*************
POPULATION:
For enhancing quality of life, the obvious social solution would be to incentive and avail a reduction in the human population. Simply stop encouraging people without means to have children, stop encouraging large families, stop making contraception out to be a sin, stop availing conquer-by-breeding cultures to offload their excess. This would entail a gradual reduction in worldwide production from artificial economics. Could a reducing GNP sustain a modern nation without widespread suffering?
*****************
RULE OF THE VEIL:
The Rule of the Veil is a poor substitute for the Great Commandment (Good Faith) and the Golden Rule (Good Will) for a number of reasons. Most fundamentally, to presume the "objectively" best society would be a lowest common denominator system of socialism is to be oblivious of the need for an upper class to rule the socialism (to be "more equal" than others). So, does the proponent of the rule of the veil wish to incarnate as a member of the Sheeple, or of the Sheeple Farmers? IOW, the so-called rule is fundamentally self contradictory and flawed because it does not avail one best objective choice.
RESPONSIBILITY TO THINK FOR SELF:
The kind of world Lefties seem to want is the kind where young people are forbidden to think beyond PC. Once Lefties flood our societies with such insanity, then the only viable form of gov will be the worldwide Sheeple Farm, for everyone to be sheared by their Weknowbest Masters. But it will be great, because all the Sheeple will be sheared equally, and have no chance to escape The Fairness deserved for Wussies. LA writ large. Hip hip.
************
The Establishment hates it when Trump.deploys the most effective counters to Dem perfidy. Studies show that strategy is T for Tat. Did they really think they were going to demonstrate higher mindedness by canceling the SOTU speech? Good grief.
So tired of the divide-and-hate Identity Politics being played by constantly whining group gangers. You can be a free-thinker if you've a mind to. Content of character, not color of group. Is there ever any end time to the whining?
Once the Left reduces Gov to the LCD, it will make it hate-thought-crime for anyone to think-suggest that anyone else might be more or less intellectually gifted. Because pretense of equality is more important than demonstration of excellence. S/
I see value in trying to inspire people to come to reason together in good faith and good will in order to derive, appreciate and pursue common purposes. In appreciating that the measurements we take of unfoldments are not by themselves the causes of such unfoldments.
To measure the course of a universe, system, world, culture is not to say what was the determining relationship or cause for any such measured course. Math does not explain itself. It neither explains nor appreciates what activated what we take to be laws of physics.
Religion does not explain, either. But it does offer forums and figures for communicating inspiration and appreciation concerning that which intuition suggests must abide beyond that which is merely measurable. Reconciling Storyteller as Great Artist. But that idea would seem better named as panentheism than as pantheism.
Without forums for communicating inspiration and appreciation, what would become of any meaningful culture or civilization? I suppose, for some, there would still abide the perpetual pursuit of the holy grail of the theory of everything. To reduce everything to an emergence from inanimate, dead, non-consciousness.
Remember Little Big Man?
But hey, there is no-thing religious about that pursuit. No-thing at all. Lol.
Stooges for the wannabe Rulers of the Empire don't need no stinking borders, republics, or constitutions. Nor men to defend them. They only need cold blooded neck cutters and useful femimen, feminazis, and bribe-able tribalists. This is to progress to the new great society. S/
Libs stock up with name calling and intimidation because they find little support in science, history, or common sense.
**********
Purveyors of the (Alinsky) Left-Uniparty Agenda have not God, Science, or decent History to support them. What they or their farmers have is skill in manipulating, dividing, screwing, and farming people. And gullibility concerning the motives of their Master. No principled consistency or coherence --- neither in motives nor means, and neither in argumentation nor in actions. The Left takes moral responsibility away from individuals, substitutes power in the hands of hate-inciting gangers, then calls its purveyors virtuous . What backs the Left is corrupt money and a lot of hateful rhetoric. What it's floating is hardly cream.
*************
Most Americans want the border enforced. But their corruptly funded Representatives do not. So Dems trot out every kind of silly counter-argument imaginable. But most are baldly ignorant or lying when they say they want the border enforced ("secured"). It is obvious they would like little better than to turn the nation socialistic blue asap, by indoctrinating and importing as many incorrigible, entitlement-minded socialists as they can. After that, our knowbetter rulers will surely be respectful of such an electorate's political desires. Just as the leaders are now, in Mexico. Not!
I marvel that femimen and feminists seem to think it good or wise to make common cause with caravans of invaders, as if that should produce a better society rather than a reversion to plantation status. But hey, I'm sure they have a chain of reasoning to rationalize it. Just not well based on history, science, or defensible principles.
I marvel that femimen and feminists seem to think it good or wise to make common cause with caravans of invaders, as if that should produce a better society rather than a reversion to plantation status. But hey, I'm sure they have a chain of reasoning to rationalize it. Just not well based on history, science, or defensible principles.
Has any society filled mainly with femimen unwilling to defend their borders and with feminists denigrating male toxicity ever long survived? I could be wrong, but I am not aware of such a society.
I think it is obvious that Congress' funders simply are not interested in fixing the porosity of the border. They are interested, however, in deploying every petty argument and name calling they can muster in order to try to destroy Trump. Mainly because he refuses to be their lapdog. Fortunately, this is obvious to many among us.
I think it is obvious that Dems, Dinos, and Rinos want illegals to vote. They want anchor baby citizenship. They want to require intake of masses of invaders without effective means to expel them. They want health, food, and shelter benefits for illegals. They want easily bribed and manipulated voters. They want a massive plantation of gov dependent citizens. They want corrupt elitist rule to replace representative republics, worldwide. They want a strong signal that resistance to the Deep State Swamp is futile.
I think it is obvious that most Dems or the people that fund them do not want to secure the border. What is more at issue is power: Whether to continue with the Representative Republic or to replace it with the Deep Oligarchy. The Deep Oligarchy runs both the Dinos and the Rinos. Why else would the Oligarchy and its media feel such great need to ruin Trump? And to teach lovers of the Republic never again to dare to install such an opponent of the Deep Oligarchy.
The Deep Oligarchy wants (1) porous borders (to destroy the nation and representative republic), and (2) removal of Trump. This is a time of testing, to test whether to kill the Republic and replace it entirely with the Kabuki that strings Schumer and Pelosi.
