Being that I live in New Hampshire, I am sure it comes as no surprise I drive by this every day:
But, why does it come as no surprise?
I was hoping we could discuss not only the truth or falsity of the statement, but also why it resonates so well with many Americans. Is it good or bad that it does?
So, I was hoping we could talk not only about the declaration "Socialism is Bad," but also why this person felt it was appropriate to display it as such (since it's not vandalism, but a proud memorial he set up a while back).
I think that the demonetization of socialism is so successful because people do not know what socialism is. In 2010 there were many examples of people saying things like socialism is bad and do not touch my medicaid. But it is not just conservatives. I have talked to many people on the left and they did not know what socialism was either. Since socialism is misunderstood there are not many if any well known defenders of socialism. So you have a large influential group in america that attacks socialism and no one in america to fight for socialism.
"No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory." - Murray Rothbard, Cited from "War, Peace, and the State"
Why is that placed near a memorial to the Embassy issue exactly? That had nothing to do with socialism even remotely.
All of the information that is currently presented for the memorial is in the picture. I will say it used to say "Vote Romney," but was changed to this after the election.
I did not inquire further, but I would guess the person who set up the memorial felt that the statement spoke for itself. And--I would guess--many Americans would agree nothing more needs to be said.
The spray painted cargo containers used to say that or the memorial? The former I assume, right?
Yes, the spray painted cargo containers started out with "Vote Romney." But changed to "Socialism is bad" after the election. The person owns a small farm at the end of my road.
I was seriously expecting this to be a Swagzi topic. Something with a poll at least.
Seriously I don't see much problem in the production of goods and services directly for use rather than for the sake of maximum profit, and in some cases (particularly with small organisations like villages, or stuff which is vital for the continued functioning of a nation like road repair) it might be significantly more efficient than capitalism.
Of course, state-controlled socialism could be problematic if you've got a terrible government, but it's not like capitalist systems can't be gamed by the rich and powerful.
@OP: I'm pretty sure the generic US rage response whenever social anythings are mentioned is a holdover from the cold war or something like that. I'm also pretty certain that America isn't socialist in any significant form so I doubt this guy is really stating anything relevant to his immediate situation.
I don't have a problem with socialism as long as I'm not forced to participate. If a group of people want to socialize their gains and losses that's fine just leave me out.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory." - Murray Rothbard, Cited from "War, Peace, and the State"
'Socialism' isn't 'bad'. As a pure system of government it is, but all pure systems of government are horrible ideas. Checking the excessive qualities of one system with another is the best way to create a stable society. Human beings will always have opposing points of view, and rarely is anyone smart enough to figure out what works - but the clash of those points of view often creates a healthy medium everyone can at least tolerate.
Socializing a specific system (Healthcare) is about a value judgment regarding how essential a system is. Most developed countries made the value judgment that healthcare and human life is more important than a standard 'widget', and have taken some sort of steps to socialize the system.
You can't really just "opt out" of your society. The people around you invest their time, energy, and the world's finite resources into raising you, educating you, and making you into a person that works well with society. It is a basic tenant of the existence of social law that you are bound by the will of others.
Socialism in the abstract it just the consequences of recognizing that we work better and with less waste when we take care of each other. Even people who claim "socialism is bad" will find themselves asking for support from society when they are in need. They are entitled to it because society has invested in them.
In other words, socialism is just reinvesting in the things you're already invested in. Sometimes it's a good idea, sometimes it isn't, but there isn't anything intrinsically wrong with it. There is no need to buy into fervent rhetoric and denounce things as "socialist" like it's a bad thing.
That's be like saying "turning left" is a bad thing. "It's entirely unnecessary! Just turn right a bunch of times!" Why restrict yourself like that? Just do what needs to be done.
Undisputed thinks he can - and then he claims that things that he was given without his asking for was provided by "criminals" thus he owes them nothing in recompense when he opts out.
Socializing a specific system (Healthcare) is about a value judgment regarding how essential a system is. Most developed countries made the value judgment that healthcare and human life is more important than a standard 'widget', and have taken some sort of steps to socialize the system.
I'm going to focus on healthcare since that is what most of the anti-socialist arguments are about these days.
Our current healthcare market is anything but free. It's hard to compare a free or controlled market to a market that has 1) nearly endless government money injected into it 2) artificial price floors 3) a huge barrier to entry so high the idea of reverting to cash for medical services seems foreign to most.
