets.
People are supposed to use the actual headline of the article when seeding, not creating call out seed or putting out flame bait. Moderation will determine this. Still not sure how to flag a seed as opposed to a post. It used to be possible but I see no flag symbol until the first post. Let me ask you two questions. How much of the seeded article was about the effort to create the state of Jefferson? What did it say specifically about Jefferson?
"Bye Bye state of Jefferson" is neither a call out or flame bait.
Stop fucking whining. Many sites reprint articles from other sources and "change" the headline to their own tastes. When I see some examples I will put them here.
Why are you deliberately taking the conversation away from the seeded articles content? This isn’t many sites. Had you seeded the article with its headline instead of what you did you might have gotten a handful of replies at most.
Jefferson opposed this proposal. It would have left us worse off than the status Quo. Nice attempt at a cheap shot though. I am though troubled by judges yet again usurping the role of the people in elections. It wasn’t going to pass and the people should have been able to vote.
They haven't killed Jefferson, yet. Remember, the Jefferson supporters are working with the California legislature to bring their idea of succession about. The 3 state proposal was an end-around of the legislative process for splitting a state.
How come you don't have a problem with the EC usurping the role of the people in elections? If ya'll want to keep on beating a dead horse in regards to this, go right ahead. It is like trying to row a boat with only one paddle. All you end up doing is going in circles.
The EC is not usurping the vote or role of the people. Frankly, the EC is about allowing the STATES to determine the President via the popular vote in each state, which then determines the candidate getting that state's EC votes. It is just like the Senate was supposed to be the voice of the state legislatures, which gave up that power when they ratified the 17th Amendment allowing the people to get more representation and keeping the voice of the state legislatures silent at the Federal level.
Because the EC doesn't usurp the role of people in elections. As much as the left like to complain about a few million people on the left coast- removing the EC would disenfranchise everyone in fly over country.
High population states already have weighted influence in the House. They don't need to dictate who will be president every time (as much as Hillary and her followers wish otherwise). That is giving away too much power.
Small states will never allow their power in the federal government to be diminished.
Sadly, Ronin2, they did so already in the Senate when they ratified the 17th Amendment. The small states and the large states gave more power to the people by requiring all Senators to be elected by popular vote, mainly due to Rhode Island not having even a single Senator appointed a couple of times.
The EC is not usurping the vote or role of the people.
That's so hilariously false I'd have thought it was meant as satire until I saw its author. The EC was created expressly to overrule the will of the people, which it has done disastrously now three times in our history.
No, it was created to give every state influence in the picking of a president by allowing it to determine how to select the electors it sent to the Capitol and how they should vote based on the vote of the people within their state. We are not a democracy. We are a constitutional republic with a representative form of government. Each state’s electors represent that state in the electoral college. It means nothing to the EC if one wins Florida by 500 voted or equal sized NY by 1,000,000. It’s still 29 EV’s a piece. And I remember when NY had 41 EV and Florida 17. A lot has changed between the 1970 census and 2010. One lost 12 representatives and one gained 12 and in 2020 the tie will be broken in Florida’s favor.
While ancient Athens was likely better than the regional alternatives, pure democracy is still two wolves 🐺 🐺 and a sheep 🐑 voting 🗳 on what’s for dinner 🍴 🥘
Bettany Hughes did a pretty good documentary on Athens once I'll try to find it.
While we are on the topic, the other cities, though with faults when viewed from our perspective had good regional support.
The intriguing thing is, Alexander the Great came from the northern region where folks were considered to be "country bumpkins". That force also rethought logistics support for a marching Army of the era.
It is a long vid, about 1:30:00 but well worth it.
Note, there are some very interesting contrasts between Athens and Sparta where Sparta was considerably more favorable towards the rights of women...another vid for another time.
Frankly, the EC is about allowing the STATES to determine the President via the popular vote in each state, which then determines the candidate getting that state's EC votes.
Once again, tom, you've demonstrated complete ignorance of our history (it's not just you, though; that's pretty much true of the entire rightwing). Here's Hamilton's justification (from Federalist 68) for the EC:
It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.
Here's how all three of those justifications have been corrupted by what the current EC is and how it works:
Electors are not "men" who analyze anything but are picked solely for party loyalty.
Electors are not chosen by their fellow citizens but as complete slates by political parties and are expected to vote en bloc for their party candidate. In fact, an elector who chooses to actually does exercise individual judgment gets the epithet "faithless" and in some states may actually face prosecution.
And, finally, rather than protect the the country for bad "administration," each time the EC has determined the presidency has resulted in devastating consequences for this country.
One might argue that if the EC actually operated in the way originally described (and hadn't been a condition by slave states in order to increase their electoral power beyond the size of their populations--see the 3/5 rule and the Senate) it might have been something other than the disaster it is. Unfortunately, history can't be rewound.
Because the EC doesn't usurp the role of people in elections.
That's what it was created to do and does--when the people vote in larger numbers (by millions) for a candidate and the EC puts someone with fewer votes of the people that is the very definition of "usurping" the will of the people.
A lot has changed between the 1970 census and 2010.
Funny that you don't seem to have a problem with the census deciding how may reps are in the electoral college but not when it comes to reps in your state...
The proposal has nothing to do with any state of Jefferson. You're actually cutting yourself off from adding four extra Dem senators, which is why I hope this plan doesn't pass at all.
In a related story about the creation of new states, some are clamoring for statehood for Puerto Rico, probably for the purpose of providing two new dimocrat Senators.
Puerto Rico should be given statehood. They are all American citizens paying taxes but have no representation which is unconstitutional and goes against everything our founders intended.
should... Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, U.S. Virgin Islands, and American Samoa be given statehood as well?
As I understand the law, a US territory can submit a request for admission with a proposed state constitution to Congress for approval. If approved it is sent for presidential signature. As with any legislation, Congress may override a veto by a 2/3 vote.
Actually, Puerto Rico is split between those that want statehood, those that want independence, and those that want the status quo. I can't see exactly why they would want anything other than statehood or the status quo; since they are supported by the US Federal government while being able to make their own deals with foreign countries for trade.
We are going to press ahead with Jefferson as long as it takes and if it eventually does lose we will create another separation effort and start the whole process all over again.
Snorkel. As more Russian fingerprints come to light, hopefully those Americans who put forth this ridicules proposal will have their un-American activities prosecuted and will get to spend a few years in a place of 'close observation'.
It is the progressives Calexit that had Russian fingerprints all over it. The group that wanted California to secede from the USA 🇺🇸 over the election results in 2016. Why the persistent effort by some here to smear the pro America anti California Jefferson effort with that misrepresentation?
As more Russian fingerprints come to light, hopefully those Americans who put forth this ridicules proposal will have their un-American activities prosecuted and will get to spend a few years in a place of 'close observation'.
There's been a astroturf CA secession effort run out of Russia by a Russian American for a few years now:
There's been a astroturf CA secession effort run out of Russia by a Russian American for a few years now:
Note that the wingnut in question, Louis Marinelli, used to run the logistics and social media campaign for the NOM anti-LGBT hate group. He's always been involved in extreme right-wing nuttery even though he claims to no longer be a dumb bigot.....despite his move to one of the most anti-LGBT countries on the planet.
It never will end. Once conservatives collectively latch onto a concept, they will brow-beat society until the day said idea is horribly mangled and dragged down into the pit of hell kicking and screaming (dying the worse death ever!) or, they get the desired outcome from a 'rigged' system. Oh, it's true-it's true. I can not support deceitful intentions and practices used by conservatives to have only their happiness exist: There way or the highway.
By the way, the whole concept smells noxiously like Ayn Rand's search for a utopia built by the mythical and mysterious John Galt ( Atlas Shrugged ).
Yes, . . .that is the 'trouble' with liberty isn't it. There is always something that keeps appearing to "pollute" the elegance of purity. It's called the "human condition." Besides, How many generations do you factor it could take people existing in a 'pure' state of existence to judge the pressures increasing inside and outside the 'barrier' are not healthy? Which side would vent to the other?
No sweat! Just create your own 'John Galt' of the Christian-Right. See, problem solved. But just how long can a state occupied by 'Trumpian' business mindsets survive without a rank and file to support it? Of course, then comes those vexing dilemmas all over again. 'The Situation.'
People become more conservative as they mature. If your are 20 and not a liberal you have no heart ❤️ , if you are 40 and not a conservative you have no brain 🧠 or so the saying goes.
Yeah, it seems she replaced one mythical concept with another.
Ayn Rand was a huge hypocrite because she needed Social Security and Medicare to pay for her medical bills when she got cancer, despite her hatred of the supposed welfare state. There is a reason why her books are cataloged in fiction and not economic theory. There is a reason why Paul Ryan idolizes her idiocy because he did the very same as a child/teen.
The archivist also told us that proof that Rand paid into the Social Security system earlier in life exists in the form of an application for a Social Security card, the card itself, and legal correspondence from the mid-1940s inquiring about a refund of Social Security withholdings.
