LWDT IX: Discussing the Left From All Engels

[Cisairse]

The DSA largely just wants more welfare handouts anyways. Many DSA are often more “the government should pay my tuition even if I just get smashed and do not even show up to class, government should pay for my Starbucks to help with my hang” over actual “revolution” or even socialism.

The DSA is largely just want a Nordic style welfare state, MINUS the social obligations it requires to work (tell the many DSA Sweden has conscription and their mind would be utterly blown).

Conscription has literally nothing to do with it.

"government should pay for my Starbucks", Jesus Christ, this is like some Fox News, Boomer type shit.

To be fair, a lot of DSA members who joined due to Bernie's campaign sending them there are hovering around the legal voting age and are pretty unqualified to talk about socialist theory. Many of them understand little regarding the topics they espouse.

This not the case for chapter and national leadership. But a lot of the ground solders of DSA are pretty naive. The YDSA in particular is super cringy.

[Duvniask]

Conscription has literally nothing to do with it.

"government should pay for my Starbucks", Jesus Christ, this is like some Fox News, Boomer type shit.

To be fair, a lot of DSA members who joined due to Bernie's campaign sending them there are hovering around the legal voting age and are pretty unqualified to talk about socialist theory. Many of them understand little regarding the topics they espouse.

This not the case for chapter and national leadership. But a lot of the ground solders of DSA are pretty naive. The YDSA in particular is super cringy.

Show me anything that indicates these people are more naive than the average Joe, then. Especially the average American.

And yes, these people are little more than social democratcs, or even social democrats-lite, but how the fuck is this reason to dismiss their concerns? It's just dumb Boomer shit to suggest they only want Starbucks and party money under the disguise of tuition payments.

[Cisairse]

To be fair, a lot of DSA members who joined due to Bernie's campaign sending them there are hovering around the legal voting age and are pretty unqualified to talk about socialist theory. Many of them understand little regarding the topics they espouse.

This not the case for chapter and national leadership. But a lot of the ground solders of DSA are pretty naive. The YDSA in particular is super cringy.

Show me anything that indicates these people are more naive than the average Joe, then. Especially the average American.

I'd actually say that having a clear list of goals, even if they don't understand the policies behind those goals or the history thereof, actually makes them less naive than an average American voter. As sad as that is.

And yes, these people are little more than social democratcs, or even social democrats-lite, but how the fuck is this reason to dismiss their concerns? It's just dumb Boomer shit to suggest they only want Starbucks and party money under the disguise of tuition payments.

I 100% agree. Succdems may be succdems but everyone should have the chance to platform their opinions, and I'd rather have naive succdems in power than intelligent liberals.

[Genivaria]

The DSA largely just wants more welfare handouts anyways. Many DSA are often more “the government should pay my tuition even if I just get smashed and do not even show up to class, government should pay for my Starbucks to help with my hang” over actual “revolution” or even socialism.

The DSA is largely just want a Nordic style welfare state, MINUS the social obligations it requires to work (tell the many DSA Sweden has conscription and their mind would be utterly blown).

Conscription has literally nothing to do with it.

"government should pay for my Starbucks", Jesus Christ, this is like some Fox News, Boomer type shit.

I'd call conscription a reasonable expectation for a society that cares care of its people.
Rights come with responsibilities.

[Duvniask]

Conscription has literally nothing to do with it.

"government should pay for my Starbucks", Jesus Christ, this is like some Fox News, Boomer type shit.

I'd call conscription a reasonable expectation for a society that cares care of its people.
Rights come with responsibilities.

Conscription should only exist during wartime, or as deterrence against hostile neighbors (i.e. as in South Korea). I fail to see how my "responsibility" to be in boot camp would be worthwhile outside of that.

If you want citizens to give something back as a "responsibility" to their rights, well, first of all there's taxation; second, there are a myriad of ways to do it aside from military conscription.

