First off, let me emphasize that I love you all!!! Thanks, everyone, for being civil to each other so far. We can see that we are maturing as a group by the civility of our discourse on these controversial topics and interspersal of humor here and there.
Lotus, where do I begin? "Socialism" in its broadest sense refers to collective ownership of property, which is what you have when the majority vote determines whose money belongs to whom. "Market socialism" is the type of collectivist socialism that leftists in this country advocate: the government does not have to own the means of production in order for it to be socialism.
Don't forget that, in a democratic society, the government turns to the tide of the majority unless the rule of law is maintained. In a very real sense, then, what the Democrats propose is an assault on the rule of law, namely the law's vested interest in protecting the private ownership of property. Unless the law is held higher than any special interest among the population, the line is obliterated between what belongs to my family and what belongs to the state (i.e., "We the people"). Without the rule of law, any group that's a majority can vote to disenfranchise another group and violate the life, liberty, or property of the latter group's constituents. If government is useful for anything, it is to hold that line and prevent mob rule, and we should fear a state that is able to shift by the winds of majority. I can't imagine why the conspiracy theorist type of leftists don't see this.
Democratic socialists argue for gradual growth towards socialism, which is something that Ron Paul rails against regularly. I'm just wondering who told you this stuff...
lotus_j wrote:Do people even know what socialism is? It's when a government controls all means of production and distribution and shared among everyone as a whole.
Lotus, where do I begin? "Socialism" in its broadest sense refers to collective ownership of property, which is what you have when the majority vote determines whose money belongs to whom. "Market socialism" is the type of collectivist socialism that leftists in this country advocate: the government does not have to own the means of production in order for it to be socialism.
Don't forget that, in a democratic society, the government turns to the tide of the majority unless the rule of law is maintained. In a very real sense, then, what the Democrats propose is an assault on the rule of law, namely the law's vested interest in protecting the private ownership of property. Unless the law is held higher than any special interest among the population, the line is obliterated between what belongs to my family and what belongs to the state (i.e., "We the people"). Without the rule of law, any group that's a majority can vote to disenfranchise another group and violate the life, liberty, or property of the latter group's constituents. If government is useful for anything, it is to hold that line and prevent mob rule, and we should fear a state that is able to shift by the winds of majority. I can't imagine why the conspiracy theorist type of leftists don't see this.
I'm afraid you're a bit confused here. Ron Paul would cry if he heard you advocate "regulated capitalism". He's an advocate of the Austrian school of economics, which insists upon a WHOLLY free economy, with absolutely zero government interference. He is a true minarchist (not anarchist) libertarian; remember that "libertarian" is a politico-economic philosophy first, of which the Libertarian party is a subset.Your man Ron Paul btw... Democratic Socialist who sometimes uses the label "libertarian," but is a "republican," so he can stay in office. He very much is the ideal Democratic Socialist. Socialism just for the HEALTH of the people, etc.
Democratic socialists argue for gradual growth towards socialism, which is something that Ron Paul rails against regularly. I'm just wondering who told you this stuff...
I always try to avoid discussing politics - mainly because I think everyone has a point of view valid to themselves which is unlikely to be changed unless completely unfounded - leading to infinite conversations where things either end up in angry chaos or with people agreeing to disagree, which is in itself a a way of giving up to avoid further conflict - so I read, speculate to myself, and keep my own damn mouth shut - and contribute nothing more to the conversation than, i.e., something like this 
Bests, Rockefeller
Bests, Rockefeller
"Twenty years from now, you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do"
"ERROR: Error Code Does Not Indicate An Error"
"ERROR: Error Code Does Not Indicate An Error"
I'm afraid I fail to see how your version of capitalism has any chance of survival or any purpose as a system.
From one range of the spectrum to the other, all systems decide, within their rules, how wealth will be distributed. It's a strange assumption to make that capitalism is any different. When a society chooses a system, they pick it for what it is and what it means for the collectivity, even in absolute liberalism. The prophets of capitalism have always presented this system as the best way to ensure a balance between prosperity and liberty for all. No one has ever sold capitalism as anything else than a socio-economic system. It is, like every alternative, a project of society.
The system worked extremely well in the 19th century because the people with big money were also the big spenders. Granted they were never very good at paying their employees, at least they were handling most major infrastructure investment. From mass transportation to telecommunication and real estate, from technological development to private security, most investments in the collectivity were made by the private sector.
The problem we face now, as mentioned in my previous post, is that the industry wants the butter and the butter's money. I see your point about legitimating government plunder in the name of a socialist ideal, but I don't understand how, as a capitalist, you can defend the current state of the system. How do you expect the economy to survive if the government collects very little and spends a lot? If the private sector no longer finances the infrastructures AND pays little to no taxes, who do you think is going to pay the bills? You can't keep on BORROWING billions every month just to afford your daily errands. By your logic, if the government collects little, it should invest little. Trouble is, even capitalism constantly expects more from its government.