In 2010, freelance writer Patia Stephens reported obtaining a Social Security Administration record via FOIA request showing that Ayn Rand collected a total of $11,002 in Social Security payments between 1974 and her death in 1982 (her husband, Frank O’Connor, also collected benefits until his death).
Upon the release of the book containing Pryor’s testimony, critics of Ayn Rand’s uncompromising libertarian ethos wasted no time pointing out the apparent inconsistency and hypocrisy of her acceptance of government payments. In an op-ed titled “Ayn Rand Railed Against Government Benefits, But Grabbed Social Security and Medicare When She Needed Them,”
I'll just leave this here,
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged . One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.
Ayn Rand was a huge hypocrite because she needed Social Security and Medicare to pay for her medical bills when she got cancer, despite her hatred of the supposed welfare state.
I'd like to edit that. It isn't so much as my meager intelligence as it is my knowledge of the subject. The more you know the more you understand that we must move forward when we solve problems instead of looking to the past for solutions.
Very seldom is the new solution perfect, but they can and are expected to be fine-tuned as problems crop up.
Why is is hypocritical to take advantage of a program you have been FORCED into paying into your entire life. I think anyone who would think this is the true hypocrite. You are basically saying she should not have gotten any payback based on her principals and regardless that she was forced to comply with them her entire life?
Why is is hypocritical to take advantage of a program you have been FORCED into paying into your entire life. I think anyone who would think this is the true hypocrite. You are basically saying she should not have gotten any payback based on her principals and regardless that she was forced to comply with them her entire life?
If she believed her Objectivist ideas then she should have found other ways to pay for her care, or been a better writer so the profits from her books paid for her care.
All the court did was take it off this ballot with the understanding that it, or something similar, may be on a future ballot. This is really all about liberal loons dominating the entire state. Rather than chop the state up, I think I’d rather just give San Francisco and Los Angeles back to Mexico and then wall them off. That way, many illegal aliens would be effectively deported without having to move and some of the most rabid liberals in the country would no longer be in the country.
AS IF! All this activity would create is a persisting problem for ya! As the conservative 'beef' to chew on would soon be how SURROUNDED California is by Mexico and its traversing of coastal waters! Moreover, since when would conservatives accept it as a wise expenditure to GIVE AWAY territory?Harrowing.
We can even reverse an act by the legislature signed by the governor as with the gas and vehicle tax repeal. We can also act in place of the legislature in creating acts and laws. The voter has total power over the governor and legislature with this process but no power at all when it comes to a panel in black robes.
The voter has total power over the governor and legislature with this process but no power at all when it comes to a panel in black robes.
That is how the system is supposed to work. The judges are there to be non-partisan and to prevent the voters from creating a tyranny of the majority when the rights of the minority get trampled.
Didn't you learn this in your high school civics requirement?
The voter has total power over the governor and legislature with this process but no power at all when it comes to a panel in black robes.
That sounds like advocating for a "pure democracy" (where only the popular vote, not other artificially created mechanisms, determines the outcome of any election) and no remedy is available by law. Is that your position?
This was massive screwup by Draper and his team. He had enough signatures to get this on the ballot as a constitutional amendment (and it would clearly amend the constitution) but he cleared it as an ordinary statute. It's an embarrassing act of incompetence that torpedoed his legislation.
It's kind of a shame because even though I don't think it would have passed (or been approved by Congress even if it had passed), it still would have been an interesting debate.
He had enough signatures to get this on the ballot as a constitutional amendment (and it would clearly amend the constitution) but he cleared it as an ordinary statute.
The only way the CA constitution can be amended is first with a 2/3 vote of both chambers of the state legislature after which it must be sent to the voters in a general election. If approved by a majority of voters in then goes to a constitutional convention for the creation of a constitutional amendment (or more than one) and must again be submitted to the voters. It is not possible to for a petition drive alone to get a constitutional amendment placed on the ballot.
It is not possible to for a petition drive alone to get a constitutional amendment placed on the ballot.
That's the difference between this case and Prop h8. The state supreme court spent a fair bit of time discussing the difference between a constitutional revision (major change) vs an amendment (minor change) in the Strauss v Horton case regarding Prop h8. A constitutional revision in CA is what requires a 2/3rds vote in the legislature in addition to the ballot measure and it's pretty clear that a substantial change to the state's borders would impact many issues including Congressional representation and thus be a revision.
That's just as true of this ballot measure as it would be of the loony white supremacist Jefferson nuttery.
This was one area where I think the CA supreme court got it flat wrong in Strauss v Horton. Carving out an exception to equal protection for one minority group is a pretty major change as its federal unconstitutionality proves. The CA court should have rejected Prop h8 on that basis alone as the dissent noted.
It is not possible to for a petition drive alone to get a constitutional amendment placed on the ballot.
It wasn't my intention to lay out the whole process, but my understanding is that he had enough signatures to proceed with the process if he had done it right.
What is it about democratic socialism that makes you want to opt-out of it?
liberty. the freedom for every person to choose our own destiny.
What are you afraid of happening if you aren't permitted to opt-out?
civil war. (anarchists would like that. but they are not sane and will always lose.)
the question I always like to ask is this:
how is it that all the so-called smartest people ever, the ones who "say" they have it all figured out, struggle under capitalism while the dumb people like me thrive?
riddle me this, what is so hard about capitalism that makes you feel the need to steal/take from others just to get by in this life? or is it as simple as just another anarchist who wants to destroy our country while pretending to be doing us a favor?? tear it down to build anew right? not in this life time or the next.
We have had this discussion before and it always boils down to me explaining how it would work while you set your hair on fire and scream BUT VENEZUELA! I don't want to waste my time in another discussion of that nature because you can't be bothered to do even the most basic research on market socialism in a mixed economy and how it would function.
How would democratic socialism allow people to steal or take from you or anyone else?
Have to agree with that epistte. For many this is just a game of parroting talking points. It is easy to identify those who have no interest in learning about (or even discussing) this complex topic. It is all simplified into slogans. Boring.
Too bad too, really, because this is a very interesting topic. But it is next to impossible to seriously discuss it because very few people have clue one about this topic yet think they have a Master's degree in it.
I'd like to have an intelligent discussion of the subject of mixed market socialism but it seems that many people are unable to do so because of an emotional block whenever the word socialism is mentioned.
I am far from an expert on the subject, but my knowledge of both economics and political science give me a working understanding of the subject. How bad can market socialism be when even the infamous economic troll of Newsvine, Rick Kelo, was not opposed to the idea.
Rick (seemed to me) was wholly opposed to the idea of socialism. Of course he defined socialism as a variant of the former USSR (and stubbornly so). So we certainly agreed that a command economy run by an authoritarian, brutal dictator via a single party that oppressed the people rather than enable economic freedom was bad. But there was no chance to actually discuss socialism because the very use of the label took him right back to the system of the USSR. Funny, actually.
Rick is quite in favor of a free market. Trouble is, he could not bring himself to even acknowledge the concept of market socialism.
Rick is quite in favor of a free market. Trouble is, he could not bring himself to even acknowledge the concept of market socialism.
I was able to convince Rick that market socialism wasn't an horrific idea. He later banned me from his threads when I called him an anarcho-capitalist.
If you built it they might come; to 'hear' you out and possibly learn. I know I would like to see the comprehensive argument for democratic socialism vs capitalism laid out side by side. Feeling adventurous! Bought new boots, even!
The way that plays out is already known. Quite a few on NV tried this over the years. In every instance that I saw, there was no attempt to actually understand the description. Instead slogans and labels were tossed into the ring as counter-'arguments'. The entire discussion immediately degraded into explaining that the things they are against are indeed quite worthy of opposition but also that they are not what the socialists propose. (For example, socialists -proper usage of the term- seek a competitive, productive economy where everyone has more economic freedom.) In short, it is boring and pointless to spend too much time on this because most people think they know what they are talking about and do not seem to realize that all they are doing is repeating memes.
Have you ever just tried to set up an article with the various definitions (both political and economic) and use that as a spring board for discussion? Knowing you, you probably have, but I have not seen you do it here (or I was asleep at the wheel.. which is entirely possible).
Hard to imagine Rick accepting anything with the label 'socialism' attached to it. In fact, it is damn near impossible for me to imagine it.
When I was able to explain it to him that it was private group ownership of the means of production that was sold via a free market economy he was grudgingly able to accept it. He still claimed that market socialism was a slippery slope to a command economy, but I expected that from him.
No. I am not really interested in doing so. From what I have observed it would not lead to any interesting discussion. Given I dabble in this discussion periodically it is clear that there still is no interest in actually trying learn about this complex subject. The focus, in almost all cases, is to post a strawman, label it socialism and then describe why it is bad; usually done superficially with a slogan. So when someone says that it is bad for government to control the economy and that is why they are against 'socialism' they will hear the response of 'absolutely, it is terrible to have government or any minority controlling the economy' but will reject the idea that maybe they do not really understand the concept of socialism.