The vast majority of Americans have not saved enough money to even handle basic maintenance on their cars much less an emergency surgery.
We live in a strange dichotomy where we are victimized by the insurance industry and yet don't trust the government to offer a solution.
The simple truth is Americans aren't ready to stomach the cost, the invasion of privacy, and the cold reality of rationing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Out of the blackness and stench of the engulfing swamp emerged a shimmering figure. Only the splattered armor and ichor-stained sword hinted at the unfathomable evil the knight had just laid waste.
I'm also pretty certain that America isn't socialist in any significant form so I doubt this guy is really stating anything relevant to his immediate situation.
Ok, so this is just a thought I'd like to explore:
- The Constitution is a socialist document.
It's a document that establishes the laws people must abide by to live freely in the USA. It establishes powers given to the various branches of government, and by that token, established our government. Democratic government is in essence a socialist idea (a governing body for the people composed of the people).
America IS our Constitution (in a manner of speaking). If that’s true (and I don’t know that it is), then wouldn’t simply having a government make a country inherently socialistic? By definition you might say.
The funny thing about that sign (“Socialism is bad”), is that is was probably put in a place that can be seen by people driving on a public road…paid for by tax dollars in a very socialistic way. This dumbass can't even get to his house without utilizing socialism. People are ignorant or greedy or both, what can you do.
Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
The person owns a small farm at the end of my road.
Can you put up something that says "CAPITALISM ALSO HAS ITS FLAWS"?
I think one thing that generates this sentiment in the US comes from the fact that a lot of people are ignorant about a lot of topics. I'd imagine a lot of people don't really understand what exactly Socialism is. I get the feeling that people see Socialism as somehow being the opposite of Democracy, as opposed to being the opposite of Capitalism.
I also think the right has done an effective job defaming the word "Socialism" to the point that even non-right people view it as a bad thing. This is kind of like what was done to the word "liberal", to the point that a re-branding was in order and the term "progressive" began to emerge. Maybe Socialism needs a new label? We could call it "Sharing". Then that guy with the sign would just look like a selfish jerk.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love." --Carl Sagan
Socializing a specific system (Healthcare) is about a value judgment regarding how essential a system is. Most developed countries made the value judgment that healthcare and human life is more important than a standard 'widget', and have taken some sort of steps to socialize the system.
I'm going to focus on healthcare since that is what most of the anti-socialist arguments are about these days.
Haha, I'll never forget listening to a guy on unemployment rant about Obama's socialist policies while bowling.
Our current healthcare market is anything but free. It's hard to compare a free or controlled market to a market that has 1) nearly endless government money injected into it 2) artificial price floors 3) a huge barrier to entry so high the idea of reverting to cash for medical services seems foreign to most.
The vast majority of Americans have not saved enough money to even handle basic maintenance on their cars much less an emergency surgery.
We live in a strange dichotomy where we are victimized by the insurance industry and yet don't trust the government to offer a solution.
The simple truth is Americans aren't ready to stomach the cost, the invasion of privacy, and the cold reality of rationing.
And unfortunately that means the problem is only going to get worse, not better. The American people haven't decided to **** or get off the pot about healthcare, and the half-measures are what is actually costing us more.
Healthcare is the only system where I'm in support of socialization - I view it as a logical extension of public safety. That is not to say I'm in support of unrestricted socialization of healthcare, either. Like I said in my previous post, balancing the system is important.
The person owns a small farm at the end of my road.
Can you put up something that says "CAPITALISM ALSO HAS ITS FLAWS"?
I think one thing that generates this sentiment in the US comes from the fact that a lot of people are ignorant about a lot of topics. I'd imagine a lot of people don't really understand what exactly Socialism is. I get the feeling that people see Socialism as somehow being the opposite of Democracy, as opposed to being the opposite of Capitalism.
I also think the right has done an effective job defaming the word "Socialism" to the point that even non-right people view it as a bad thing. This is kind of like what was done to the word "liberal", to the point that a re-branding was in order and the term "progressive" began to emerge. Maybe Socialism needs a new label? We could call it "Sharing". Then that guy with the sign would just look like a selfish jerk.
Democracy is part of the problem and has led this country down the path of socialism. The US doesn't function as a republic anymore, it has descended into mob rule where the majority persecutes the minority.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory." - Murray Rothbard, Cited from "War, Peace, and the State"
Socialism is necessary to function in a capitalistic society. It really really is. There is no pure free market socialistic society....well not a legal one anyway. The black market and drug operations are actually purely capitalistic with zero taxes (most of the time) and have no restrictions that actually are followed.