I think it is obvious that most Dems or the people that fund them do not want to secure the border. What is more at issue is power: Whether to continue with the Representative Republic or to replace it with the Deep Oligarchy. The Deep Oligarchy runs both the Dinos and the Rinos. Why else would the Oligarchy and its media feel such great need to ruin Trump? And to teach lovers of the Republic never again to dare to install such an opponent of the Deep Oligarchy.
The Deep Oligarchy wants (1) porous borders (to destroy the nation and representative republic), and (2) removal of Trump. This is a time of testing, to test whether to kill the Republic and replace it entirely with the Kabuki that strings Schumer and Pelosi.
*********
HAD ENOUGH OF THE HELLISH MADNESS OF DIVISIVE PROGRESSIVE-ISM? I don't know whether the Establishment is worried or just angry. Angry because its members thought they had stolen the last lunch from the last free man. And then DJT ate their lunch.
I do know a bit about how the Establishment has profaned philosophy --- by spreading claptrap about minority studies and critical race "theory" --- as if such poison were some kind of cure for what ails society.
Indoctrination in such self-serving philosophy is not education. It is not well based in logic, science, or history. To call It theory when it is neither testable, ceteris paribas, nor falsifiable is ridiculous. It is based in self-serving, group-ID tribalism, pretending to be progressive. But Progressive towards what? Scientific morality? That would be a bad joke. Progressive for Minority Group Favoritism? For the Sheeple farm? Progressive towards decent regard for the freedom of others, in thought, speech, enterprise, and association?
To be testable, skilled purveyors of such social justice studies should be able to show they are of use for more than just to select, characterize, and recite past grievances --- to target or antagonize groups, or to incite riots, theft, legislative favoritism, or divisive animosity --- in perpetuity.
Within the larger social and political system, what can be the goal or practical application for such "studies"? Apart from self-dealing, how can successful application of such "learning" possibly be measured, ceteris paribus, in respect of deaths, suffering, health, material redistribution, gross national product, or technological advancement?
Is there some science-based, objective barometer to MEASURE "progress" under such studies? Or "change," that otherwise would not have occurred? No, there is not. A pretense of "science" or "theory" with respect to minority studies would be a wheelhouse for con artists, not scientists.
So, to what can we look to assimilate systems of moral values? I think a flux of feedback with a Reconciler-Source, approached in common (assimilating) good faith and good will. Subjective approach with objective feedback, in flux. Made lastingly defensible in our time depending on an unfolding assimilation of encompassing factors.
Do we want to preserve what we have come to regard as decent society? If so, then factors of faith, family, and fidelity become important. Great Commandment and Golden Rule --- just as Jesus prescribed.
However, if a person takes his/her personal or orgiastic pleasures to trump his/her social relationships, then what does he/she care? Well, then he can pretend to be well meaning, as he in rotation manipulates, screws, and farms all others. Then, he can seek promotion within the Deep State of Established People Farmers or Group Gangers, as he seeks to help them to divide and destroy the Representative Republic.
Since he has no science, he can agitate for divisive hatred by deploying all manner of adjective-based name-calling: Racist, supremacist, chauvinist, toxic male, and all the rest of that sort of claptrap. Combine that with asinine strawman-argumentation and you have a recipe for social madness. Mouth-foaming, world-consuming hatred --- pretending to be on a "progressive arc" towards social justice. Post-modern claptrap. In the service of Established Elitists seeking to farm everyone else. And to laugh in soul-dead unison, as they destroy the Representative Republic.
**************
POST MODERN ABUSE OF PHILOSOPHY:
I don't know whether the Establishment are worried or just angry. Angry because they thought they had put the last hogtie on the last man, and then DJT spoiled it.
I do know a bit about how the Establishment has profaned philosophy --- by spreading crap about minority studies and critical race "theory" --- as if such poison were the cure for all that ails society.
Indoctrination in such self-serving philosophy is not education. It is not well based in logic, science, or history. To call It theory when it is neither testable, ceteris paribas, nor falsifiable is ridiculous. It is based in self-serving, group-ID tribalism, pretending to be progressive. But Progressive towards what? Scientific morality? That would be a bad joke. Progressive for Minority Group Favoritism? For the Sheeple farm? Progressive towards decent regard for the freedom of others, in thought, speech, enterprise, and association?
To be testable, skilled purveyors of such social justice studies should be able to show they are of use for more than just to select, characterize, and recite past grievances --- to target or antagonize groups, or to incite riots, theft, legislative favoritism, or divisive animosity --- in perpetuity.
Within the larger social and political system, what can be the goal or practical application for such "studies"? Apart from self-dealing, how can successful application of such "learning" possibly be measured, ceteris paribus, in respect of deaths, suffering, health, material redistribution, gross national product, or technological advancement?
Is there some science-based, objective barometer to MEASURE "progress" under such studies? Or "change," that otherwise would not have occurred? No, there is not. The pretense of "science" with respect to minority studies is the wheelhouse for con artists, not scientists.
So, to what can we look to assimilate systems of moral values? I think a flux of feedback with a Reconciler-Source, approached in common (assimilating) good faith and good will. Subjective approach with objective feedback, in flux. Made lastingly defensible in our time depending on an unfolding assimilation of encompassing factors.
Do we want to preserve what we have come to regard as decent society? If so, then factors of faith, family, and fidelity become important. Great Commandment and Golden Rule --- just as Jesus prescribed.
However, if a person takes his/her personal or orgiastic pleasures to trump his/her social relationships, then what does he/she care? Well, then he can pretend to be well meaning, as he in rotation manipulates, screws, and farms all others. Then, he can seek promotion within the Deep State of Established People Farmers or Group Gangers, as he seeks to help them to divide and destroy the Representative Republic.
Since he has no science, he can agitate for divisive hatred by deploying all manner of adjective-based name-calling: Racist, supremacist, chauvinist, toxic male, and all the rest of that sort of claptrap. Combine that with asinine strawman-argumentation and you have a recipe for social madness. Mouth-foaming, world-consuming hatred --- pretending to be on a "progressive arc" towards social justice. Post-modern claptrap. In the service of Established Elitists seeking to farm everyone else. And to laugh in soul-dead unison, as they destroy the Representative Republic.
***********
Phil, Dinos and Rinos are both captives to the Deep State money. If Trump were either a Dino or Rino, he would not be so universally hated. The reasons more has not been done are obvious: Sixty votes are needed in the Senate, and the Establishment does not want more to be done. The reason for that, likewise, is obvious (IMO). You may want to ask: Why is the Establishment so wanting to die on this hill? For people that support Trump, it is to preserve the Representative Republic. For others, it is to replace the Republic with complete rule by Elitist Knowbetters. If the Establishment Uniparty had any valid arguments, it would not need to resort to so much hate-filled name-calling and victim-playing. IAE, I am glad to hear you did not vote for Hillary.
