US politics general thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Moosedrool said:
That you're leaving out a key factor in your argument and conveniently labels taxation as wealth redistribution rather than paying for governmental services.
Click to expand...

I don't see a difference. If my children go to school, my taxes are subsidising it. If they don't, I'm still paying taxes for someone else's kids to go to school. If you expand or contract the available government services, the principle of taxation remains exactly the same.
 
cerebus said:
So, public schooling shouldn't be tax-funded? No public healthcare services?
Click to expand...
Ideally it shouldn't be. Why pay the state so that they can just pay the school again. Someone can just pay the school directly and cut out ten bureaucrats, politicians and other inefficient incompetent people, save money and schooling will be cheaper. Same with healthcare. Why complicate a system and make it more expensive.
 
rietrot said:
Ideally it shouldn't be. Why pay the state so that they can just pay the school again. Someone can just pay the school directly and cut out ten bureaucrats, politicians and other inefficient incompetent people, save money and schooling will be cheaper. Same with healthcare. Why complicate a system and make it more expensive.
Click to expand...

Whoa buddy, libertarianism is a slippery slope to sheer anarchy. Everyone knows it and you're already 90% of the way there.
 
cerebus said:
Whoa buddy, libertarianism is a slippery slope to sheer anarchy. Everyone knows it and you're already 90% of the way there.
Click to expand...
You say that as if anarchy is a bad thing it isn't.

To counter my argument you need to give just one reason why you need the state to play middleman in schooling
 
rietrot said:
You still don’t get the difference. Capitalism isn't collective it is individualistic.
An individual can be successful if he wants or he can be a subsidence farmer and nobody is to blame but the individual for their own destiny.
If Lonrho didn't force slaves to work against their will and didn't violently take land then it didn't do anything wrong.

This is so typical totay for lefties to blame the 1% for setting up businesses and being successful, developing infrastructure to extract that resources, creating jobs and food. Whilst being completely ignorant about the alternatives, pretending there is a better system when there isn't.
Click to expand...

Except they left a lot of these countries the poorest in the world. Because certain individuals were "successful". Lonrho did essentially run large segments of the economy, because they had purchased a monopoly, which is the typical end result of capitalism and socialism , oddly enough

And it's typical for the righties to totally ignore the poverty their system has caused ( Malawi and DRC are right there...at the bottom) yet blame socialism for everything. I'm merely pointing out your hypocrisy, something you and konfab fail to grasp
 
cerebus said:
Whoa buddy, libertarianism is a slippery slope to sheer anarchy. Everyone knows it and you're already 90% of the way there.
Click to expand...

In the same way that bureaucracy is a slippery slope to socialism, which in turn is a slippery slope to communism, yet we don't seem to care about the world in general being 90% of the way there ...
 
NarrowBandFtw said:
In the same way that bureaucracy is a slippery slope to socialism, which in turn is a slippery slope to communism, yet we don't seem to care about the world in general being 90% of the way there ...
Click to expand...

Or slippery slope arguments in general are facile and histrionic.
 
cerebus said:
Democratic socialism isn't inherently anti-capitalistic, although like all things it's a spectrum of varying intensities.
Click to expand...

If you read the entries in Wikipedia then what you're describing is Social Democracy.
Social democracy is a political, social and economic ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and capitalist economy. The protocols and norms used to accomplish this involve a commitment to representative and participatory democracy; measures for income redistribution and regulation of the economy in the general interest; and welfare state provisions.[1][2][3] Social democracy thus aims to create the conditions for capitalism to lead to greater democratic, egalitarian and solidaristic outcomes.[4] Due to longstanding governance by Social Democratic parties and their influence on socioeconomic policy development in the Nordic countries, in policy circles "social democracy" has become associated with the Nordic model in the latter part of the 20th century.[5]
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

Democtratic Socialism, on the other hand:
Democratic socialism is a political philosophy that advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production[1] with an emphasis on self-management and democratic management of economic institutions within a market socialist, participatory or decentralized planned economy.[2] Democratic socialists hold that capitalism is inherently incompatible with what they hold to be the democratic values of liberty, equality and solidarity; and that these ideals can only be achieved through the realization of a socialist society. Democratic socialism can be supportive of either revolutionary or reformist politics as a means to establish socialism.[3]
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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]
Click to expand...
 
Cray said:
Like all those slippery slope arguments about where gay marriage would lead....
Click to expand...
LGBTTQQIAAP and grown men identifying as little girls. Don't say you haven't been warned.
 
cerebus said:
So, public schooling shouldn't be tax-funded? No public healthcare services?
Click to expand...

Depends on how the tax is collected. If it is a local tax that I can choose not to pay my moving away, then by all means. That subjects government services to market forces and thus moves it from being outright theft to a service.
 
rietrot said:
LGBTTQQIAAP and grown men identifying as little girls. Don't say you haven't been warned.
Click to expand...
These people are irredeemably stupid. They simply don't understand that their own narrative isn't the narrative of all people.
 
konfab said:
because they are completely focussed on providing things that the market is capable of providing more efficently
Click to expand...

How does this nebulous entity "the market" provide services more efficiently than a government - which is essentially the largest entity we have, and is thus capable of exerting massive pressure to get the best for its people?
 
The_Assimilator said:
How does this nebulous entity "the market" provide services more efficiently than a government - which is essentially the largest entity we have, and is thus capable of exerting massive pressure to get the best for its people?
Click to expand...
How is it that you so easily ignore personal motivation? A bureaucrat has zero motivation to do his job. A government contractor has negative motivation to do his job.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X