Another favorite strawman is that socialism means expropriating wealth and redistributing it among the people. Often this is supported by Thatcher's disservice to intellectual discourse with her 'Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money.'. Here she is using the term 'socialism' to mean statist redistribution of wealth which of course entirely misses the point of socialism. She would have done the world an intellectual favor had she not perpetuated confusion on the word 'socialism' and instead used the word statist: 'Statist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money.' Alternatively she could have used the term 'Social democracies' instead of 'Socialist governments'. Either would have been far more accurate and would have not furthered yet another misconception on the overloaded term 'socialism'.
He still claimed that market socialism was a slippery slope to a command economy, but I expected that from him.
From what I observed he claimed that any possible form of socialism absolutely required an authoritarian government. Dig and I explained how (and why) that is the opposite of the intent (and the opposite of the mechanics, by definition) but he refused to acknowledge any point and simply repeated his mantra.
Dscala(sp) and I debated with him on this point many times until he finally relented.
Most people don't want to live under an authoritarian rule but somehow there are many people (mostly conservatives) who have been conviced that socialism means an tyrannical ruler, government control of the economy, bread lines and rows upon rows of faceless concrete tower apartments. Free market socialism is a hybrid economy that isn't well enough known and almost entirely misunderstood because the corporate media has a vested interest in continuing the current economic situation.
Most people don't want to live under an authoritarian rule but somehow there are many people (mostly conservatives) who have been conviced that socialism means an tyrannical ruler, government control of the economy, bread lines and rows upon rows of faceless concrete tower apartments.
Convincedmight be too generous. I think most simply accept what they have been told and then repeat the talking points with at best a superficial understanding of the subject matter. Even Kelo, with all his economic knowledge, was doing that. Very much like religion IMO.
What is it about democratic socialism that makes you want to opt-out of it? What are you afraid of happening if you aren't permitted to opt-out?
First let me say I find the causality in which you would surrender your rights to be extremely disturbing.
To answer your question I would be afraid if I wasn't able to opt out of the Flying spaghetti monster believers club too.
For one thing no one can tell me WTF "Democratic Socialism" really is. Sorry, that "you can find out after you vote it in" bullshit already bit me in the ass. I'm not falling for it again. So PLEASE DO EXPLAIN "DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM"! From what I have heard about "Democratic socialism" it is wishful (and magical?) concoction of wealth distribution and liberally influenced government control that no one can ever point to a working model for. BTW Just because the majority votes to take someone else's money doesn't make it right.
Tell me. WHERE does "democratic socialism" work? Where has it EVER worked? Germany? (Hitler was a socialist) China? (Mao was a socialist) Russia? (Stalin was a socialist) _ Greece? Venezuela? In Switzerland where taxes are over 60% and the people who are paying for it are leaving in droves? (Ikea) Have you taken a close look at that economy lately and it's direction? They will be in the same position as Greece in less than 10 years unless they change their course. How long do you really think that house of cards will stand? Why do you think the Socialist party in France got their asses kicked? Why do you think Brazil is voting out socialism? Have you paid any attention to how Socialism has worked in ANY of these places? Have you ever read a history book for crying out loud? Socialism is responsible for more deaths and destruction than anything else in History!
If "Democratic Socialism" works I would ask you to move where it does. If "Democratic Socialism" is some kind of new bullshit that you can't give an example of how it works I would ask you to implement it somewhere else. Our current form of government has proven to be one of the best and most resilient in the history of the WORLD. Why do you want to change it?
Another slogan: 'show me where this has ever worked'.
Epistte was talking about Democratic Socialism - a specifically defined form of socialism based on the actual meaning of the term. That is, an economic system wherein the control of the productive resources of the economy is not in the hands of a minority.
You are (no doubt) talking about a label which means all sorts of things. And the common, superficial meanings attributed to the label are all systems (not all economic either) that are very bad ideas. Among these are:
redistribution of wealth
command (vs. market-based) economy (at least at the current stage of our societal / technological maturity)
authoritarian rule (aka the former USSR)
fascism / aggressive statism
expropriation of businesses
aggressive tax-funded public programs
There are more but that gets the idea across. If you were to speak with a socialist it is unlikely that the individual would promote these items (the last item being debatable).
Finally, to address your inquiry, I do not see how socialism (the actual concept) will ever be tried (at the national level) within our lifetimes. For socialism (avoiding the slogan-level understanding) to work the people of the nation would need to be engaged and informed. Importantly, they would need to understand the concept and desire it. The idea that one can force socialism seems ridiculous to me. How do you force the majority to assume control over their economy and produce a system wherein the productive resources of the nation are managed by a democratic process which considers more than the benefit of a controlling minority?
Our socio-economic/political system will continue to evolve. If it improves (no guarantee there) it may be a new variant of capitalism or it might be a variant of socialism. I see no way the latter will occur in any of our lifetimes but steps towards this certainly can (and I suspect will) take place (e.g. workplace democracy - cooperatives).
Now a question for you. Where have you ever seen a national economic system where the people (not a minority) are in democratic control over their productive resources? My answer is that this has never existed and likely will not for the foreseeable future.
Epistte was talking aboutDemocratic Socialism- a specifically defined form of socialism based on the actual meaning of the term.
Why haven't you, or anyone else "specifically defined" it then???? All I have heard so far is imaginary BS and NO ECONOMIC PLAN.
hat is, an economic system wherein thecontrol of the productive resources of the economy is not in the hands of a minority.
So to be clear. You CAN'T give an example because this is an imaginary concept. To be clear you THINK you have a better system worked up for the country than the one that has worked so well for over 100 years? PLEASE SHARE IT WITH ME! Most NT Socialists can't even begin to explain how their Socialist utopia will work. Can you?
Finally, to address your inquiry, I do not see how socialism (the actual concept) will ever be tried (at the national level) within our lifetimes.
I certainly hope you are correct, at least in this country. I would hope they are still teaching enough history in school so peole have more sense than that.
Our socio-economic/political system will continue to evolve. If it improves (no guarantee there) it may be a new variant of capitalism or it might be a variant of socialism. I see no way the latter will occur in any of our lifetimes but steps towards this certainly can (and I suspect will) take place (e.g. workplace democracy - cooperatives).
Again, I hope you are right and that people continue to educate themselves on economic and government history so that Socialism doesn't happen here in my lifetime.
Why haven't you, or anyone else "specifically defined" it then????
I gave a summary to get you started. Seems to me you are just complaining since it is trivial for you to do a little research. This is a complex topic, certainly, but you can start with the dictionary and learn that the difference between socialism (in general) and capitalism (in general) is collective vs. minority control over the productive resources of the nation (the means of production and distribution). That is just a start to get the proper frame. Next Wikipedia as usual offers a decent introduction to subjects. Immediately go to the Democratic Socialism description. Next I recommend doing the same for Economic Democracy. If you have interest there is a plethora of information on both of these topics. They are the topics of entire books. Plenty of info.
The problem is not that these terms are without meaning - it is that you have not bothered to do any research. A problem easily solved.
So to be clear. You CAN'T give an example because this is an imaginary concept. To be clear you THINK you have a better system worked up for the country than the one that has worked so well for over 100 years? PLEASE SHARE IT WITH ME!
I do not think I have a better system. Try to separate discussing a concept from promoting it. My purpose is to try to force a clue.
And yes socialism (not the slogan) has never existed and likely will not exist in the foreseeable future. The conditions required for socialism to occur have never existed (IMO). But that has not stopped people from describing their authoritarian moves as 'socialism' as a smokescreen for a system that does the exact opposite of decentralized economic control. Venezuela is a good recent example of this.
I have already read the Wikipedia description of "Democratic Socialism" and am familiar with the CONCEPT TiG. I was just trying to get you to admit it has never been proven to work in practice and that you are advocating for what you think is a good idea that is not proven. I really don't care why you think it is a good idea that is not the point. The point is you are advocating for experimenting and trying to improve what is already the greatest democracy on earth with a philosophy and model that has failed countless times, and it is a modified version of that which we already we have multiple examples of failure! In fact every example of socialism in history has been a failure. I find it laughable you think modifications to a terrible idea (especially any that involve government control) will make it wonderful.
The term "democratic socialism" is sometimes used synonymously with " socialism ", but the adjective "democratic" is sometimes used to distinguish democratic socialists from Marxist–Leninist -inspired socialism which is viewed as being non-democratic in practice. [4] [5] Democratic socialists oppose the Stalinist political system and Soviet economic model , rejecting the authoritarian form of governance and highly centralized command economy that took form in the Soviet Union in the early 20th century. [6]
So by this definition isn't Venezuelan socialism "democratic Socialism?
Democratic socialism is further distinguished from social democracy on the basis that democratic socialists are committed to systemic transformation of the economy from capitalism to socialism, whereas social democracy is supportive of reforms to capitalism. [7] In contrast to social democrats, democratic socialists believe that reforms aimed at addressing social inequalities and state interventions aimed at suppressing the economic contradictions of capitalism will only see them emerge elsewhere in a different guise. As socialists, democratic socialists believe that the systemic issues of capitalism can only be solved by replacing the capitalist system with a socialist system—i.e. by replacing private ownership with social ownership of the means of production. [3] [8]
This sure sounds like Venezuela, if not please explain the differences.