That is why I do not care for either Dinos or Rinos. Despite the mash of contradictory quibbling from all the peanut galleries, I can see a place for physical barriers along some of the especially vulnerable parts of the border. IAE, I tend to be interested in what the people say whose job it is actually to patrol the border. All campaign rhetoric needs to be parsed, but I am not aware of Trump ever saying he would rely solely or even mainly on a wall or a wall unaccompanied by supporting measures. The nature and pettiness of the Established Uniparty's opposition does seem to speak volumes, however. Which is why I personally do not believe them in the least. Except Acosta. His analysis is priceless.
**********
Money is fungible (with regard to how Mexico may pay), but appropriations for specific purposes depend on Congress. However, their funders simply are not interested in fixing the porosity of the border. They are interested, however, in deploying every petty argument and name calling they can muster in order to try to destroy Trump. Mainly because he refuses to be their lapdog. Fortunately, this is obvious to many among us.
**************
VEIL OF IGNORANCE:
Re: "If you were completely ignorant what position you might take in society (e.g. King or commoner) You would chose a socialist society"
Why is this stuff called theory? It has nothing to do with science. It is not objectively testable or falsifiable. It is contingently based philosophy. Moreover, it pretends some kind of objective test for morality. While I would not necessarily oppose a subjective-objective test, to pretend such a test can be objective is nonsensical.
To begin with, it is nonsensical to imagine a person to be completely ignorant, yet have capacity intelligently to choose among kinds of societies. It is nonsensical to suppose you could know what it was like to be a king or peasant without having experience being a king or peasant.
Only after I adopt an orientation (such as that of an irresponsible child, an ungrateful adolescent, or a responsible adult) am I equipped to form a preference. And how could I prejudge or expect what kind of King I would have or what kind of people the King would have?
If I happen to have learned to value the humanity of others as I value the humanity of myself, then I may prefer that citizens be empowered with freedom of thought, expression, enterprise, and association. From that contingency, it may follow that I would broadly prefer the society of a representative republic. But even that must have constraints, depending on the wider situation. Not even a representative republic would necessarily avail the best moral or political system for every society or situation.
So to what can we look to assimilate systems of moral values? A flux of feedback with a Reconciler-Source, approached in common (assimilating) good faith and good will. Great Commandment and Golden Rule. Subjective approach with objective feedback, in flux. Made lastingly defensible in our time depending on the unfolding assimilation of encompassing factors. Do we want to preserve what we have come to regard as decent society? If so, then factors of faith, family, and fidelity become important. But if a person takes his personal or orgiastic pleasures to trump his social relationships, then what does he care? Well, then he can pretend to be well meaning, as he manipulates, screws, and farms all others.
***************
Regarding philosophical indoctrination that poses as scientific theory (and Libs pretending to be more educated):
For many non-STEM students, college is a cruel trick. It puts many students in perpetual debt to rich bond holders. It does not teach marketable skills. It trains students to think as Sheeple, the easier to farm them. It pretends to be science-based, where there is no science. In that respect, it is a cruel fraud. A way to babysit trained adolescents while the system indoctrinates and assigns them to their roles. An insult, whereby the oligarchy charges students to indoctrinate them into perpetual debt and servility.
Many modern jobs will necessitate special OJT, irrespective of college. They will call for students that are literate, able to think logically, able reliably to meet appointments, and not consumed by hate or entitlement-mindedness. Promotion will tend to depend first on job skill, then on networking (ability to intimidate co-workers while sucking up to the boss). It will not depend on faithful adherence to any phony social-science "theory." The knowledge needed to succeed personally and professionally will depend much more on capacity to think, read, learn, and respond for oneself, than on certification from any study of social justice, pan-gender-ism, or critical race theory.
A capable student would have learned most such skills by the time he graduated High School. College tends to add little to such skills, apart from availing practice for putting the language of victimhood to one's advantage, and providing certification concerning association/networking.
I would not say that collegiate study in the humanities is worthless. Only that, for a literate person who is able and motivated to read and think for himself, it tends to avail a poorer education than can be had simply by reading for oneself and engaging selectively in discussions with intelligent people. Without undertaking the ridiculous debt or the indoctrination in stupidity.
********************
IN WHAT WAY ARE LIBS MORE EDUCATED?
Regarding philosophical indoctrination posing as scientific theory:
For many non-STEM students, college is a cruel trick. It puts many students in perpetual debt to rich bond holders. It does not teach marketable skills. It trains students to think as Sheeple, the easier to farm them. It pretends to be science-based, where there is no science. In that respect, it is a cruel fraud. A way to babysit trained adolescents while the system indoctrinates and assigns them to their roles. An insult, whereby the oligarchy charges students to indoctrinate them into perpetual debt and servility.
Many modern jobs will necessitate special OJT, irrespective of college. They will call for students that are literate, able to think logically, able reliably to meet appointments, and not consumed by hate or entitlement-mindedness. Promotion will tend to depend first on job skill, then on networking (ability to intimidate co-workers while sucking up to the boss). It will not depend on faithful adherence to any phony social-science theory. The knowledge needed to succeed personally and professionally will depend much more on capacity to think, read, learn, and respond for oneself, than on certification from any study of social justice, pan-gender-ism, or critical race theory.
A capable student would have learned most such skills by the time he graduated High School. College tends to add little to such skills, apart from availing practice for putting the language of victimhood to one's advantage, and providing certification concerning association/networking.
****************
EDIT: I would agree that rationalizations can be made, by watering down the idea of Socialism, down from system to theory, as some sort of transitional stage between gov regulation and gov ownership. But then the idea stands for and says nothing, because, after all, what gov, to be gov, is not in a regulatory transitional stage?
Note: The idea that Gov should, via regulations, be responsive to the feelings and interests of the general population, is not a theory, in the sense of a science-based theory. It is a contingently philosophical preference or orientation. That feeling can be met in various ways. One (Child), as a dependent child or a serf to a vassal, while hoping the master is well intentioned. Another (Adolescent), by enlisting with co-dependent gangs and tribes of convenience, in order to seek, subjugate, and farm others. Another (Adult), by assimilating with people that are growing into responsible, competent, hardy, free thinking, empathetic, charitable, reliable, self-reliant adults. And that seek to raise similar citizen-adults. Nothing prescribes that a condition of people being responsive to the feelings of others should be named "democratic socialism."