But captialism is a very good system that drives the economy. Things I feel should be socialized.
1) Police/army- already is. yay
2) Schools- We're getting there. We have k-12 and we need to make them a lot better. our education system sucks bawlz
3) Courts/legal system- obvious
4) Roads/bridges/government buildings- also obvious.
5) Healthcare- Its a basic human need. Why not make it a basic human right?
I don't like the socilization of other parts of the country. However there seems to be a very common misconception that Taxes= Socialism which is not true.
I think a lot of the problems are the less intelligent believe socialism is communism because that is what the right has been saying for years. As a matter of fact Reagen or Nixon(can't remember which atm) said that smoking pot turns people into communist to sway public opinion about pot.
This continues with pretty much everything.
As far as being a socialistic society we are getting close to being at the right spot between a Fascist republic and a socialist democracy. We really need universal healthcare like Canada and other first world progressive countries. We also need to spend more money on education. Be it paying for most to go to college(like several other first world countries) or making some sort training program for certificates, and trade workers.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."
Our Military spending was between 1 and 1.4 trillion dollars in 2012 alone. In 2011 the spending on Education was just shy of 70 billion. What this tells me is the government wants us to be militaristic but stupid. They are training soldiers.
The democrats want more government but also more education and less military action. The republicans want less government but also less education and more military. So they both seem misguided to a degree.
I'd like to see a 400 billion dollar cut to defense spending and have a 100 billion dollar increase in education spending. Thus resulting in a 300 billion dollar cut. Re-configures which parts of the social programs that will do the most good. Very little of the military budget goes to helping the economy. Every dime that goes into the education budget shapes our economy 20 years in the future. So the projected results for higher education spending won't be felt for at least 4-10 years and the full effects probably not for 20.
Let also remember that as distasteful as it might sound arms procurement is big business and if you good at it you can influence global politics greatly. I do not think the Us is going to give up such a amount of influence easily.
Democracy is part of the problem and has led this country down the path of socialism. The US doesn't function as a republic anymore, it has descended into mob rule where the majority persecutes the minority.
The US is a democratic republic. You vote for representatives and have a president as the head of state. This false dichotomy between "democracy" and "republic" is the silliest thing.
Our "representatives" have no intention of upholding the constitution and regularly trample it to give the majority whatever they want (so they can get re-elected). The constitution was written so that certain freedoms were protected from oppression of the majority. This no longer takes place.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory." - Murray Rothbard, Cited from "War, Peace, and the State"
Democracy is part of the problem and has led this country down the path of socialism. The US doesn't function as a republic anymore, it has descended into mob rule where the majority persecutes the minority.
The US is a democratic republic. You vote for representatives and have a president as the head of state. This false dichotomy between "democracy" and "republic" is the silliest thing.
A republic and a democracy aren't necessarily the same thing, a republic is a descendant of an aristocracy and a democracy. The burdens of an Athenian democracy basically had the very rich and very poor, namely the two that had the most leisure time, had the most clout in government.
A democracy is a rabble and a charlatan form of government, much akin to a pure aristocracy.
Democracy is part of the problem and has led this country down the path of socialism. The US doesn't function as a republic anymore, it has descended into mob rule where the majority persecutes the minority.
The US is a democratic republic. You vote for representatives and have a president as the head of state. This false dichotomy between "democracy" and "republic" is the silliest thing.
Our "representatives" have no intention of upholding the constitution and regularly trample it to give the majority whatever they want (so they can get re-elected). The constitution was written so that certain freedoms were protected from oppression of the majority. This no longer takes place.
Thus far, your own interpretation of "constitutional" also wanes on "tax is theft" and other what not's which aren't really pro-constitution, either.
Tyranny of the majority would be akin to the racial prejudice and undertones, whereas tyranny of the minority becomes rather apparent in the Articles of Confederation and individual state assemblies. Which, frankly, outside of the a few academics don't get much coverage or anything under the Articles era government, either.
Equally, the entire discussion over American federalism has multiple camps and even what it means to "interpret the Constitution." One of the primary Austro-libertarian sentiments has been the concept of the usurpation of Congressional powers by the executive and judicial branch. The judicial branch seen as "unelected officials" and other concepts to try and have more power in the legislative branch, which right now seems the most dysfunctional.