Democratic socialism is defined as having a socialist economy in which the means of production (including wealth) are socially and collectively owned or controlled alongside a politically democratic system of government. [4] Some tendencies of democratic socialism advocate for revolution in order to transition to socialism, distinguishing it from some forms of social democracy . [9] For example, Peter Hain classifies democratic socialism, along with libertarian socialism , as a form of anti-authoritarian " socialism from below " (using the term popularised by Hal Draper ), in contrast to Stalinism , a variant of authoritarian state socialism . For Hain, this democratic/authoritarian divide is more important than the revolutionary / reformist divide. [10] In this type of democratic socialism, it is the active participation of the population as a whole and workers in particular in the management of economy that characterises democratic socialism while nationalisation and economic planning (whether controlled by an elected government or not) are characteristic of state socialism. A similar, but more complex argument is made by Nicos Poulantzas . [11] Draper himself uses the term "revolutionary-democratic socialism" as a type of socialism from below in his The Two Souls of Socialism and writes: "[T]he leading spokesman in the Second International of a revolutionary-democratic Socialism-from-Below [was] Rosa Luxemburg , who so emphatically put her faith and hope in the spontaneous struggle of a free working class that the myth-makers invented for her a 'theory of spontaneity ' ". [12] Similarly, about Eugene Debs he writes: " 'Debsian socialism' evoked a tremendous response from the heart of the people, but Debs had no successor as a tribune of revolutionary-democratic socialism". [13]
So to be clear "Democratic Socialism is a CONCEPT. It has never worked. There is NO WORKING MODEL TO POINT TO. The reason that is has never worked (and won't ever work) is that Socialism relies on government to administer and enforce, so to think you can have socialism that is not government controlled (or would not eventually lose to government control) is simply ridiculous.
Maybe we should go through all the failures of Socialism throughout history (which is ALL OF THEM) and you can try to explain the differences and how "Democratic Socialism" would have made them all work. I will check back in about a month, that's probably how long it will take you
I do not think I have a better system. Try to separate discussing a concept from promoting it. My purpose is to try to force a clue. And yes socialism (not the slogan) has never existed and likely will not exist in the foreseeable future.
OK it sounds like we are now on the same page. "Democratic Socialism" is an UNPROVEN CONCEPT of free money/wealth distribution being promoted without any idea of implementation in order to bolster the Democratic constituent base. Correct?
Democratic socialism for all societies necessities, capitalism for everything else. It's pretty simple.
If we didn't have that then every road would be a toll road. You'd leave your driveway every morning and swipe your credit card to drive along the private roads. If some neighborhoods fall behind on their payments the road gets blocked off and they have to walk to the nearest private bus station that charges nearly as much as a taxi to get around town. When a fire breaks out near your house you pray those effected had purchased their private fire department coverage, otherwise the fire might get out of control and light other homes nearby on fire. You notice someone broke into your house and stole your TV and some jewelry but you couldn't afford your private police department payment so you're just out of luck, burglars and rapists of course get lists of homes not covered and usually only hit those houses. You get thirsty but have to go buy bottled water because your neighborhood couldn't afford the private company water bill to have clean water pumped to their houses. you have your grandparents living with you because there is no social security to help them afford their own apartment and no Medicare so you're having to pay for their medication or just going without which is likely leading to their early demise, which you're thankful for because they've been such a burden on your household since they were no longer able to work. Yeah, sounds like a capitalist utopia all right... /s
"Democratic Socialism" is an UNPROVEN CONCEPT of free money/wealth distribution being promoted without any idea of implementation in order to bolster the Democratic constituent base. Correct?
It is most definitely an unproven concept. But it is not a concept of 'free money' or 'wealth redistribution'. And it is not without any idea of implementation. And it is apolitical. You do not seem to be reading what I am writing (other than cherry-picking) and clearly you have not bothered to go to the references. The Wikipedia content is not very complicated and would give you a taste so that you do not talk about 'free money' and other nonsense. But to understand the proposed mechanics you would need to do some serious research. Here is one (of many) books that get into proposed mechanics: After Capitalism .
I have already proven otherwise it would behoove you to get on board.
Offering snarky one-liners is not an argument, much less proof of anything. My conclusion at this point is that you have barely a superficial understanding of this concept. I could be wrong, but it is up to you to demonstrate that you know something about this topic that is deeper than slogans.
I was just trying to get you to admit it has never been proven to work in practice and that you are advocating for what you think is a good idea that is not proven.
I routinely offer that this concept is not even possible under modern conditions - it would be for future generations (if at all). So trying to get me to 'admit' to something I posit is silly.
And I am not advocating anything. So you are presuming. Distinguish between discussion and advocacy.
So by this definition isn't Venezuelan socialism "democratic Socialism?
How on Earth do you come to that conclusion?
This sure sounds like Venezuela, if not please explain the differences.
Are you under the impression that the people of Venezuela have collective ownership of the means of production??
The reason that is has never worked (and won't ever work) is that Socialism relies on government to administer and enforce, so to think you can have socialism that is not government controlled (or would not eventually lose to government control) is simply ridiculous.
Distinguish between government owning and controlling (e.g. USSR, Red China, Venezuela) and government as an administration tool. This is not a concept of anarchy - all economic systems of civil society require government for at least administration purposes. Capitalism requires government to administer and enforce too - surely you have noticed this.
There is when some, who don't understand that our mix of socialism and capitalism makes us the envy of the world, try to cut Medicare, kill social security and privatize everything they can get their hands on.
I have yet to see you offer anything beyond a slogan or a snarky phrase. So if that is what you mean by 'been there and done that' then I certainly agree it would be a waste of (my) time for you to repeat. But note that the lack of anything of substance emanating from your keystrokes leads one to believe that what you have written thus far is the very best you can offer. If so, yeah 'been there, done that'.
Did you misunderstand my request? My inquiry of "Where did you ask a question of me?" is a request for a comment number ... something like 10.2.49. To answer the question you say I have dodged it would be helpful if you pointed to the question.
all those things you just mentioned are essentially FUBAR as a result of the sort of advocacy you are supporting
Medicare is working for millions of Americans as is Social Security. Social Security is only going to be insolvent in 20 years if we choose not to fund it. It would take less than a 2% increase in funding to make it solvent through 2100. Both programs are needed and wanted by the vast majority of Americans.
What is with this dodging on such a simple request? I asked you to give me the comment number of the question you claimed I avoided. Were you mistaken?
This nicely punctuates my point that you have nothing to offer.
So programs working for millions of Americans and have been for 80 years are "FUBAR" because they take some minor adjustments to continue working as they have? Really? If that's the case then a flat tire is equivalent to a totaled vehicle, might as well just junk the car, no reason to simply make the minor fix. /s
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
So sad.
Yeah, I'll a cry a river for the pro-Jeffersonians if I remember to get around to it. Lol
This plan doesn't include Jefferson, if you were actually paying attention. This plan would create California (which was pretty much the coast from the Bay Area to Los Angeles), Southern California (which was the Southern half of the state excepting California), and Northern California (which was the northern half of the state. If this plan was allowed on the ballot, it would end up with Northern California splitting into Jefferson and another state.
Either way, it's still as absurd as a mythical state of Jefferson.
It's not mythical when it has been proposed and the leaders of the Jefferson movement are working with the state legislature as it is supposed to be done. Remember, that is how we got West Virginia.
Mythical: adjective - fictitious.
Fictitious: adjective - not real or true, being imaginary or having been fabricated.
The supposed "State of Jefferson" is not real, it is currently imaginary as it only exists in the warped minds of a handful of bitter bigots who hate the supposed "wicked" tax paying, law abiding citizens of San Francisco and Los Angeles.
Do you want to know why there is such a push for California to be broken up? It is because there has been no changes made to the number of state legislators in the legislative body since at least 1891 leaving only 80 Assemblymen to represent a population of nearly 40 million people compared to a population of nearly 2 million in 1900. The entire state has very little representation inside its own state government as they all vote for a maximum of 80 seats in the Assembly with an additional 20 seats in the State Senate. Compare this to PA's House which has 203 members and Senate which has 50 members and a population of just under 13 million. California needs to add seats to its legislature to create a proportional representation of its population, or let parts of the state secede to create that proportional representation.
Why would California ever make itself smaller, weaker and less influential so a few nutbags feel more comfortable? Move to a freaking smaller state or something, FFS.
Oh, it's not mythical? Then perhaps you can point out where the state of Jefferson is on the map? The one I'm looking at only has 50 states. As for WV, it didn't become a state until it separated from the Confederacy and later joined the Union in the 1860's, more than 150 years ago. So it's highly doubtful states will be splitting up in this time period.
I said proposed multiple times. And, since it is in the process; it is like the building that hasn't been built yet; but the plans are there. Do you call that building mythological?
Until it's actually built, there is no building. A proposal alone does not a building, or a state, make.
But, it isn't mythological either.