***************
Nope. Have to disagree on that. Democratic Socialism is an oxymoron, like nice evil. It is not a system --- unless nice evil is a system.
Regarding Systems: A political system may be preserved by despotism, often by divide-and-rule techniques, or by assimilation of general will, with popular respect for elections.
However, in the USA, assimilation is now disparaged, the Constitution is often reviled, the electorate is manipulated, foreigners are invited where helpful to promote divide-and-rule or to redefine the general will. Congress serves its funders, not it's formal constituency. This is Kabuki, not any kind of respect for a "system" of "democracy."
Capitalism is a political/economic system. Compassion may be exercised by members of such a system, but compassionate capitalism is not a political system apart from capitalism. Capitalism is corrupted into Crony Capitalism as big business is enabled to buy and sell political influence as if it were a marketable commodity.
Democratic Socialism is not a system in itself. It is a fantasy for twisting minds of people that want to be ruled by phonies promising fairness. It is pretense of virtue by surrendering a nation's authority and responsibility to despots mining mush minds. There were many votes for Castro, Chavez, Saddam, Stalin, Hitler -- but all those votes were gimmicks for mass indoctrination.
If there were Nordic Democratic Socialism, then the people would have voted for and enacted Socialism. The Nordic people have not done that. Neither have the American people. Moreover, once socialism is enacted, there is a devil of a time to get out of it merely by voting to do so. Compare Britain's attempt at Brexit.
Regulating specific for-profit businesses, such as the Mail Delivery and Auto Manufacturing, is not Socialism so long as the Gov leaves day to day management under agents seeking profits.
But neither is it Democratic, so long as the regulation is done by bureaucracies for administrative agencies that are infested through and through with Deep State agents, while having been given vast and ambiguously limited power.
What it is is this: Crony Capitalism run by Oligarchs pretending to be compassionate and fair minded, while they farm the little people. Who are often and easily indoctrinated and incited to eliminate the few defenders of liberty they may retain, as they revile home defense and male toxicity. This is madness. It is sheeple fighting for the right to be farmed.
*********
Apparently, Democratic Socialist, American Style, means to import and indoctrinate enough people to make a permanent majority that will be easily led to vote or demonstrate for whatever the oligarchic farmers and agitators want. And then to call that being smart or educated. But I do not see any moral science, principle, or smartness about that.
I see a lot of rationalizing, with skilled rationalizers able to fill mush minds to rationalize every kind of behavior imaginable (Ten year old boys performing as trannies for adults -- really?). After all, when you have only adjectives (toxic, mean, racist, privileged), but no first or even contingent principles, what cannot be rationalized (or blamed)? All leading to a default condition: Consolidated, collectivized enserfment under aholes that think they know best how to divide and rule (fortify with hate) all the other people's lives.
The Wall is a good example. Most Americans want the border enforced. But their corruptly funded Representatives do not. So they trot out every kind of silly counter-argument imaginable. But they are baldly lying when they say they want the border enforced ("secured"). It is obvious they would like little better than to turn the nation socialistic blue asap, by indoctrinating and importing as many incorrigible, entitlement-minded socialists as they can. After that, our knowbetter rulers will surely be respectful of such an electorate's political desires. Just as they are now, in Mexico. Not!
My guide is contingent: IF the USA wants to preserve a representative republic, then various factors follow. But IF the new "virtue" is to be omni-tolerant and entitlement minded, then madness quickly follows.
The Wall is a good example. Most Americans want the border enforced. But their corruptly funded Representatives do not. So they trot out every kind of silly counter-argument imaginable. But they are baldly lying when they say they want the border enforced ("secured"). It is obvious they would like little better than to turn the nation socialistic blue asap, by indoctrinating and importing as many incorrigible, entitlement-minded socialists as they can. After that, our knowbetter rulers will surely be respectful of such an electorate's political desires. Just as they are now, in Mexico. Not!
My guide is contingent: IF the USA wants to preserve a representative republic, then various factors follow. But IF the new "virtue" is to be omni-tolerant and entitlement minded, then madness quickly follows.
I marvel that femimen and feminists seem to think it good or wise to make common cause with caravans of invaders and with Sharia Law, as if that should produce a better society, rather than a reversion to plantation status. But hey, I'm sure they have a chain of reasoning to rationalize it. Just not well based on history, science, or defensible principles.
Has any society filled mainly with femimen unwilling to defend their borders and feminists denigrating male toxicity ever long survived? I could be wrong. But I am not aware of such a society.
*************
Liberalism is where big business owns government.
Socialism is a direct reaction to liberalism; it is where government owns big business.
Communism was the most extreme form of socialism in which government owns literally everything, including the lives of its subjects.
Fascism was the state venerating its own citizens and at war with foreigners and minorities.
Liberalism is the state at war with its own citizens and the veneration of foreigners and minorities.
Socialism is a direct reaction to liberalism; it is where government owns big business.
Communism was the most extreme form of socialism in which government owns literally everything, including the lives of its subjects.
Fascism was the state venerating its own citizens and at war with foreigners and minorities.
Liberalism is the state at war with its own citizens and the veneration of foreigners and minorities.
SYSTEM:
Regarding Systems: A political system may be preserved by despotism, often by divide-and-rule techniques, or by assimilation of general will, with popular respect for elections.
However, in the USA, assimilation is now disparaged, the Constitution is often reviled, the electorate is manipulated, foreigners are invited where helpful to promote divide-and-rule or to redefine the general will. Congress serves its funders, not it's formal constituency. This is Kabuki, not any kind of respect for a "system" of "democracy."
Capitalism is a political/economic system. Compassion may be exercised by members of such a system, but compassionate capitalism is not a political system apart from capitalism. Capitalism is corrupted into Crony Capitalism as big business is enabled to buy and sell political influence as if it were a marketable commodity.
Democratic Socialism is not a system in itself. It is a fantasy for twisting minds of people that want to be ruled by phonies promising fairness. It is pretense of virtue by surrendering a nation's authority and responsibility to despots mining mush minds. There were many votes for Castro, Chavez, Saddam, Stalin, Hitler -- but all those votes were gimmicks for mass indoctrination.