Equally, the support for the Articles of Confederation, which is more of a Rothbardian approach, connotes again the usurpation of the government to be controlled by a legislative branch. And that is wherein the danger comes in from the Congressional authority to hide behind "inept bureaucrats."
And a large side note about the old system without the welfare state, in that under the old system there was the Spoils System and the whole patronage and patriarchy package. The welfare state helped to destroy the local political controls, but did not help to usher in more competition on the local level, either.
One of the missing components in the political system has been the germination of one party communities, with the work being primarily in the primaries on who is going to win the election.
While I'm not one for Tuss' politics, but I will give his country some credit. They've learned the art of governance for their own lands, and have been able to update their social contract. The Americans and Chinese and Indians could and other Great Powers could at times defer more to other nations that seem to have the ends as well as the means. Deference does not also means to copy 100%, but to look at them.
There's a whole world betwixt anarchist and socialist, and to a large degree anarchy does work in somethings and fails in others while socialism fails in one aspect but succeeds where anarchism has failed. The reality is often muddled, and renegotiated with each passing generation. Right now we have an idiot generate in charge, that too shall pass.
Thus far, your own interpretation of "constitutional" also wanes on "tax is theft" and other what not's which aren't really pro-constitution, either.
Its true I think the constitution is a dismal failure and empowers the government more than I would like it to. It was intended to be a cage limiting it's power and has failed due to in part by loose interpretations of our robed oligarchy on the supreme court and by open defiance by those who are supposedly sworn to uphold and protect it.
Tyranny of the majority would be akin to the racial prejudice and undertones, whereas tyranny of the minority becomes rather apparent in the Articles of Confederation and individual state assemblies. Which, frankly, outside of the a few academics don't get much coverage or anything under the Articles era government, either.
Situations where politicians are elected primarily because they openly admit to plans for stealing from a small segment of society via an unconstitutional income tax are also examples of tyranny of the majority. Infringement on second amendment rights in my home state is also tyranny of the majority.
Equally, the entire discussion over American federalism has multiple camps and even what it means to "interpret the Constitution." One of the primary Austro-libertarian sentiments has been the concept of the usurpation of Congressional powers by the executive and judicial branch. The judicial branch seen as "unelected officials" and other concepts to try and have more power in the legislative branch, which right now seems the most dysfunctional.
Equally, the support for the Articles of Confederation, which is more of a Rothbardian approach, connotes again the usurpation of the government to be controlled by a legislative branch. And that is wherein the danger comes in from the Congressional authority to hide behind "inept bureaucrats."
The whole "checks and balances" in the US government is a joke. All three branches of government collude against the American public using any means necessary (including exploiting crises) to seize more power.
And a large side note about the old system without the welfare state, in that under the old system there was the Spoils System and the whole patronage and patriarchy package. The welfare state helped to destroy the local political controls, but did not help to usher in more competition on the local level, either.
One of the missing components in the political system has been the germination of one party communities, with the work being primarily in the primaries on who is going to win the election.
I don't quite understand, might need further clarification.
While I'm not one for Tuss' politics, but I will give his country some credit. They've learned the art of governance for their own lands, and have been able to update their social contract. The Americans and Chinese and Indians could and other Great Powers could at times defer more to other nations that seem to have the ends as well as the means. Deference does not also means to copy 100%, but to look at them.
I can't really comment, I know nothing about Sweden.
There's a whole world betwixt anarchist and socialist, and to a large degree anarchy does work in somethings and fails in others while socialism fails in one aspect but succeeds where anarchism has failed. The reality is often muddled, and renegotiated with each passing generation. Right now we have an idiot generate in charge, that too shall pass.
Do you mean the baby boomers?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory." - Murray Rothbard, Cited from "War, Peace, and the State"
How is the income tax that is an amendment to the constitutionunconstitutional? I do not think you know what that word means.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Asking people to remove quotes in their signatures is tyranny! If I can't say something just because someone's feelings are hurt then no one would ever be able to say anything! Political correctness is stupid.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
But, why does it come as no surprise?
I was hoping we could discuss not only the truth or falsity of the statement, but also why it resonates so well with many Americans. Is it good or bad that it does?
So, I was hoping we could talk not only about the declaration "Socialism is Bad," but also why this person felt it was appropriate to display it as such (since it's not vandalism, but a proud memorial he set up a while back).
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
All of the information that is currently presented for the memorial is in the picture. I will say it used to say "Vote Romney," but was changed to this after the election.