Either there is a building/state or not. Which is it?
So filing a lawsuit is your idea of 'working with the state legislature'?
Wow, that's quite an 'alternative fact' tom.
I have plans for a unicorn. does that make it less mythical?
LOL
It is when you have no support from any of the Oregon counties that would make up this "state" and can't even Siskiyou Co. (CA) citizens to vote for it (down 55-45, not even close). Humboldt and Del Norte are no goes. All you've got are the sage brush counties of NE California and tiny Tehama. IOW, this is the reason the word "mythical" is always attached to this "state."
And the state senate is twice as bad. 40 senators for 40,000,000 residents. The Jefferson movement is in court to try to increase the number of assembly persons and senators greatly. New Hampshire has an assembly of 400 for just over 1,000,000. That should be a minimal number. 400 representatives, 60 senators, one per county with two elected at large. That would end the effort to create a state of Jefferson.
Siskiyou voted against changing its county name only. It is all in for Jefferson. There are counties where their rino governments beholden to the iv drip of extra Southern California tax dollars coming here have not been supportive but the citizens have simply gone around them to get the declarations.
Back at it again I see HA.
Bullshit. They voted on 'establishing the Republic of Jefferson Territory within the boundaries of Siskiyou County'.
A Siskiyou County Jefferson Republic Territory Question ballot measure was on the June 3, 2014 election ballot for voters in Siskiyou County, California, where it was defeated.
Obviously NOT.
'Declarations' that are POINTLESS! The FACT is that 'the citizens' COULD just gather enough signatures to get a measure on the ballot BUT y'all DO NOT have enough support to do that DO YOU HA? So stop whining about rinos and admit that you can't get even the small amount of support that you need.
To get a declaration to take to the capital one needed a vote of the supervisors of a county or a voter referendum or the signed petitions of over half of the registered voters in a given county. Each of the Jefferson counties used one of the three valid measures. Humboldt, Del Norte, Alpine are not part of our present movement. The siskiyou county thing was way above the proposed State of Jefferson and was not endorsed by the leadership of the state of Jefferson effort. At any rate the seeded article really as it turns out has absolutely nothing to do with the state of Jefferson, so take your animus toward this region and its people elsewhere.
Sadly, they can't base Senators on counties due to a Supreme Court ruling from 1964requiring all state Representatives and state Senators to be elected based on population not on land. This ruling even affected states that actually had a similar set-up to the US Senate with 2 Senators per county. This ruling made Nebraska eliminate their Senate completely and go to a Unicameral system. Frankly, in my opinion, the Supreme Court actually overstepped its bounds as it should have ruled based on the system set up under the US Constitution (where each state has 2 Senators, which is representation based on land not on population) and whatever the state Constitutions stated for each individual state:
What surprises me is that the 29 counties that are not represented by the Oregon legislature and Governor haven't moved for seceding from Oregon. Remember, the only counties in Oregon that end up electing the Governor are Lane, Benton, Lincoln, Washington, Multnomah, and Hood River; however, it seems to switch between Clatsop and Tilamook as to which way they go. In 2016, Clatsop voted for Kate Brown, in 2014 it was Tilamook voting for Kitzhaber. Yes, the majority of the population lives in Lane (Eugene), Benton, Lincoln, Washington, Multnomah, and Hood River counties, with the last 3 being part of the Portland metro area. But, their needs are quite different than the people living in Marion (Salem), Deschutes (Bend), Douglas (Roseburg), etc.
Okay, then fanciful.
Nope a 'declaration' is by the supervisors/counsel members and is NON BINDING and therefore POINTLESS.
A ballot measure ONLY requires 8% of voters. Why keep lying about it?
West By-God Virginny was a direct result of the slavery debate and the secession of Virginia.
Jefferson is not going to happen because there are enough people who support this libertarian pipedream. It's a solution in search of a problem that does not exist, except in the eyes of a very few. Recreating Alabama on the west coast would only cause problems.
John - I don't know what to say about you posting this.........it just seemed unnecessary.
It’s nothing more than a call out seed. And it wouldn’t have been that if he’d used the actual headline for the seeded article. I was leaning against the proposal before the black robed majority took it out of the people’s hands.
That may be the case X, but you do bring this on yourself a lot of the time with the seeds you post. You’re lucky you’re my favorite severely right leaning member here on NT. John called me out for sticking up for you.
Look who's talking.
Actually, it seems that nobody really liked this measure. It's entirely possible that it would create 3 blue states so the jefferson people didn't like it because the northern part included San Francisco. The state of jefferson's plan is a blatant attempt to gerrymander state lines for political gain. Their goal is to carve a blue state out of California. I, personally don't like the idea of setting the precedent of gerrymandering state lines. Next thing we would have the Repubs carving Alabama and Kentucky into dozens of little statelets.
California Supreme Court blocks ballot measure to divide state into three
The actual headline of the seeded article.
So?
People are supposed to use the actual headline of the article when seeding, not creating call out seed or putting out flame bait. Moderation will determine this. Still not sure how to flag a seed as opposed to a post. It used to be possible but I see no flag symbol until the first post. Let me ask you two questions. How much of the seeded article was about the effort to create the state of Jefferson? What did it say specifically about Jefferson?
The actual headline that you put in your comment is right there at the top of the page in huge bold print. Get over it.
Because Moderation just fixed it. I’m grateful and happy that it was done.
... says the biggest offender.
I'm sure they have, numerous times by now.
The partisan flag bait seeds I report usually have cut and pasted article text as the first comment. Pretty much the same thing.
"Bye Bye state of Jefferson" is neither a call out or flame bait.
Stop fucking whining. Many sites reprint articles from other sources and "change" the headline to their own tastes. When I see some examples I will put them here.
Why are you deliberately taking the conversation away from the seeded articles content? This isn’t many sites. Had you seeded the article with its headline instead of what you did you might have gotten a handful of replies at most.
I don't think that JR's the person that should be concerned about a diminishing comment count on seeded articles.
Happiness
Jefferson opposed this proposal. It would have left us worse off than the status Quo. Nice attempt at a cheap shot though. I am though troubled by judges yet again usurping the role of the people in elections. It wasn’t going to pass and the people should have been able to vote.
They haven't killed Jefferson, yet. Remember, the Jefferson supporters are working with the California legislature to bring their idea of succession about. The 3 state proposal was an end-around of the legislative process for splitting a state.
Wishful thinking. Buh bye, stupid idea.
How come you don't have a problem with the EC usurping the role of the people in elections? If ya'll want to keep on beating a dead horse in regards to this, go right ahead. It is like trying to row a boat with only one paddle. All you end up doing is going in circles.
The EC is not usurping the vote or role of the people. Frankly, the EC is about allowing the STATES to determine the President via the popular vote in each state, which then determines the candidate getting that state's EC votes. It is just like the Senate was supposed to be the voice of the state legislatures, which gave up that power when they ratified the 17th Amendment allowing the people to get more representation and keeping the voice of the state legislatures silent at the Federal level.
Because the EC doesn't usurp the role of people in elections. As much as the left like to complain about a few million people on the left coast- removing the EC would disenfranchise everyone in fly over country.
High population states already have weighted influence in the House. They don't need to dictate who will be president every time (as much as Hillary and her followers wish otherwise). That is giving away too much power.
Small states will never allow their power in the federal government to be diminished.
Sadly, Ronin2, they did so already in the Senate when they ratified the 17th Amendment. The small states and the large states gave more power to the people by requiring all Senators to be elected by popular vote, mainly due to Rhode Island not having even a single Senator appointed a couple of times.
That's so hilariously false I'd have thought it was meant as satire until I saw its author. The EC was created expressly to overrule the will of the people, which it has done disastrously now three times in our history.
Do you really want pure democracy?
Please, study ancient Athens, "the home of democracy".
No, it was created to give every state influence in the picking of a president by allowing it to determine how to select the electors it sent to the Capitol and how they should vote based on the vote of the people within their state. We are not a democracy. We are a constitutional republic with a representative form of government. Each state’s electors represent that state in the electoral college. It means nothing to the EC if one wins Florida by 500 voted or equal sized NY by 1,000,000. It’s still 29 EV’s a piece. And I remember when NY had 41 EV and Florida 17. A lot has changed between the 1970 census and 2010. One lost 12 representatives and one gained 12 and in 2020 the tie will be broken in Florida’s favor.
Eliminating the EC would not result in a "pure democracy." Nothing would change the representative democracy that's already in place.
While ancient Athens was likely better than the regional alternatives, pure democracy is still two wolves 🐺 🐺 and a sheep 🐑 voting 🗳 on what’s for dinner 🍴 🥘
Yep.
Bettany Hughes did a pretty good documentary on Athens once I'll try to find it.
While we are on the topic, the other cities, though with faults when viewed from our perspective had good regional support.
The intriguing thing is, Alexander the Great came from the northern region where folks were considered to be "country bumpkins". That force also rethought logistics support for a marching Army of the era.
Found it.
It is a long vid, about 1:30:00 but well worth it.