[Novus America]

The DSA largely just wants more welfare handouts anyways. Many DSA are often more “the government should pay my tuition even if I just get smashed and do not even show up to class, government should pay for my Starbucks to help with my hang” over actual “revolution” or even socialism.

The DSA is largely just want a Nordic style welfare state, MINUS the social obligations it requires to work (tell the many DSA Sweden has conscription and their mind would be utterly blown).

Conscription has literally nothing to do with it.

"government should pay for my Starbucks", Jesus Christ, this is like some Fox News, Boomer type shit.

No, conscription does have a lot to do with it. I am not against social democracy, just the Sanders/DSA misunderstanding of it. Social democracy is a much more than just more welfare, it is a social contract, nothing is “free”. Society has an obligation to you, but you have obligations to society (such as fighting to defend it). Thus saying free healthcare and free college shows a complete misunderstanding of it.

That is the problem, wanting “free” stuff without paying back to society in return.

I have no problem with government subsidized education as long as it comes with strict grade and attendance requirements (do not show up for class, you should lose any government payment for the classes you missed unless you have a really good excuse) and you pay it back in contributions to society.

The truth is we have “free” college. It is called ROTC and the GI Bill.

Anecdotal but telling.
I had a class at 8 in the morning. There were maybe 150 people in the class, 15 military (obvious who was because we always wore uniforms and usually sat together).

There was no class penalty for attendance (but for military students we could be disciplined by our military program for missing class). By the middle of the semester there were only about 20 students, all 15 military and some five civilians showing up.

Why should those who did not show up get the same government funding as the military students given out greater discipline and social requirements (we did community service as well like cleaning up the campus)?

Nothing is free. If you want something without the monetary expense someone else is still paying a cost, if you are not. Society should provide for basic needs, BUT their should be societal obligations in return.

The Nordics understand that, but it seems many in the DSA might not.

[Novus America]

I'd call conscription a reasonable expectation for a society that cares care of its people.
Rights come with responsibilities.

Conscription should only exist during wartime, or as deterrence against hostile neighbors (i.e. as in South Korea). I fail to see how my "responsibility" to be in boot camp would be worthwhile outside of that.

Well I think a national Service system should have a non military alternative for those not properly qualified or motivated for military service.
But there still should be some national service obligations if society is to support you.

But conscription in wartime is usually too late, training takes time. The purpose of a two year military requirement is so that there is a massive pool of trained personnel who can be recalled in wartime.

That and to build social cohesion. That last part being critical.

[Genivaria]

I'd call conscription a reasonable expectation for a society that cares care of its people.
Rights come with responsibilities.

Conscription should only exist during wartime, or as deterrence against hostile neighbors (i.e. as in South Korea). I fail to see how my "responsibility" to be in boot camp would be worthwhile outside of that.

If you want citizens to give something back as a "responsibility" to their rights, well, first of all there's taxation; second, there are a myriad of ways to do it aside from military conscription.

Exactly why is conscription not acceptable to you?

[Cisairse]

Conscription should only exist during wartime, or as deterrence against hostile neighbors (i.e. as in South Korea). I fail to see how my "responsibility" to be in boot camp would be worthwhile outside of that.

If you want citizens to give something back as a "responsibility" to their rights, well, first of all there's taxation; second, there are a myriad of ways to do it aside from military conscription.

Exactly why is conscription not acceptable to you?

Conscripting is antithetical to personal liberty.

[Genivaria]

Exactly why is conscription not acceptable to you?

Conscripting is antithetical to personal liberty.

Lots of laws are antithetical to personal liberty, yet they are still justified.

[Dominioan]

I'd call conscription a reasonable expectation for a society that cares care of its people.
Rights come with responsibilities.

Conscription should only exist during wartime, or as deterrence against hostile neighbors (i.e. as in South Korea). I fail to see how my "responsibility" to be in boot camp would be worthwhile outside of that.

If you want citizens to give something back as a "responsibility" to their rights, well, first of all there's taxation; second, there are a myriad of ways to do it aside from military conscription.

