Democratic Socialism in the U.S and How to Pay for It?

[Mongeley]

Doesn't seem like straw at all when you've gone out of your way to defend the private groups that committed massacres on behalf of business owners.

It'd be good for the sake of discussion for you to search on the term "tit-for-tat".

Ok, so first you asked for evidence of private actors causing violence, you even went so far as to state that they acted nonviolently, as a matter of fact. So now, when presented with evidence of the contrary, you switch the goal post to “tit-for-tat”?

"I-it was all the government! Pay no attention to the Pinkertons!"

For some weird reason the private reaction was noted to being limited to peaceful/non-lethal methods in order to reestablish order. It was the government, not evil cappies, who fired machine guns towards the strikes :^)

[Jelmatt]

And how do you plan on enforcing those rules?

The community would collectively enforce them, duh.

...what makes the community not count as a ruler, in this instance? Collective rulership is still.rulership.

[Torrocca]

The community would collectively enforce them, duh.

...what makes the community not count as a ruler, in this instance? Collective rulership is still.rulership.

Direct participatory democracy AKA democracy by consensus is seen to not be a system of hierarchy, which is what Anarchism explicitly strives for. A system of rules agreed on by consensus, therefore, would not be a hierarchical system wherein there'd be rulers.

[Ifreann]

Did you mean: "It's okay to murder people so long as they're striking workers because they're not actually people and only if private security forces do it because government violence is bad but private violence is good :^)"?

The fresh smell of straw in the morning.

Straw can't be fresh.

[West Leas Oros 2]

The fresh smell of straw in the morning.

Straw can't be fresh.

You don’t know straw. You gotta be a straw-man! Are you a man of straw? :^]

[Great Minarchistan]

But let's not let facts, such as your defense of hired guns committing murders against striking workers, override feels here.

Nice assumption.

[Great Minarchistan]

It'd be good for the sake of discussion for you to search on the term "tit-for-tat".

Ok, so first you asked for evidence of private actors causing violence, you even went so far as to state that they acted nonviolently, as a matter of fact. So now, when presented with evidence of the contrary, you switch the goal post to “tit-for-tat”?

For some weird reason the private reaction was noted to being limited to peaceful/non-lethal methods in order to reestablish order. It was the government, not evil cappies, who fired machine guns towards the strikes :^)

When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?

[Mystic Warriors]

Because the healthcare industry overcharges people tremendously because
1. You either pay us or you die.
2. The insurance company soaks up most of the costs
3. "We might get sued therefore we need tons of extra money for legal things.
4. Some people can't pay so we must overcharge everyone else to make up for it.

I respect you giving me something. Taking on Canadas system should resolve this. You are right, a former EMT told me ambulances overcharge people on purpose, just to make up for those who dont pay or cant.

[Torrocca]

But let's not let facts, such as your defense of hired guns committing murders against striking workers, override feels here.

Nice assumption.

You: "The private gunmen were peaceful!"
Me: "No they weren't, here's proof, stop defending them."
You: "Nice assumption that I was defending them, nerd! :^)(^:"

[Ifreann]

Straw can't be fresh.

You don’t know straw. You gotta be a straw-man! Are you a man of straw? :^]

[Great Minarchistan]

Nice assumption.

You: "The private gunmen were peaceful!"
Me: "No they weren't, here's proof, stop defending them."
You: "Nice assumption that I was defending them, nerd! :^)(^:"

Stating that they were peaceful doesn't imply any personal leaning on the matter being discussed, nice projection.

[Torrocca]

You: "The private gunmen were peaceful!"
Me: "No they weren't, here's proof, stop defending them."
You: "Nice assumption that I was defending them, nerd! :^)(^:"

Stating that they were peaceful doesn't imply any personal leaning on the matter being discussed, nice projection.

Sure it doesn't, not at all, especially when your statements run contrary to the documented cases of murders they committed.

[Great Minarchistan]

Stating that they were peaceful doesn't imply any personal leaning on the matter being discussed, nice projection.