Note, there are some very interesting contrasts between Athens and Sparta where Sparta was considerably more favorable towards the rights of women...another vid for another time.
Here goes:
From the presidential election standpoint, can you explain how?
Actually, I think that is a double presentation. So the time most likely can be cut in half.
Once again, tom, you've demonstrated complete ignorance of our history (it's not just you, though; that's pretty much true of the entire rightwing). Here's Hamilton's justification (from Federalist 68) for the EC:
Here's how all three of those justifications have been corrupted by what the current EC is and how it works:
One might argue that if the EC actually operated in the way originally described (and hadn't been a condition by slave states in order to increase their electoral power beyond the size of their populations--see the 3/5 rule and the Senate) it might have been something other than the disaster it is. Unfortunately, history can't be rewound.
That's what it was created to do and does--when the people vote in larger numbers (by millions) for a candidate and the EC puts someone with fewer votes of the people that is the very definition of "usurping" the will of the people.
Funny that you don't seem to have a problem with the census deciding how may reps are in the electoral college but not when it comes to reps in your state...
Well, you've opened Pandora's box haven't you?
The proposal has nothing to do with any state of Jefferson. You're actually cutting yourself off from adding four extra Dem senators, which is why I hope this plan doesn't pass at all.
In a related story about the creation of new states, some are clamoring for statehood for Puerto Rico, probably for the purpose of providing two new dimocrat Senators.
Puerto Rico should be given statehood. They are all American citizens paying taxes but have no representation which is unconstitutional and goes against everything our founders intended.
should... Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, U.S. Virgin Islands, and American Samoa be given statehood as well?
Why not?
How do you know that they would not be republicans?
would be better to just let them become independent countries like we did with the philippines, micronesia, and the marshall islands.
and I suspect, in the end, if anything changes, that is the way it will go.
Sure, why not?
would be better to just let them become independent countries like we did with the philippines, micronesia, and the marshall islands.
and I suspect, in the end, if anything changes, that is the way it will go.
(pardon the copy paste/ makes things easy when people keep asking the same question
The question is, do they want to be independent countries or states? Or remain as they are now?
did we ask puerto rico "what they wanted" when we took their country from spain by force?
And now they want to be a state. See, everything worked out.
As I understand the law, a US territory can submit a request for admission with a proposed state constitution to Congress for approval. If approved it is sent for presidential signature. As with any legislation, Congress may override a veto by a 2/3 vote.
just because they can submit it, does not mean congress has to even consider it.
(just like obamas supreme court pick)
Actually, Puerto Rico is split between those that want statehood, those that want independence, and those that want the status quo. I can't see exactly why they would want anything other than statehood or the status quo; since they are supported by the US Federal government while being able to make their own deals with foreign countries for trade.
Independence is the least popular of the three options.
They still voted for statehood. No one said there wouldn't be opponents to it.
Yep. This goes into the bucket of "be careful what you wish for."
We never wished for this.
Don't worry. Neither this one or the cockamamie "state of jefferson" will ever happen.
We are going to press ahead with Jefferson as long as it takes and if it eventually does lose we will create another separation effort and start the whole process all over again.
I guess you like to lose then.
If at first you don’t succeed, try try again until you do.
Sounds like the definition of insanity.
Guffaw. The 'Jefferson Thingy.'
Snorkel. As more Russian fingerprints come to light, hopefully those Americans who put forth this ridicules proposal will have their un-American activities prosecuted and will get to spend a few years in a place of 'close observation'.
deleted
It is the progressives Calexit that had Russian fingerprints all over it. The group that wanted California to secede from the USA 🇺🇸 over the election results in 2016. Why the persistent effort by some here to smear the pro America anti California Jefferson effort with that misrepresentation?
There's been a astroturf CA secession effort run out of Russia by a Russian American for a few years now:
Note that the wingnut in question, Louis Marinelli, used to run the logistics and social media campaign for the NOM anti-LGBT hate group. He's always been involved in extreme right-wing nuttery even though he claims to no longer be a dumb bigot.....despite his move to one of the most anti-LGBT countries on the planet.
True. Except the funding and instructions come from an SVR unit in St. Petersburg, Russian Federation.
Yep, he converted and became an all out progressive.
When did that happen because I've never heard of him before?
Why in the world would you think you, of all people, could throw a pile of BS on here and get away with it?
He just throws gratuitous BS on here for the fun of it.
My mistake. Not a Russian American as noted above.
That is considered to be trolling on most forums.
It is and should be here, too. I suspect it gets tolerated because of the high-pitched whine that follows any attempt at discipline.
They can't whine when they get 3 days vacation.
Don't do the crime unless you can do the time.
It never will end. Once conservatives collectively latch onto a concept, they will brow-beat society until the day said idea is horribly mangled and dragged down into the pit of hell kicking and screaming (dying the worse death ever!) or, they get the desired outcome from a 'rigged' system. Oh, it's true-it's true. I can not support deceitful intentions and practices used by conservatives to have only their happiness exist: There way or the highway.
By the way, the whole concept smells noxiously like Ayn Rand's search for a utopia built by the mythical and mysterious John Galt ( Atlas Shrugged ).
I love Atlas Shrugged and the whole concept of John Galt. Too bad that Rand maintained the atheism that she brought over from Russia.
Yes, . . .that is the 'trouble' with liberty isn't it. There is always something that keeps appearing to "pollute" the elegance of purity. It's called the "human condition." Besides, How many generations do you factor it could take people existing in a 'pure' state of existence to judge the pressures increasing inside and outside the 'barrier' are not healthy? Which side would vent to the other?
Yeah, it seems she replaced one mythical concept with another.
That tends to be a phase which teenage boys grow out of.
No sweat! Just create your own 'John Galt' of the Christian-Right. See, problem solved. But just how long can a state occupied by 'Trumpian' business mindsets survive without a rank and file to support it? Of course, then comes those vexing dilemmas all over again. 'The Situation.'
People become more conservative as they mature. If your are 20 and not a liberal you have no heart ❤️ , if you are 40 and not a conservative you have no brain 🧠 or so the saying goes.
I was a Reagan voter in high school but I have become more and more liberal with age. Intelligence will do that for you.
Ayn Rand was a huge hypocrite because she needed Social Security and Medicare to pay for her medical bills when she got cancer, despite her hatred of the supposed welfare state. There is a reason why her books are cataloged in fiction and not economic theory. There is a reason why Paul Ryan idolizes her idiocy because he did the very same as a child/teen.
I'll just leave this here,
Not all of them, obviously.
IOW, our typical rightwinger.
BINGO
And elves. And a magic ring.
Weren't they the featured entertainers at the 2016 GOP convention in Cleveburg?
I'd like to edit that. It isn't so much as my meager intelligence as it is my knowledge of the subject. The more you know the more you understand that we must move forward when we solve problems instead of looking to the past for solutions.
Very seldom is the new solution perfect, but they can and are expected to be fine-tuned as problems crop up.
Why is is hypocritical to take advantage of a program you have been FORCED into paying into your entire life. I think anyone who would think this is the true hypocrite. You are basically saying she should not have gotten any payback based on her principals and regardless that she was forced to comply with them her entire life?
If she believed her Objectivist ideas then she should have found other ways to pay for her care, or been a better writer so the profits from her books paid for her care.
pffft. There's been some knuckle dragging goobers trying to create a western white supremacist nirvana for the last 170 years.
All the court did was take it off this ballot with the understanding that it, or something similar, may be on a future ballot. This is really all about liberal loons dominating the entire state. Rather than chop the state up, I think I’d rather just give San Francisco and Los Angeles back to Mexico and then wall them off. That way, many illegal aliens would be effectively deported without having to move and some of the most rabid liberals in the country would no longer be in the country.
AS IF! All this activity would create is a persisting problem for ya! As the conservative 'beef' to chew on would soon be how SURROUNDED California is by Mexico and its traversing of coastal waters! Moreover, since when would conservatives accept it as a wise expenditure to GIVE AWAY territory? Harrowing.
Liberals are already giving it away by encouraging illegal immigration and allowing illegal aliens to vote. Just cut it off like a gangrened limb.
"Giving it away"? Really.
It's really about the California State Constitution which does not allow for this matter to be decided by proposition.
The court has not decided that issue yet.
Anything in the state constitution can be amended in a form of the initiative process.
We can even reverse an act by the legislature signed by the governor as with the gas and vehicle tax repeal. We can also act in place of the legislature in creating acts and laws. The voter has total power over the governor and legislature with this process but no power at all when it comes to a panel in black robes.
That is how the system is supposed to work. The judges are there to be non-partisan and to prevent the voters from creating a tyranny of the majority when the rights of the minority get trampled.
Didn't you learn this in your high school civics requirement?
That sounds like advocating for a "pure democracy" (where only the popular vote, not other artificially created mechanisms, determines the outcome of any election) and no remedy is available by law. Is that your position?
This was massive screwup by Draper and his team. He had enough signatures to get this on the ballot as a constitutional amendment (and it would clearly amend the constitution) but he cleared it as an ordinary statute. It's an embarrassing act of incompetence that torpedoed his legislation.