I think conscription was stopped for a while, then brought back because of Russia.

[Cisairse]

Conscripting is antithetical to personal liberty.

Lots of laws are antithetical to personal liberty, yet they are still justified.

Sure, but most tolerable laws that restrict personal liberty are reactive (they prevent you from doing something), not proactive (they force you to do something). The former is far, far more justifiable than the latter.

[Genivaria]

Lots of laws are antithetical to personal liberty, yet they are still justified.

Sure, but most tolerable laws that restrict personal liberty are reactive (they prevent you from doing something), not proactive (they force you to do something). The former is far, far more justifiable than the latter.

You mean like forcing someone to pay taxes.

[Novus America]

Exactly why is conscription not acceptable to you?

Conscripting is antithetical to personal liberty.

Herein lies the problem. Complete individualism is antithetical to social functioning.
I do not think it should be enforce by prison, but you ability to vote and receive government college benefits should depend on your willingness to give to society in some form of national service (which would not necessarily have to be military service, as not all are suitable for military service).

[Cisairse]

Sure, but most tolerable laws that restrict personal liberty are reactive (they prevent you from doing something), not proactive (they force you to do something). The former is far, far more justifiable than the latter.

You mean like forcing someone to pay taxes.

Taxes are opt-in. You don't have to work; if you don't work, you don't have to pay taxes.

Mandatory conscription is not opt-in.

[Genivaria]

Conscripting is antithetical to personal liberty.

Herein lies the problem. Complete individualism is antithetical to social functioning.
I do not think it should be enforce by prison, but you ability to vote and receive government college benefits should depend on your willingness to give to society in some form of national service (which would not necessarily have to be military service, as not all are suitable for military service).

I completely agree with this, I like the model I've seen of 1 year of military service or 2 years of civilian service.

[Genivaria]

You mean like forcing someone to pay taxes.

Taxes are opt-in. You don't have to work; if you don't work, you don't have to pay taxes.

Mandatory conscription is not opt-in.

Where do you live where the only taxes are income taxes?

[Novus America]

Lots of laws are antithetical to personal liberty, yet they are still justified.

Sure, but most tolerable laws that restrict personal liberty are reactive (they prevent you from doing something), not proactive (they force you to do something). The former is far, far more justifiable than the latter.

What about taxes? But I actually agree you should not be forced to do the national service, but that society should give you fewer benefits in return (such as no ability to vote or get govern subsidized college) if you refuse to perform it. Thus making it fair, a voluntary social contract over force.

[Imperium Romanum Sanctis]

Exactly why is conscription not acceptable to you?

Conscripting is antithetical to personal liberty.

Then don't advocate for collectivist policies if you aren't willing to make the personal sacrifices necessary for them to work.

A welfare state only functions properly if a country's people are willing to sacrifice some personal liberties in order for the system to thrive. As has already been mentioned, the Nordic countries have a lot of social responsibilities and expectations that go hand-in-hand with their welfare model; one of which being conscription.

[Novus America]

Conscripting is antithetical to personal liberty.

Then don't advocate for collectivist policies if you aren't willing to make the personal sacrifices necessary for them to work.

A welfare state only functions properly if a country's people are willing to sacrifice some personal liberties in order for the system to thrive. As has already been mentioned, the Nordic countries have a lot of social responsibilities and expectations that go hand-in-hand with their welfare model; one of which being conscription.

Exactly. Although I consider myself somewhat a social democrat, the problem is many Americans who claim to be social democrats (or democratic socialists despite being welfare capitalists) fail to understand nothing you get is actually free.

[Dominioan]

Then don't advocate for collectivist policies if you aren't willing to make the personal sacrifices necessary for them to work.

A welfare state only functions properly if a country's people are willing to sacrifice some personal liberties in order for the system to thrive. As has already been mentioned, the Nordic countries have a lot of social responsibilities and expectations that go hand-in-hand with their welfare model; one of which being conscription.