If there were Nordic Democratic Socialism, then the people would have voted for and enacted Socialism. The Nordic people have not done that. Neither have the American people. Moreover, once socialism is enacted, there is a devil of a time to get out of it merely by voting to do so. Compare Britain's attempt at Brexit.
Regulating specific for-profit businesses, such as the Mail Delivery and Auto Manufacturing, is not Socialism so long as the Gov leaves day to day management under agents seeking profits. But neither is is Democratic, so long as the regulation is done by bureaucracies for administrative agencies that are infested through and through with Deep State agents, while having been given vast and ambiguously limited power.
What it is is this: Crony Capitalism run by Oligarchs pretending to be compassionate and fair minded, while they farm the little people. Who are often and easily indoctrinated and incited to eliminate the few defenders of liberty they may retain, as they revile home defense and male toxicity. This is madness. It is sheeple fighting for the right to be farmed.
*****************
It is obvious that Dems, Dinos, and Rinos want illegals to vote. They want anchor baby citizenship. They want to require intake of masses of invaders without effective means to expel them. They want health, food, and shelter benefits for illegals. They want easily bribed and manipulated voters. They want a massive plantation of gov dependent citizens. They want corrupt elitist rule to replace representative republics, worldwide. They want a strong signal that resistance to the Deep State Swamp is futile.
It is obvious that Dems do not want any kind of physical barrier that would impede any future Dem Prez from continuing to invite liberty illiterates to come and turn the nation socialist Blue. Which really means turning the masses into codependent cattle, without any hope of self governance, personal responsibility, or human dignity.
If the border is not physically and effectively blocked, then the nation, as a representative republic for competent.citizens, is done.
************
So that was not a temper tantrum you just threw? I am glad you seem to have more than a grade school education. As a zombie Trump follower, perhaps now I could find your name somewhere on the Mensa roles? Here's the thing: I recognize the possibility I may be wrong. It is not clear to me that you do likewise. I tend to follow a debate to the level it is taken. I can go high or low. T for Tat. I prefer high. When you eliminate the insults, the summary is: The USA needs to secure its borders. That is, if you believe in defending the nation. That defense would entail a number of components. The support the Border Patrol is asking for does not seem to me to be unreasonable, and I simply find your arguments to be unpersuasive. Sorry if that leads you to believe I am stupid or uninformed. Have a nice evening.
**********
Well, some hospitals are sponsored by religious organizations. They have to provide emergency care. But I agree that a modern industrial society with sufficient wealth should provide universal health care for its citizens. As to other functions, such as shelter, I think the Salvation Army does good work. As to organized churches, I become less impressed with them every year. Primarily because they seem to think they do "charity" by preaching and lobbying for gov to provide more free stuff as a matter of right. IOW, they are abandoning their charitable role and passing it off to gov, but making it a right instead of charity. So, recipients tend more to become ungrateful, disloyal, weak-minded, and entitlement-minded louts. The kind of snowflakes that cannot have much realistic hope to preserve their republic, once their parents die off. Especially as they make ignorant and common cause with proponents of Sharia Law. I almost wish I would live long enough to see that karma coming home.
Maybe we should have an elite board or politburo to determine which persons or groups are taking or keeping more than they should? And a board to oversee that board. And so on. Or maybe we should revert to voluntary charitable organizations, so recipients would learn to become more self sufficient and to feel more gratitude than resentment?
Does japan take in millions of third world immigrants each year? See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE. "Immigration to Japan was and remains relatively exclusionary. Children gain citizenship based on their parents’ Japanese nationality rather than by virtue of their birth on Japanese soil." "Foreign residents can join the national health insurance system and receive a pension provided they qualify, and their children can enroll in public schools. While immigration to Japan has steadily increased since the 1990s, "incoming streams are almost exclusively comprised of “desirable” immigrants, meaning those who clearly offer some perceived immediate benefit. Refugees remain largely barred from entering."
Among individuals, tribes, and nations, there are many mortal enemies in the world. Beyond rudiments, most do not feel an obligation to provide nourishment or care for their enemies. Most do not feel an obligation to tolerate that which would destroy them. No matter how many high sounding passages people may write. However, those individuals that think otherwise are of course free to offer to redistribute their own stuff.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE
***********
MONGO:
Mongo only pawn in game between different syndicates of billionaires, sometimes called Ultra-Nationalists and sometimes called Supra-Nationalists. https://akamaitree.wordpress.com/2018/08/10/deep-politics-and-supranational-aspects-of-the-trump-era/
https://youtu.be/SKRma7PDW10
***************
https://youtu.be/SKRma7PDW10
***************
A TIME OF TESTING:
Well, I simply do not think planning or reasoning have much at all to do with the desire of the Supra-nationalist Party of People-Farmers and their assorted Dupees to want to deny all things Trump and to run him out of office. If Trump asked the military to plan and report on ways to build a barrier to enforce the border, such as based on a declaration of emergency, would Dems have a fit? If Trump presented Congress with a more detailed plan, would that unite the focus or would it just give Dems more to gripe about? Besides, should not such details be fleshed out by Congress or the agencies funded to build the Wall?
I do not in the least believe Dems want to secure the border. What seems more at issue is power: Whether to continue with the Representative Republic or to replace it with the Deep Oligarchy. The Deep Oligarchy runs both the Dinos and the Rinos. I think and hope Trump is neither. Why else would the Oligarchy and its media feel such great need to ruin him? And to teach lovers of the Republic never again to dare to install such an opponent of the Deep Oligarchy.
The Deep Oligarchy wants (1) porous borders (to destroy the nation and representative republic), and (2) removal of Trump. I think this is a time of testing, to test whether to kill the Republic and replace it entirely with the Kabuki that strings Schumer and Pelosi.
************
I am much more concerned about preserving the Republic than I am about pleasing pilots. Standing up to bullies has never been easy. Right now, the bully against the Republic consists of the Supra-nationalist Oligarchy and its mind-numbing media. Life will not get easier by knuckling under to the Dark Side.
****************
HEALTH CARE:
I do not think the corporate people-farmers or insurance companies are going to give either party any easy path to universal health care that makes decent or efficient sense. A President has to work with his political capital and manage his priorities. Taking on the Supra-nationalist Oligarchy is nearly impossible for any one man. For anyone other than Trump, I think it would be totally impossible. You seem to forget that the Supra-nationalist Uniparty owned both McConnell and Ryan. Blaming Trump for that makes no sense.