The other problem with the violent version of so-called capitalism is that it is suicidal in its very nature. Within a fixed amount of time, the majority of the money inevitably ends up in the hands of the offer. Hence the credit problem we see today, as well as the creation of various financial products that are plain simply virtual. The offer, owning both the production means and the vast majority of the wealth, is coming up with new ways to create money out of thin air, until it simply becomes impossible to do so. We've seen this phenomenon in every single capitalist economy of the world. And now it's just beginning to crash down. Trust me, like Ol' Blue Eyes said, You ain't seen notin' yet. The current american economy lives within an illusion of prosperity and well-being strictly because of easy access to credit. Your poverty level is far higher than presented, and the only reason people can still afford basic commodities is they were allowed to borrow for it. The whole thing will come down as soon as the offer stops lending, or can no longer afford to.
I'm not a fan of socialism. We've been experimenting it here for over 50 years now and it's leading to some serious annoyances. The major issue I have is the arrogance of the government who constantly intervenes with a form of moral authority. Now that we have allowed them to control, in part, our economy, they feel the need to intervene in every aspects of our lives. The main reason why I prone for a capitalist economy is to first and foremost defend our moral liberty. The trouble is that if the industry and field leaders refuse to play by the rules of capitalism, government intervention becomes necessary, unless you want to live in a country where the majority lives in poverty while a few exchange the wealth within themselves, inevitably leading to conflicts and self-destruction.
From one range of the spectrum to the other, all systems decide, within their rules, how wealth will be distributed. It's a strange assumption to make that capitalism is any different. When a society chooses a system, they pick it for what it is and what it means for the collectivity, even in absolute liberalism. The prophets of capitalism have always presented this system as the best way to ensure a balance between prosperity and liberty for all. No one has ever sold capitalism as anything else than a socio-economic system. It is, like every alternative, a project of society.
The system worked extremely well in the 19th century because the people with big money were also the big spenders. Granted they were never very good at paying their employees, at least they were handling most major infrastructure investment. From mass transportation to telecommunication and real estate, from technological development to private security, most investments in the collectivity were made by the private sector.
The problem we face now, as mentioned in my previous post, is that the industry wants the butter and the butter's money. I see your point about legitimating government plunder in the name of a socialist ideal, but I don't understand how, as a capitalist, you can defend the current state of the system. How do you expect the economy to survive if the government collects very little and spends a lot? If the private sector no longer finances the infrastructures AND pays little to no taxes, who do you think is going to pay the bills? You can't keep on BORROWING billions every month just to afford your daily errands. By your logic, if the government collects little, it should invest little. Trouble is, even capitalism constantly expects more from its government.
The other problem with the violent version of so-called capitalism is that it is suicidal in its very nature. Within a fixed amount of time, the majority of the money inevitably ends up in the hands of the offer. Hence the credit problem we see today, as well as the creation of various financial products that are plain simply virtual. The offer, owning both the production means and the vast majority of the wealth, is coming up with new ways to create money out of thin air, until it simply becomes impossible to do so. We've seen this phenomenon in every single capitalist economy of the world. And now it's just beginning to crash down. Trust me, like Ol' Blue Eyes said, You ain't seen notin' yet. The current american economy lives within an illusion of prosperity and well-being strictly because of easy access to credit. Your poverty level is far higher than presented, and the only reason people can still afford basic commodities is they were allowed to borrow for it. The whole thing will come down as soon as the offer stops lending, or can no longer afford to.
I'm not a fan of socialism. We've been experimenting it here for over 50 years now and it's leading to some serious annoyances. The major issue I have is the arrogance of the government who constantly intervenes with a form of moral authority. Now that we have allowed them to control, in part, our economy, they feel the need to intervene in every aspects of our lives. The main reason why I prone for a capitalist economy is to first and foremost defend our moral liberty. The trouble is that if the industry and field leaders refuse to play by the rules of capitalism, government intervention becomes necessary, unless you want to live in a country where the majority lives in poverty while a few exchange the wealth within themselves, inevitably leading to conflicts and self-destruction.
Part-Time Nomad
Making his wife ride in the backseat... hhmmmm, I'm not so sure that is a wise decision... 
The Paved Straight Road, Won't Always Get You Farther Than The Winding Dirt Road...
Can You Run Your Game??? Click Here And Find Out...
*Note, Not All Games Have Been Tested & Therefore May Not Be Listed...
Can You Run Your Game??? Click Here And Find Out...
*Note, Not All Games Have Been Tested & Therefore May Not Be Listed...
If I were a Black Woman who just became First Lady... I'd be willing to fight Opera or Martha Stewart... 
The Paved Straight Road, Won't Always Get You Farther Than The Winding Dirt Road...
Can You Run Your Game??? Click Here And Find Out...
*Note, Not All Games Have Been Tested & Therefore May Not Be Listed...
Can You Run Your Game??? Click Here And Find Out...
*Note, Not All Games Have Been Tested & Therefore May Not Be Listed...
Dr. Paul did. One of my best friends did speech writing for him. Your definition of "Democratic Socialist," is also way off base the whole "evolutionary socialism," version is 1900s. Dr. Paul also believes in regulation. He voted against deregulation.Jerry Dan wrote: Democratic socialists argue for gradual growth towards socialism, which is something that Ron Paul rails against regularly. I'm just wondering who told you this stuff...
With his warning against deregulation and the gold standard... if we'd listened. We'd be in a different place. To be fair Dr. Paul would probably say he shares some ideals with Libertarian Socialism. That is exactly how "less government," the man is.