It's kind of a shame because even though I don't think it would have passed (or been approved by Congress even if it had passed), it still would have been an interesting debate.
The only way the CA constitution can be amended is first with a 2/3 vote of both chambers of the state legislature after which it must be sent to the voters in a general election. If approved by a majority of voters in then goes to a constitutional convention for the creation of a constitutional amendment (or more than one) and must again be submitted to the voters. It is not possible to for a petition drive alone to get a constitutional amendment placed on the ballot.
Article XVIII California Constitution
That's the difference between this case and Prop h8. The state supreme court spent a fair bit of time discussing the difference between a constitutional revision (major change) vs an amendment (minor change) in the Strauss v Horton case regarding Prop h8. A constitutional revision in CA is what requires a 2/3rds vote in the legislature in addition to the ballot measure and it's pretty clear that a substantial change to the state's borders would impact many issues including Congressional representation and thus be a revision.
That's just as true of this ballot measure as it would be of the loony white supremacist Jefferson nuttery.
Thanks for correcting that for me--yes, this would require a revision, not just an amendment.
This was one area where I think the CA supreme court got it flat wrong in Strauss v Horton. Carving out an exception to equal protection for one minority group is a pretty major change as its federal unconstitutionality proves. The CA court should have rejected Prop h8 on that basis alone as the dissent noted.
It wasn't my intention to lay out the whole process, but my understanding is that he had enough signatures to proceed with the process if he had done it right.
So it is not possible to opt out of Democratic Socialism Democratically. Go Figure.
Pure, "uncut" capitalism would leave all classes of the citizenry, including libertarians, lying in ditches from an overdose! Disturbing.
What is it about democratic socialism that makes you want to opt-out of it? What are you afraid of happening if you aren't permitted to opt-out?
liberty. the freedom for every person to choose our own destiny.
civil war. (anarchists would like that. but they are not sane and will always lose.)
the question I always like to ask is this:
how is it that all the so-called smartest people ever, the ones who "say" they have it all figured out, struggle under capitalism while the dumb people like me thrive?
riddle me this, what is so hard about capitalism that makes you feel the need to steal/take from others just to get by in this life? or is it as simple as just another anarchist who wants to destroy our country while pretending to be doing us a favor?? tear it down to build anew right? not in this life time or the next.
We have had this discussion before and it always boils down to me explaining how it would work while you set your hair on fire and scream BUT VENEZUELA! I don't want to waste my time in another discussion of that nature because you can't be bothered to do even the most basic research on market socialism in a mixed economy and how it would function.
How would democratic socialism allow people to steal or take from you or anyone else?
Have to agree with that epistte. For many this is just a game of parroting talking points. It is easy to identify those who have no interest in learning about (or even discussing) this complex topic. It is all simplified into slogans. Boring.
Too bad too, really, because this is a very interesting topic. But it is next to impossible to seriously discuss it because very few people have clue one about this topic yet think they have a Master's degree in it.
I'd like to have an intelligent discussion of the subject of mixed market socialism but it seems that many people are unable to do so because of an emotional block whenever the word socialism is mentioned.
I am far from an expert on the subject, but my knowledge of both economics and political science give me a working understanding of the subject. How bad can market socialism be when even the infamous economic troll of Newsvine, Rick Kelo, was not opposed to the idea.
Rick (seemed to me) was wholly opposed to the idea of socialism. Of course he defined socialism as a variant of the former USSR (and stubbornly so). So we certainly agreed that a command economy run by an authoritarian, brutal dictator via a single party that oppressed the people rather than enable economic freedom was bad. But there was no chance to actually discuss socialism because the very use of the label took him right back to the system of the USSR. Funny, actually.
Rick is quite in favor of a free market. Trouble is, he could not bring himself to even acknowledge the concept of market socialism.
I was able to convince Rick that market socialism wasn't an horrific idea. He later banned me from his threads when I called him an anarcho-capitalist.
Hard to imagine Rick accepting anything with the label 'socialism' attached to it. In fact, it is damn near impossible for me to imagine it.
If you built it they might come; to 'hear' you out and possibly learn. I know I would like to see the comprehensive argument for democratic socialism vs capitalism laid out side by side. Feeling adventurous! Bought new boots, even!
The way that plays out is already known. Quite a few on NV tried this over the years. In every instance that I saw, there was no attempt to actually understand the description. Instead slogans and labels were tossed into the ring as counter-'arguments'. The entire discussion immediately degraded into explaining that the things they are against are indeed quite worthy of opposition but also that they are not what the socialists propose. (For example, socialists -proper usage of the term- seek a competitive, productive economy where everyone has more economic freedom.) In short, it is boring and pointless to spend too much time on this because most people think they know what they are talking about and do not seem to realize that all they are doing is repeating memes.
Tig:
Have you ever just tried to set up an article with the various definitions (both political and economic) and use that as a spring board for discussion? Knowing you, you probably have, but I have not seen you do it here (or I was asleep at the wheel.. which is entirely possible).
Is that a bad name?
When I was able to explain it to him that it was private group ownership of the means of production that was sold via a free market economy he was grudgingly able to accept it. He still claimed that market socialism was a slippery slope to a command economy, but I expected that from him.
Apparently it was a bad name to him.
No. I am not really interested in doing so. From what I have observed it would not lead to any interesting discussion. Given I dabble in this discussion periodically it is clear that there still is no interest in actually trying learn about this complex subject. The focus, in almost all cases, is to post a strawman, label it socialism and then describe why it is bad; usually done superficially with a slogan. So when someone says that it is bad for government to control the economy and that is why they are against 'socialism' they will hear the response of 'absolutely, it is terrible to have government or any minority controlling the economy' but will reject the idea that maybe they do not really understand the concept of socialism.
Another favorite strawman is that socialism means expropriating wealth and redistributing it among the people. Often this is supported by Thatcher's disservice to intellectual discourse with her 'Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money.'. Here she is using the term 'socialism' to mean statist redistribution of wealth which of course entirely misses the point of socialism. She would have done the world an intellectual favor had she not perpetuated confusion on the word 'socialism' and instead used the word statist: 'Statist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money.' Alternatively she could have used the term 'Social democracies' instead of 'Socialist governments'. Either would have been far more accurate and would have not furthered yet another misconception on the overloaded term 'socialism'.
From what I observed he claimed that any possible form of socialism absolutely required an authoritarian government. Dig and I explained how (and why) that is the opposite of the intent (and the opposite of the mechanics, by definition) but he refused to acknowledge any point and simply repeated his mantra.
Dscala(sp) and I debated with him on this point many times until he finally relented.
Most people don't want to live under an authoritarian rule but somehow there are many people (mostly conservatives) who have been conviced that socialism means an tyrannical ruler, government control of the economy, bread lines and rows upon rows of faceless concrete tower apartments. Free market socialism is a hybrid economy that isn't well enough known and almost entirely misunderstood because the corporate media has a vested interest in continuing the current economic situation.
Convinced might be too generous. I think most simply accept what they have been told and then repeat the talking points with at best a superficial understanding of the subject matter. Even Kelo, with all his economic knowledge, was doing that. Very much like religion IMO.
I won’t accept anything in economics with socialism in it.
So you make decisions based solely on a label rather than on the underlying concept? It is not possible to learn with that approach.
Well, that is much easier than actually trying to understand the underlying concept.
And then there are those who simply do not want to learn.
First let me say I find the causality in which you would surrender your rights to be extremely disturbing.
To answer your question I would be afraid if I wasn't able to opt out of the Flying spaghetti monster believers club too.
For one thing no one can tell me WTF "Democratic Socialism" really is. Sorry, that "you can find out after you vote it in" bullshit already bit me in the ass. I'm not falling for it again. So PLEASE DO EXPLAIN "DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM"! From what I have heard about "Democratic socialism" it is wishful (and magical?) concoction of wealth distribution and liberally influenced government control that no one can ever point to a working model for. BTW Just because the majority votes to take someone else's money doesn't make it right.
Tell me. WHERE does "democratic socialism" work? Where has it EVER worked? Germany? (Hitler was a socialist) China? (Mao was a socialist) Russia? (Stalin was a socialist) _ Greece? Venezuela? In Switzerland where taxes are over 60% and the people who are paying for it are leaving in droves? (Ikea) Have you taken a close look at that economy lately and it's direction? They will be in the same position as Greece in less than 10 years unless they change their course. How long do you really think that house of cards will stand? Why do you think the Socialist party in France got their asses kicked? Why do you think Brazil is voting out socialism? Have you paid any attention to how Socialism has worked in ANY of these places? Have you ever read a history book for crying out loud? Socialism is responsible for more deaths and destruction than anything else in History!
If "Democratic Socialism" works I would ask you to move where it does. If "Democratic Socialism" is some kind of new bullshit that you can't give an example of how it works I would ask you to implement it somewhere else. Our current form of government has proven to be one of the best and most resilient in the history of the WORLD. Why do you want to change it?