Assuming a society that can fund it, universal health care can make sense, provided: The society does not have open borders; rent-seeking insurance companies can be tamed; problems of federalism and constitutional limitations can be overcome. As more and more workers are displaced, the safety net will need to be expanded. It needs to be good enough to keep a healthy workforce, but not so good as to produce a soft and entitlement minded citizenry. Talented producers need to be incentivized with better rewards. To reduce them to equality with unproductive masses is to produce a banana republic. Good only in the minds of fantasy socialists. In a world where American companies must compete globally, saddling private employers with costs for health care makes little sense.
*************
WALL PLUS TECH:
Well, would not Trump's wall be manned or supported by tech or drones? After all, Trump previously negotiated for enshrining DACA protections into law in exchange for new technology, drones, air support, and sensor equipment along the southern border. It is the Dems that killed that proposal, by refusing to fund a Wall --- most likely because their Supra-national Employers prefer keeping the border porous to securing the border. Especially so long as oligarchy-owned media can continue to blame all things on Trump.
****************
Well, I simply do not think planning or reasoning have much at all to do with the desire of the Supra-nationalist Party of People-Farmers and their assorted Dupees to want to deny all things Trump and to run him out of office. If Trump asked the military to plan and report on ways to build a barrier to enforce the border, such as based on a declaration of emergency, would Dems have a fit? If Trump presented Congress with a more detailed plan, would that unite the focus or would it just give Dems more to gripe about? Besides, should not such details be fleshed out by Congress or the agencies funded to build the Wall?
I do not in the least believe Dems want to secure the border. What seems more at issue is power: Whether to continue with the Representative Republic or to replace it with the Deep Oligarchy. The Deep Oligarchy runs both the Dinos and the Rinos. I think and hope Trump is neither. Why else would the Oligarchy and its media feel such great need to ruin him? And to teach lovers of the Republic never again to dare to install such an opponent of the Deep Oligarchy.
The Deep Oligarchy wants (1) porous borders (to destroy the nation and representative republic), and (2) removal of Trump. I think this is a time of testing, to test whether to kill the Republic and replace it entirely with the Kabuki that strings Schumer and Pelosi.
************
I am much more concerned about preserving the Republic than I am about pleasing pilots. Standing up to bullies has never been easy. Right now, the bully against the Republic consists of the Supra-nationalist Oligarchy and its mind-numbing media. Life will not get easier by knuckling under to the Dark Side.
****************
HEALTH CARE:
I do not think the corporate people-farmers or insurance companies are going to give either party any easy path to universal health care that makes decent or efficient sense. A President has to work with his political capital and manage his priorities. Taking on the Supra-nationalist Oligarchy is nearly impossible for any one man. For anyone other than Trump, I think it would be totally impossible. You seem to forget that the Supra-nationalist Uniparty owned both McConnell and Ryan. Blaming Trump for that makes no sense.
Assuming a society that can fund it, universal health care can make sense, provided: The society does not have open borders; rent-seeking insurance companies can be tamed; problems of federalism and constitutional limitations can be overcome. As more and more workers are displaced, the safety net will need to be expanded. It needs to be good enough to keep a healthy workforce, but not so good as to produce a soft and entitlement minded citizenry. Talented producers need to be incentivized with better rewards. To reduce them to equality with unproductive masses is to produce a banana republic. Good only in the minds of fantasy socialists. In a world where American companies must compete globally, saddling private employers with costs for health care makes little sense.
*************
WALL PLUS TECH:
Well, would not Trump's wall be manned or supported by tech or drones? After all, Trump previously negotiated for enshrining DACA protections into law in exchange for new technology, drones, air support, and sensor equipment along the southern border. It is the Dems that killed that proposal, by refusing to fund a Wall --- most likely because their Supra-national Employers prefer keeping the border porous to securing the border. Especially so long as oligarchy-owned media can continue to blame all things on Trump.
****************
It is possible, even if rare, to share information and consider consequences, and to do so in polite good will. That is not generally what is being done by commentators on media. Likewise by consumers of such media. Even so, I hope, against apparent probability, that some people can sometimes share and debate information for the main purpose of enlightenment. I try to take a higher approach, but I often fall into a T for Tat mode.
*******************
Gary, I respect your opinion. I also think we are not being well served by any media. I think it has become less about putting out information than about putting out sausage, made to fit an agenda that has little to do with the needs of a representative republic. I regret that, because I think a representative republic, to be more than kabuki theater, needs a citizenry that is actively informed by more than media that is manipulated to serve a supranational confluence of elitist oligarchs. Maybe that is unavoidable. Or maybe it is what most people now prefer. Regardless, you are probably right, that Facebook will not fill the gap. Which saddens me.
************
You are probably right. Even so, I think that is sad. A representative republic, to be more than kabuki theater, needs a citizenry that is actively informed by more than media that is manipulated to serve a supranational confluence of elitist oligarchs. Maybe that is unavoidable. Or maybe it is what most people now prefer.
***************
*******************
Gary, I respect your opinion. I also think we are not being well served by any media. I think it has become less about putting out information than about putting out sausage, made to fit an agenda that has little to do with the needs of a representative republic. I regret that, because I think a representative republic, to be more than kabuki theater, needs a citizenry that is actively informed by more than media that is manipulated to serve a supranational confluence of elitist oligarchs. Maybe that is unavoidable. Or maybe it is what most people now prefer. Regardless, you are probably right, that Facebook will not fill the gap. Which saddens me.
************
You are probably right. Even so, I think that is sad. A representative republic, to be more than kabuki theater, needs a citizenry that is actively informed by more than media that is manipulated to serve a supranational confluence of elitist oligarchs. Maybe that is unavoidable. Or maybe it is what most people now prefer.
***************
We don't know precisely what goes on at Bilderberg meetings. However, we have various leads.
Journalist Bill Moyers, in his 1980 TV special, The World of David Rockefeller, as quoted in The "Proud Internationalist": The Globalist Vision of David Rockefeller (2006) by Will Banyan, p. 9:
"The unelected if indisputable chairman of the American Establishment ...one of the most powerful, influential and richest men in America ...[he] sits at the hub of a vast network of financiers, industrialists and politicians whose reach encircles the globe."
Regarding "The supernational sovereignty of an intellectual elite":
Content from external sourceSource:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/world...ompuy-calls-for-global-governance-with-russia:
“We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years......It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supernational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries.”