I did not inquire further, but I would guess the person who set up the memorial felt that the statement spoke for itself. And--I would guess--many Americans would agree nothing more needs to be said.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
Yes, the spray painted cargo containers started out with "Vote Romney." But changed to "Socialism is bad" after the election. The person owns a small farm at the end of my road.
Seriously I don't see much problem in the production of goods and services directly for use rather than for the sake of maximum profit, and in some cases (particularly with small organisations like villages, or stuff which is vital for the continued functioning of a nation like road repair) it might be significantly more efficient than capitalism.
Of course, state-controlled socialism could be problematic if you've got a terrible government, but it's not like capitalist systems can't be gamed by the rich and powerful.
@OP: I'm pretty sure the generic US rage response whenever social anythings are mentioned is a holdover from the cold war or something like that. I'm also pretty certain that America isn't socialist in any significant form so I doubt this guy is really stating anything relevant to his immediate situation.
Art is life itself.
Socializing a specific system (Healthcare) is about a value judgment regarding how essential a system is. Most developed countries made the value judgment that healthcare and human life is more important than a standard 'widget', and have taken some sort of steps to socialize the system.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Socialism in the abstract it just the consequences of recognizing that we work better and with less waste when we take care of each other. Even people who claim "socialism is bad" will find themselves asking for support from society when they are in need. They are entitled to it because society has invested in them.
In other words, socialism is just reinvesting in the things you're already invested in. Sometimes it's a good idea, sometimes it isn't, but there isn't anything intrinsically wrong with it. There is no need to buy into fervent rhetoric and denounce things as "socialist" like it's a bad thing.
That's be like saying "turning left" is a bad thing. "It's entirely unnecessary! Just turn right a bunch of times!" Why restrict yourself like that? Just do what needs to be done.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
I'm going to focus on healthcare since that is what most of the anti-socialist arguments are about these days.
Our current healthcare market is anything but free. It's hard to compare a free or controlled market to a market that has 1) nearly endless government money injected into it 2) artificial price floors 3) a huge barrier to entry so high the idea of reverting to cash for medical services seems foreign to most.
The vast majority of Americans have not saved enough money to even handle basic maintenance on their cars much less an emergency surgery.
We live in a strange dichotomy where we are victimized by the insurance industry and yet don't trust the government to offer a solution.
The simple truth is Americans aren't ready to stomach the cost, the invasion of privacy, and the cold reality of rationing.
Ok, so this is just a thought I'd like to explore:
- The Constitution is a socialist document.
It's a document that establishes the laws people must abide by to live freely in the USA. It establishes powers given to the various branches of government, and by that token, established our government. Democratic government is in essence a socialist idea (a governing body for the people composed of the people).
America IS our Constitution (in a manner of speaking). If that’s true (and I don’t know that it is), then wouldn’t simply having a government make a country inherently socialistic? By definition you might say.
The funny thing about that sign (“Socialism is bad”), is that is was probably put in a place that can be seen by people driving on a public road…paid for by tax dollars in a very socialistic way. This dumbass can't even get to his house without utilizing socialism. People are ignorant or greedy or both, what can you do.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
Can you put up something that says "CAPITALISM ALSO HAS ITS FLAWS"?
I think one thing that generates this sentiment in the US comes from the fact that a lot of people are ignorant about a lot of topics. I'd imagine a lot of people don't really understand what exactly Socialism is. I get the feeling that people see Socialism as somehow being the opposite of Democracy, as opposed to being the opposite of Capitalism.
I also think the right has done an effective job defaming the word "Socialism" to the point that even non-right people view it as a bad thing. This is kind of like what was done to the word "liberal", to the point that a re-branding was in order and the term "progressive" began to emerge. Maybe Socialism needs a new label? We could call it "Sharing". Then that guy with the sign would just look like a selfish jerk.
Haha, I'll never forget listening to a guy on unemployment rant about Obama's socialist policies while bowling.
And unfortunately that means the problem is only going to get worse, not better. The American people haven't decided to **** or get off the pot about healthcare, and the half-measures are what is actually costing us more.
Healthcare is the only system where I'm in support of socialization - I view it as a logical extension of public safety. That is not to say I'm in support of unrestricted socialization of healthcare, either. Like I said in my previous post, balancing the system is important.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Democracy is part of the problem and has led this country down the path of socialism. The US doesn't function as a republic anymore, it has descended into mob rule where the majority persecutes the minority.