I think this is laughable but please do explain where this has ever worked in practice. I won't be holding my breath for an answer.
Another slogan: 'show me where this has ever worked'.
Epistte was talking about Democratic Socialism - a specifically defined form of socialism based on the actual meaning of the term. That is, an economic system wherein the control of the productive resources of the economy is not in the hands of a minority.
You are (no doubt) talking about a label which means all sorts of things. And the common, superficial meanings attributed to the label are all systems (not all economic either) that are very bad ideas. Among these are:
There are more but that gets the idea across. If you were to speak with a socialist it is unlikely that the individual would promote these items (the last item being debatable).
Finally, to address your inquiry, I do not see how socialism (the actual concept) will ever be tried (at the national level) within our lifetimes. For socialism (avoiding the slogan-level understanding) to work the people of the nation would need to be engaged and informed. Importantly, they would need to understand the concept and desire it. The idea that one can force socialism seems ridiculous to me. How do you force the majority to assume control over their economy and produce a system wherein the productive resources of the nation are managed by a democratic process which considers more than the benefit of a controlling minority?
Our socio-economic/political system will continue to evolve. If it improves (no guarantee there) it may be a new variant of capitalism or it might be a variant of socialism. I see no way the latter will occur in any of our lifetimes but steps towards this certainly can (and I suspect will) take place (e.g. workplace democracy - cooperatives).
Now a question for you. Where have you ever seen a national economic system where the people (not a minority) are in democratic control over their productive resources? My answer is that this has never existed and likely will not for the foreseeable future.
Why haven't you, or anyone else "specifically defined" it then???? All I have heard so far is imaginary BS and NO ECONOMIC PLAN.
So to be clear. You CAN'T give an example because this is an imaginary concept. To be clear you THINK you have a better system worked up for the country than the one that has worked so well for over 100 years? PLEASE SHARE IT WITH ME! Most NT Socialists can't even begin to explain how their Socialist utopia will work. Can you?
I certainly hope you are correct, at least in this country. I would hope they are still teaching enough history in school so peole have more sense than that.
Again, I hope you are right and that people continue to educate themselves on economic and government history so that Socialism doesn't happen here in my lifetime.
I gave a summary to get you started. Seems to me you are just complaining since it is trivial for you to do a little research. This is a complex topic, certainly, but you can start with the dictionary and learn that the difference between socialism (in general) and capitalism (in general) is collective vs. minority control over the productive resources of the nation (the means of production and distribution). That is just a start to get the proper frame. Next Wikipedia as usual offers a decent introduction to subjects. Immediately go to the Democratic Socialism description. Next I recommend doing the same for Economic Democracy. If you have interest there is a plethora of information on both of these topics. They are the topics of entire books. Plenty of info.
The problem is not that these terms are without meaning - it is that you have not bothered to do any research. A problem easily solved.
I do not think I have a better system. Try to separate discussing a concept from promoting it. My purpose is to try to force a clue.
And yes socialism (not the slogan) has never existed and likely will not exist in the foreseeable future. The conditions required for socialism to occur have never existed (IMO). But that has not stopped people from describing their authoritarian moves as 'socialism' as a smokescreen for a system that does the exact opposite of decentralized economic control. Venezuela is a good recent example of this.
I have already read the Wikipedia description of "Democratic Socialism" and am familiar with the CONCEPT TiG. I was just trying to get you to admit it has never been proven to work in practice and that you are advocating for what you think is a good idea that is not proven.
I really don't care why you think it is a good idea that is not the point. The point is you are advocating for experimenting and trying to improve what is already the greatest democracy on earth with a philosophy and model that has failed countless times, and it is a modified version of that which we already we have multiple examples of failure! In fact every example of socialism in history has been a failure. I find it laughable you think modifications to a terrible idea (especially any that involve government control) will make it wonderful.
So by this definition isn't Venezuelan socialism "democratic Socialism?
This sure sounds like Venezuela, if not please explain the differences.
So to be clear "Democratic Socialism is a CONCEPT. It has never worked. There is NO WORKING MODEL TO POINT TO. The reason that is has never worked (and won't ever work) is that Socialism relies on government to administer and enforce, so to think you can have socialism that is not government controlled (or would not eventually lose to government control) is simply ridiculous.
Maybe we should go through all the failures of Socialism throughout history (which is ALL OF THEM) and you can try to explain the differences and how "Democratic Socialism" would have made them all work. I will check back in about a month, that's probably how long it will take you
OK it sounds like we are now on the same page. "Democratic Socialism" is an UNPROVEN CONCEPT of free money/wealth distribution being promoted without any idea of implementation in order to bolster the Democratic constituent base. Correct?
Learn first, then opine. Seems to me you have the order reversed.
I hope this is sarcasm. Do you have any clue what you are advocating for?
It would be more intelligent to learn what free market socialism is before you make a knee-jerk decision based on the existence of the word socialism.
Democratic socialism for all societies necessities, capitalism for everything else. It's pretty simple.
If we didn't have that then every road would be a toll road. You'd leave your driveway every morning and swipe your credit card to drive along the private roads. If some neighborhoods fall behind on their payments the road gets blocked off and they have to walk to the nearest private bus station that charges nearly as much as a taxi to get around town. When a fire breaks out near your house you pray those effected had purchased their private fire department coverage, otherwise the fire might get out of control and light other homes nearby on fire. You notice someone broke into your house and stole your TV and some jewelry but you couldn't afford your private police department payment so you're just out of luck, burglars and rapists of course get lists of homes not covered and usually only hit those houses. You get thirsty but have to go buy bottled water because your neighborhood couldn't afford the private company water bill to have clean water pumped to their houses. you have your grandparents living with you because there is no social security to help them afford their own apartment and no Medicare so you're having to pay for their medication or just going without which is likely leading to their early demise, which you're thankful for because they've been such a burden on your household since they were no longer able to work. Yeah, sounds like a capitalist utopia all right... /s
I know exactly what I am advocating for. Do you understand how free market socialism works?
It is most definitely an unproven concept. But it is not a concept of 'free money' or 'wealth redistribution'. And it is not without any idea of implementation. And it is apolitical. You do not seem to be reading what I am writing (other than cherry-picking) and clearly you have not bothered to go to the references. The Wikipedia content is not very complicated and would give you a taste so that you do not talk about 'free money' and other nonsense. But to understand the proposed mechanics you would need to do some serious research. Here is one (of many) books that get into proposed mechanics: After Capitalism .
Offering snarky one-liners is not an argument, much less proof of anything. My conclusion at this point is that you have barely a superficial understanding of this concept. I could be wrong, but it is up to you to demonstrate that you know something about this topic that is deeper than slogans.
That's gonna leave a mark
I routinely offer that this concept is not even possible under modern conditions - it would be for future generations (if at all). So trying to get me to 'admit' to something I posit is silly.
And I am not advocating anything. So you are presuming. Distinguish between discussion and advocacy.
How on Earth do you come to that conclusion?
Are you under the impression that the people of Venezuela have collective ownership of the means of production??
Distinguish between government owning and controlling (e.g. USSR, Red China, Venezuela) and government as an administration tool. This is not a concept of anarchy - all economic systems of civil society require government for at least administration purposes. Capitalism requires government to administer and enforce too - surely you have noticed this.
There is when some, who don't understand that our mix of socialism and capitalism makes us the envy of the world, try to cut Medicare, kill social security and privatize everything they can get their hands on.
I have yet to see you offer anything beyond a slogan or a snarky phrase. So if that is what you mean by 'been there and done that' then I certainly agree it would be a waste of (my) time for you to repeat. But note that the lack of anything of substance emanating from your keystrokes leads one to believe that what you have written thus far is the very best you can offer. If so, yeah 'been there, done that'.
Where did you ask a question of me?
Did you misunderstand my request? My inquiry of "Where did you ask a question of me?" is a request for a comment number ... something like 10.2.49. To answer the question you say I have dodged it would be helpful if you pointed to the question.
The odds are no on both counts.
Medicare is working for millions of Americans as is Social Security. Social Security is only going to be insolvent in 20 years if we choose not to fund it. It would take less than a 2% increase in funding to make it solvent through 2100. Both programs are needed and wanted by the vast majority of Americans.
What is with this dodging on such a simple request? I asked you to give me the comment number of the question you claimed I avoided. Were you mistaken?
This nicely punctuates my point that you have nothing to offer.
So programs working for millions of Americans and have been for 80 years are "FUBAR" because they take some minor adjustments to continue working as they have? Really? If that's the case then a flat tire is equivalent to a totaled vehicle, might as well just junk the car, no reason to simply make the minor fix. /s
Landshark, you are trolling Tig. Knock it off please. Only warning.
For an example of Democratic Socialism, look at Norway.
It isn't YOUR place to make that call since it's NOT your seed.
From what I understand, even if California passed it, it would still have to go through and be approved by the feds.
As I don't see congress ever letting it happen, all of this just seems futile. Wasted energy.
Indeed. It's an exercise in futility. But I guess some "Jeffersonians" just love to fail.
No shock there.