Sure it doesn't, not at all, especially when your statements run contrary to the documented cases of murders they committed.

[Thanatttynia]

But you can get those rights, even under capitalism.

Mainly under capitalism, whose trend of natural capital accumulation soon trickles down into better life conditions for the working class.

Ah yes, trickle-down human rights.

People intent on breaking them will find a way. My point, though, was that if you believe in natural rights then you should also believe that the constitutions of individual countries have absolutely no bearing on the rights that we have, only whether those rights will be respected.

If you knew what natural rights were, then you would conclude that natural rights are inherently negative by their nature, as opposed to positive rights where the government/someone is mandated to provide X for you.

If you knew what natural rights were, then you would conclude that natural rights 'are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are universal and inalienable (they cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws).'

Basic life conditions are achieved by other people respecting the basic life conditions you're entitled to. Capital accumulation doesn't come into it. Stop trying to inject economics where they're not relevant.

Good luck living on a shack or sleeping while looking at the bare sky since capital accumulation is so irrelevant. The state of nature isn't 3000kcal a day and a 50" flatscreen, it's hypothermia with 0kcal a day. If you want a high gdp lifestyle then get a high gdp yourself.

Capital accumulation is irrelevant when discussing human rights. They exist whether or not we accumulate capital; they can be respected whether or not we accumulate capital. Certain positive rights are dependent on there being in place certain structures, yes, but capital accumulation is not the only way to achieve such structures.

[Torrocca]

Sure it doesn't, not at all, especially when your statements run contrary to the documented cases of murders they committed.

Apparently, you don't follow Keynes philosophy, but instead, double down when presented with evidence to the contrary. An example:

-snipped quotes-

SO MUCH FOR PEACEFUL PRIVATE SECURITY OPERATIVES AMIRITE

The police guard shot the private agents, not the contrary :^)

No proof or substance behind such an argument, just a dorito.

[Mongeley]

Sure it doesn't, not at all, especially when your statements run contrary to the documented cases of murders they committed.

-snip-

Facts don’t “change”, you’re arguing for things you’re not informed on.

[Great Minarchistan]

Ah yes, trickle-down human rights.

Whatever happened to the relevance on the increase of productivity and the fall of poverty rates

If you knew what natural rights were, then you would conclude that natural rights 'are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are universal and inalienable (they cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws).'

I was mistaken in there. Fundamental rights are the ones guaranteed constitutionally and reliant on customs.

Capital accumulation is irrelevant when discussing human rights. They exist whether or not we accumulate capital;

Good luck trying to claim your rights on a poor-ass area. Without effective capital accumulation and increase on the wealth of nations, human rights become nothing but some beautiful tale that can't be enforced.

they can be respected whether or not we accumulate capital.

Try putting that on practice with a failed society whose accumulated capital is poor enough not to maintain the basic functions of the State.

Certain positive rights are dependent on there being in place certain structures, yes, but capital accumulation is not the only way to achieve such structures.

What are the other ways? Pixie dust and goodwill?

[Great Minarchistan]

-snip-

Facts don’t “change”, you’re arguing for things you’re not informed on.

Relative knowledge of facts do change. Which is precisely my point.

Anyways, exiting the threadjack...

[Thanatttynia]

Ah yes, trickle-down human rights.

Whatever happened to the relevance on the increase of productivity and the fall of poverty rates

Poverty rates fell because of social movements and laws tackling poverty. There isn't some magical inverse law that means as productivity increases, poverty rates fall. As productivity increases, the people who own the means of production get richer.

Capital accumulation is irrelevant when discussing human rights. They exist whether or not we accumulate capital;

Good luck trying to claim your rights on a poor-ass area. Without effective capital accumulation and increase on the wealth of nations, human rights become nothing but some beautiful tale that can't be enforced.

Human rights can't be respected under non-capitalist systems?

they can be respected whether or not we accumulate capital.

Try putting that on practice with a failed society whose accumulated capital is poor enough not to maintain the basic functions of the State.