― David Rockefeller
.From "New America", 27th december 2012:
"That statement and other remarks from the Bilderberg meeting were obtained by French intelligence agents, who were tasked with monitoring the gathering, because of the obvious implications for French national interests and security. The information was then leaked to two French publications. Hilaire du Berrier, a contributing editor to The New American, verified the authenticity of the reports through his friend, former head of French intelligence, Count Alexander de Marenches, and other sources, and provided the first account in English in his Monaco-based monthly HduB Reports in September 1991. It was then published shortly thereafter in The New American."
From discussion at https://www.metabunk.org/anyone-care-to-debunk-these-two-rockefeller-quotes.t431/.
************************
In a 1993 interview, a secretary in Rockefeller's New York office told a college journalist that the quote "sounded" accurate.
Interesting quote from David Rockefeller, about 1991, regarding the supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite: "We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march toward a world government… The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”
******
It means figures don't lie, but liars figure -- for purposes of political manipulation. It means Economics is not a science. And neither is Marxism.
It means there is no scientific best solution for tax rates. It means taxes should not generally be used to transfer productive work from the private to the public sector, nor to equalize economic results among the general citizenry. It means any social safety net ought not be made a hammock for layabouts just to grab votes from lowlifes. It means corporatists ought to be taxed out the yang yang on their consumption when they mooch off the gov. It means able bodied people need to wean themselves from whining based on misguided "education" that the world somehow owes them a living. Pal.
**************
ECONOMICS:
Open border economists that ignore human factors are among both the worldwide socialists and the worldwide capitalists. Both serve the Dino-Rino Uniparty Apparatus. I loathe both the socialistic economists that want to use Gov to force a fantasy of equality of outcomes, as well as the capitalistic economists that ignore human factors as they manipulate figures and formulas in pursuit of some fantasy of maximizing open-bordered, worldwide production.
Apart from worldwide re-enserfment, what can Gross NATIONAL Product mean, once NATIONS are effectively replaced by a Deeply Syndicated Oligopoly? Is there such a thing as meaningfully measurable Global Economic Product? What can dollars or CURRENCY mean, once the faith and trust of the masses is harnessed to the worldwide diktat of oligarchs or despots?
Economists and politicians often get lost in figures and theories and seem to forget what is most important and right in front of them --- Human Factors:
- How to incentive people to work.
- In what they want to work at.
- In what they are competent to work at.
- In what society needs.
- In what will not endanger the society.
- In what will produce lasting advantages.
- In what will not undermine their freedom and dignity, as citizens of a representative republic.
- In ways that will check against the buying and selling of political influence.
- In ways that will produce a competent, educated, diligent, loyal workforce of mutual good faith and good will.
- In ways that will not empower disloyal oligarchs and international corporatists to buy and sell governmental influence or to become the real power behind the government.
- In ways that will not undermine the ability of workers to choose among their employers.
- In ways that will not impede incentives for private, talented, energetic entrepreneurs.
- In ways that will not tend to replace talented entrepreneurs will gov bureaucrats.
- In ways that will impede mooching corporatists from using gov lobbying to take over and - monopolize or oligopolize private businesses.
- In ways that will avail a decent safety net, without impeding work incentives.
When economists ignore the human factors and put up a maze of formulas based on how rational robots (as if there were such a thing) would decide on purchases and investments, they often are lying by omission.
To counsel how to maximize gross national product, without reference to qualitative costs to the representative republic, is to engage in apologetics for Deep State, people-farming, corrupti.
To agitate useful idiots to demand more Big Gov to force "social justice, fairness, and equality" is to play into the hands of shark-grinning, people-farming, corrupt oligarchs.
When the oligarchy uses useful idiots to erase nations of representative republics, the world will not get social justice or economic efficiency. It will get mass re-enserfment.
How many lying mooching corrupt economists are there, in the Uniparty Service of Oligarchs that pretend to want to promote either worldwide efficiency or fairness? Apart from secular apologetics for capitalistic efficiency or socialistic fairness, the reality is becoming the feudal pulling-up of ladders against the middle class and the puppet-mastering of the world.
For the West, the cure would be the restoration and defense of representative republics and their border integrity. But both Dinos and Rinos are completely united against that.
**********
Economics
I loathe both the socialistic economists that want to use Gov to force a fantasy of equality of outcomes as well as the capitalistic economists that ignore human factors as they manipulate figures and formulas in pursuit of some fantasy of maximizing worldwide production.
Apart from worldwide re-enserfment, what can Gross NATIONAL Product mean, once NATIONS are effectively replaced by a Deeply Syndicated Oligopoly? What can dollars or CURRENCY mean, once the faith and trust of the masses is harnessed to the worldwide diktat of oligarchs or despots?
Economists and politicians often get lost in figures and theories and seem to forget what is most important and right in front of them --- Human Factors:
- How to incentive people to work.
- In what they want to work at.
- In what they are competent to work at.
- In what society needs.
- In what will not endanger the society.
- In what will produce lasting advantages.
- In what will not undermine their freedom and dignity, as citizens of a representative republic.
- In ways that will check against the buying and selling of political influence.
- In ways that will produce a competent, educated, diligent, loyal workforce of mutual good faith and good will.
- In ways that will not empower disloyal oligarchs and international corporatists to buy and sell governmental influence or to become the real power behind the government.
- In ways that will not undermine the ability of workers to choose among their employers.
- In ways that will not impede incentives for private, talented, energetic entrepreneurs.
- In ways that will not tend to replace talented entrepreneurs will gov bureaucrats.
- In ways that will impede mooching corporatists from using gov lobbying to take over and - monopolize or oligopolize private businesses.
- In ways that will avail a decent safety net, without impeding work incentives.
When economists ignore the human factors and put up a maze of formulas based on how rational robots (as if there were such a thing) would decide on purchases and investments, they often are lying by omission. To counsel how to maximize gross national product, without reference to qualitative costs to the representative republic, is to engage in apologetics for Deep State, people-farming, corrupti.
To agitate useful idiots to demand more Big Gov to force "social justice, fairness, and equality" is to play into the hands of shark grinning, people-farming, corrupt oligarchs. When the oligarchy uses useful idiots to erase nations of representative republics, the world will not get social justice or economic efficiency. It will get mass re-enserfment.
How many lying economists are there, in the service of corrupt oligarchs pretending to want to promote worldwide efficiency or fairness?