Exactly. Although I consider myself somewhat a social democrat, the problem is many Americans who claim to be social democrats (or democratic socialists despite being welfare capitalists) fail to understand nothing you get is actually free.

Conscription is all well and good, but there should be ways out, like civilian service.

[Cisairse]

Taxes are opt-in. You don't have to work; if you don't work, you don't have to pay taxes.

Mandatory conscription is not opt-in.

Where do you live where the only taxes are income taxes?

Where I live property taxes are basically nothing more than filling out a form; I often forget that other jurisdictions have serious property taxes.

In any case, I would argue that all taxes are opt-in. You don't pay property taxes if you don't own property. You don't pay sales taxes if you don't buy things. You don't pay capital gains taxes if you don't trade stocks. Etc.

Sure, but most tolerable laws that restrict personal liberty are reactive (they prevent you from doing something), not proactive (they force you to do something). The former is far, far more justifiable than the latter.

What about taxes? But I actually agree you should not be forced to do the national service, but that society should give you fewer benefits in return (such as no ability to vote or get govern subsidized college) if you refuse to perform it. Thus making it fair, a voluntary social contract over force.

I find the idea of having conscription be a requirement to engage in government-sponsored programs mostly agreeable, assuming that you can choose economic conscription rather than military service.

[Novus America]

Exactly. Although I consider myself somewhat a social democrat, the problem is many Americans who claim to be social democrats (or democratic socialists despite being welfare capitalists) fail to understand nothing you get is actually free.

Conscription is all well and good, but there should be ways out, like civilian service.

Oh I absolutely agree, not all are physically and mental suitable for military service, or can serve best in military service.
Also the for the US our population is so massive Israel type conscription would result in an insanely huge military.

My program would count service in the Public Health Service Commission Corps and Foreign Service as military or uniformed service.
Plus have alternative civilian options available for those not properly motivated and qualified for military service.

[Imperium Romanum Sanctis]

Then don't advocate for collectivist policies if you aren't willing to make the personal sacrifices necessary for them to work.

A welfare state only functions properly if a country's people are willing to sacrifice some personal liberties in order for the system to thrive. As has already been mentioned, the Nordic countries have a lot of social responsibilities and expectations that go hand-in-hand with their welfare model; one of which being conscription.

Exactly. Although I consider myself somewhat a social democrat, the problem is many Americans who claim to be social democrats (or democratic socialists despite being welfare capitalists) fail to understand nothing you get is actually free.

Yeah, there's a bit of a cognitive dissonance where a lot of people think they can just copy-paste the Nordic welfare model to the US without having to sacrifice any personal liberties aside from higher taxes for the rich.

Especially when it comes to healthcare, people tend to be ignorant of the fact that most countries with a form of universal healthcare also have fairly stringent anti-obesity laws. There's usually a fat tax on sugary products and processed foods, as well as fairly restrictive laws on the sale of tobacco and a state-monopoly on the sale of alcohol. People like Sanders tend to leave that out when advocating for an American welfare state.

[Novus America]

Where do you live where the only taxes are income taxes?

Where I live property taxes are basically nothing more than filling out a form; I often forget that other jurisdictions have serious property taxes.

In any case, I would argue that all taxes are opt-in. You don't pay property taxes if you don't own property. You don't pay sales taxes if you don't buy things. You don't pay capital gains taxes if you don't trade stocks. Etc.

What about taxes? But I actually agree you should not be forced to do the national service, but that society should give you fewer benefits in return (such as no ability to vote or get govern subsidized college) if you refuse to perform it. Thus making it fair, a voluntary social contract over force.

I find the idea of having conscription be a requirement to engage in government-sponsored programs mostly agreeable, assuming that you can choose economic conscription rather than military service.

Well I am not sure what exactly you mean by economic conscription but I do agree an alternative civilian service should be available for those not best motivated or suited for military service.