But captialism is a very good system that drives the economy. Things I feel should be socialized.
1) Police/army- already is. yay
2) Schools- We're getting there. We have k-12 and we need to make them a lot better. our education system sucks bawlz
3) Courts/legal system- obvious
4) Roads/bridges/government buildings- also obvious.
5) Healthcare- Its a basic human need. Why not make it a basic human right?
I don't like the socilization of other parts of the country. However there seems to be a very common misconception that Taxes= Socialism which is not true.
This continues with pretty much everything.
As far as being a socialistic society we are getting close to being at the right spot between a Fascist republic and a socialist democracy. We really need universal healthcare like Canada and other first world progressive countries. We also need to spend more money on education. Be it paying for most to go to college(like several other first world countries) or making some sort training program for certificates, and trade workers.
Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson's letter to John Adams, April 11 1823
The democrats want more government but also more education and less military action. The republicans want less government but also less education and more military. So they both seem misguided to a degree.
I'd like to see a 400 billion dollar cut to defense spending and have a 100 billion dollar increase in education spending. Thus resulting in a 300 billion dollar cut. Re-configures which parts of the social programs that will do the most good. Very little of the military budget goes to helping the economy. Every dime that goes into the education budget shapes our economy 20 years in the future. So the projected results for higher education spending won't be felt for at least 4-10 years and the full effects probably not for 20.
Our "representatives" have no intention of upholding the constitution and regularly trample it to give the majority whatever they want (so they can get re-elected). The constitution was written so that certain freedoms were protected from oppression of the majority. This no longer takes place.
A republic and a democracy aren't necessarily the same thing, a republic is a descendant of an aristocracy and a democracy. The burdens of an Athenian democracy basically had the very rich and very poor, namely the two that had the most leisure time, had the most clout in government.
A democracy is a rabble and a charlatan form of government, much akin to a pure aristocracy.
Thus far, your own interpretation of "constitutional" also wanes on "tax is theft" and other what not's which aren't really pro-constitution, either.
Tyranny of the majority would be akin to the racial prejudice and undertones, whereas tyranny of the minority becomes rather apparent in the Articles of Confederation and individual state assemblies. Which, frankly, outside of the a few academics don't get much coverage or anything under the Articles era government, either.
Equally, the entire discussion over American federalism has multiple camps and even what it means to "interpret the Constitution." One of the primary Austro-libertarian sentiments has been the concept of the usurpation of Congressional powers by the executive and judicial branch. The judicial branch seen as "unelected officials" and other concepts to try and have more power in the legislative branch, which right now seems the most dysfunctional.
Equally, the support for the Articles of Confederation, which is more of a Rothbardian approach, connotes again the usurpation of the government to be controlled by a legislative branch. And that is wherein the danger comes in from the Congressional authority to hide behind "inept bureaucrats."
And a large side note about the old system without the welfare state, in that under the old system there was the Spoils System and the whole patronage and patriarchy package. The welfare state helped to destroy the local political controls, but did not help to usher in more competition on the local level, either.
One of the missing components in the political system has been the germination of one party communities, with the work being primarily in the primaries on who is going to win the election.
While I'm not one for Tuss' politics, but I will give his country some credit. They've learned the art of governance for their own lands, and have been able to update their social contract. The Americans and Chinese and Indians could and other Great Powers could at times defer more to other nations that seem to have the ends as well as the means. Deference does not also means to copy 100%, but to look at them.
There's a whole world betwixt anarchist and socialist, and to a large degree anarchy does work in somethings and fails in others while socialism fails in one aspect but succeeds where anarchism has failed. The reality is often muddled, and renegotiated with each passing generation. Right now we have an idiot generate in charge, that too shall pass.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Its true I think the constitution is a dismal failure and empowers the government more than I would like it to. It was intended to be a cage limiting it's power and has failed due to in part by loose interpretations of our robed oligarchy on the supreme court and by open defiance by those who are supposedly sworn to uphold and protect it.
Situations where politicians are elected primarily because they openly admit to plans for stealing from a small segment of society via an unconstitutional income tax are also examples of tyranny of the majority. Infringement on second amendment rights in my home state is also tyranny of the majority.
The whole "checks and balances" in the US government is a joke. All three branches of government collude against the American public using any means necessary (including exploiting crises) to seize more power.
I don't quite understand, might need further clarification.
I can't really comment, I know nothing about Sweden.
Do you mean the baby boomers?