***********
Well, I think you are playing games with words to try to have your cake and eat it too. There is no democracy in Socialism. The Gov owns the means to production, and the elites that own the Gov rule the people. There is Kabuki in that, but no democracy. So Democratic Socialists are really just shills and stooges (brownshirts) for their elite knowbetters (banana masters).
Socialism is a political system, even if based on deceit, manipulation, and raw brutality. Democratic Socialism is an oxymoron, posing as a political philosophy. A mask to hide corruption and historical ignorance.
Apparently, Democratic Socialist, American Style, means to import and indoctrinate enough people to make a permanent majority that will be easily led to vote or demonstrate for whatever the oligarchic farmers and agitators want. And then to call that being smart or educated. But I do not see any moral science, principle, or smartness about that.
Socialism is a political system, even if based on deceit, manipulation, and raw brutality. Democratic Socialism is an oxymoron, posing as a political philosophy. A mask to hide corruption and historical ignorance.
Apparently, Democratic Socialist, American Style, means to import and indoctrinate enough people to make a permanent majority that will be easily led to vote or demonstrate for whatever the oligarchic farmers and agitators want. And then to call that being smart or educated. But I do not see any moral science, principle, or smartness about that.
I see a lot of rationalizing, with skilled rationalizers able to fill mush minds to rationalize every kind of behavior imaginable (Ten year old boys performing as trannies for adults -- really?). After all, when you have only adjectives (toxic, mean, racist, privileged), but no first or even contingent principles, what cannot be rationalized (or blamed)? All leading to a default condition: Consolidated, collectivized enserfment under aholes that think they know best how to divide and rule (fortify with hate) all the other people's lives.
The Wall is a good example. Most Americans want the border enforced. But their corruptly funded Representatives do not. So they trot out every kind of silly counter-argument imaginable. But they are baldly lying when they say they want the border enforced ("secured"). It is obvious they would like little better than to turn the nation socialistic blue asap, by indoctrinating and importing as many incorrigible, entitlement-minded socialists as they can. After that, our knowbetter rulers will surely be respectful of such an electorate's political desires. Just as they are now, in Mexico. Not!
My guide is contingent: IF the USA wants to preserve a representative republic, then various factors follow. But IF the new "virtue" is to be omni-tolerant and entitlement minded, then madness quickly follows.
The Wall is a good example. Most Americans want the border enforced. But their corruptly funded Representatives do not. So they trot out every kind of silly counter-argument imaginable. But they are baldly lying when they say they want the border enforced ("secured"). It is obvious they would like little better than to turn the nation socialistic blue asap, by indoctrinating and importing as many incorrigible, entitlement-minded socialists as they can. After that, our knowbetter rulers will surely be respectful of such an electorate's political desires. Just as they are now, in Mexico. Not!
My guide is contingent: IF the USA wants to preserve a representative republic, then various factors follow. But IF the new "virtue" is to be omni-tolerant and entitlement minded, then madness quickly follows.
I marvel that femimen and feminists seem to think it good or wise to make common cause with caravans of invaders and with Sharia Law, as if that should produce a better society, rather than a reversion to plantation status. But hey, I'm sure they have a chain of reasoning to rationalize it. Just not well based on history, science, or defensible principles.
Has any society filled mainly with femimen unwilling to defend their borders and feminists denigrating male toxicity ever long survived? I could be wrong. But I am not aware of such a society.
*****************
Ah, the new and improved Democratic Socialism.
See https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2018/07/08/sorry-bernie-bros-but-nordic-countries-are-not-socialist/#2742d24674ad. I have no doubt there are all manner of political philosophies in Scandinavia. Same regarding the USA. But the government own the means of production? The Forbes article would refer to them as examples of Compassionate Capitalism. Which is easier to do when you do not share a porous border with Mexico and do not try to police the world. As I have said, I am does not opposed to social health insurance, subject to constitutional provisos. A wealthy nation can afford to indulge in compassionate capitalism when it is not beset by widespread political division, hysteria, and kabuki.
"The myth of Nordic socialism is partially created by a confusion between socialism, meaning government exerting control or ownership of businesses, and the welfare state in the form of government-provided social safety net programs. However, the left’s embrace of socialism is not merely a case of redefining a word. Simply look at the long-running affinity of leftists with socialist dictators in Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela for proof many on the left long for real socialism."
"[T]he Nordic countries are actually a poor case to cite. Regardless of the perception, in reality the Nordic countries practice mostly free market economics paired with high taxes exchanged for generous government entitlement programs."
Btw, the average Swede does better economically in the USA than in Sweden.
I would agree with an observation I have seen, that
"Liberalism is where big business owns government.
Socialism is a direct reaction to liberalism; it is where government owns big business.
Communism was the most extreme form of socialism in which government owns literally everything, including the lives of its subjects.
Fascism was the state venerating its own citizens and at war with foreigners and minorities.
Liberalism is the state at war with its own citizens and the veneration of foreigners and minorities."
************
*****************
Ah, the new and improved Democratic Socialism.
See https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2018/07/08/sorry-bernie-bros-but-nordic-countries-are-not-socialist/#2742d24674ad. I have no doubt there are all manner of political philosophies in Scandinavia. Same regarding the USA. But the government own the means of production? The Forbes article would refer to them as examples of Compassionate Capitalism. Which is easier to do when you do not share a porous border with Mexico and do not try to police the world. As I have said, I am does not opposed to social health insurance, subject to constitutional provisos. A wealthy nation can afford to indulge in compassionate capitalism when it is not beset by widespread political division, hysteria, and kabuki.
"The myth of Nordic socialism is partially created by a confusion between socialism, meaning government exerting control or ownership of businesses, and the welfare state in the form of government-provided social safety net programs. However, the left’s embrace of socialism is not merely a case of redefining a word. Simply look at the long-running affinity of leftists with socialist dictators in Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela for proof many on the left long for real socialism."
"[T]he Nordic countries are actually a poor case to cite. Regardless of the perception, in reality the Nordic countries practice mostly free market economics paired with high taxes exchanged for generous government entitlement programs."
Btw, the average Swede does better economically in the USA than in Sweden.
I would agree with an observation I have seen, that
"Liberalism is where big business owns government.
Socialism is a direct reaction to liberalism; it is where government owns big business.
Communism was the most extreme form of socialism in which government owns literally everything, including the lives of its subjects.
Fascism was the state venerating its own citizens and at war with foreigners and minorities.
Liberalism is the state at war with its own citizens and the veneration of foreigners and minorities."
************
No comments:
Post a Comment