Most human rights can be respected anywhere. As I conceded, some positive rights are dependent on certain structures (throughout history most often provided by the state) being in place.

Certain positive rights are dependent on there being in place certain structures, yes, but capital accumulation is not the only way to achieve such structures.

What are the other ways? Pixie dust and goodwill?

The right to healthcare, for example, is one of the most tricky. It requires a structure of healthcare being in place. But such a structure isn't dependent on capital accumulation, unless by capital accumulation you literally mean gathering anything. This right could be respected, hypothetically, by people gathering natural remedies to treat injured people.

[Great Minarchistan]

Poverty rates fell because of social movements and laws tackling poverty. There isn't some magical inverse law that means as productivity increases, poverty rates fall. As productivity increases, the people who own the means of production get richer.

Empirical assessment proves your notion wrong.

Human rights can't be respected under non-capitalist systems?

They can, but are likely to fail in the medium run due to the depletion of accumulated capital.

Most human rights can be respected anywhere. As I conceded, some positive rights are dependent on certain structures (throughout history most often provided by the state) being in place.

Positive rights are, by nature, juridical entitlements granted by the State. A State that can't live up to its promises due to the lack of accumulated capital within the jurisdiction inevitably fails and disappears.

The right to healthcare, for example, is one of the most tricky. It requires a structure of healthcare being in place. But such a structure isn't dependent on capital accumulation, unless by capital accumulation you literally mean gathering anything. This right could be respected, hypothetically, by people gathering natural remedies to treat injured people.

>What is capital accumulation
Also, implying you don't need accumulated capital to provide high-quality healthcare. Who will finance the drugs, the fixed structure of the buildings, the equipments, the hospital beds, the workers, the emergency services et. c.

[New haven america]

You: "The private gunmen were peaceful!"
Me: "No they weren't, here's proof, stop defending them."
You: "Nice assumption that I was defending them, nerd! :^)(^:"

Stating that they were peaceful doesn't imply any personal leaning on the matter being discussed

Yes it does.

Especially since it's coming from you.

[Great Minarchistan]

Stating that they were peaceful doesn't imply any personal leaning on the matter being discussed

Yes it does.

Especially since it's coming from you.

"No uUuUuUuuUU"

[The Republic of Fore]

1. Forcing everyone to have piss poor health insurance isn't improving anything. 2. Also have fun explaining to your voters why you cost them their job when Walmart closes down all It's stores. Because no retail or other low end job is going to be paying 25 an hour in a major city.

1. Funny you mention that, because the US has the worst healthcare system in the world, precisely because of insurance. Replicate Canada's system, I've heard no real complaints from actual Canadians about it, and even the problems that do exist pale in comparison to the problems in the American system. Canadians, on the whole, even the ones that do complain about the problems in their system, realize this. This is why you have no real campaigns in Canada to dismantle their health system, because everyone can see the result of that just across the border.

2. Ah, the whole "wealth flight" thing (unless you're trying to foolishly argue that Walmart cannot afford to pay its workers a living wage). My solution to that is simple. Seize the assets, and fairly redistribute them to groups of workers interested in forming worker-owned cooperatives. Workers keep their jobs, probably with more pay and better benefits than previously, and consumers get the services without price increases.

1. Public opinion is irrelevant. Popularity has nothing to do with quality. Just look at the film industry.
2.So your solution is something that will never actually happen in reality. Good to know. Then again, I'd imagine that's a socialist's solution to most problems. Also, there's no such thing as fairly redistributing anything when it had to be stolen in the first place. When your job is literally being replaced by machines, you don't have much room to whine about how you deserve more.

[New Min]

Can we please stop calling Bernie etc. democratic socialists, because suprise suprise, they aren't. They are social democrats.
Democratic socialism is an ideology based on achieving socialism through democratic means, social democracy is an ideology based on capitalism with a welfare state.

[Soritarius]

Or we could abandon democratic socialism all together because it's a belief system for fascist sympathizers and Rosa-Killers.