This Is What Democratic Socialists In The US Will Bring Us:

OscarLevant said:

Okay, it's creative writing and not a strawman, you win.

But, given the number of strawmen offered on DP, you might want to invest in straw futures, anyway. just sayin'.

By the way, thats' a joke, not a strawman. (and please, no "don't quit your dayjob" responses, not claiming to be a comedian ).

As for Venezuela,

Democratic socialism did not destroy Venezuela, incompetence, greed, and corruption did, and such things are not monopolized by any party on the political spectrum. The hyperinflation occurring in Venezuela reflects a government that want's to pay for things without earning the money to do it beforehand ( by legit taxes, oil sales, etc ). That's fiscal incompetence.

Besides, I do not support totalitarian socialism ( where the state owns all of the means of production & distribution).

Socialism, without capitalism to keep it in check, socialism run amok will kill an economy. I don't dispute this. But capitalism without regulation and socialism to keep it in balance, will lead to capital aggregating in fewer and fewer hands, where the gap between the poor and rich get wider and wider, this becomes a dictatorhip/oligarchs-withi-a-titular-head ( fascism) and the masses become oppressed which tends to leads to revolution of some kind. I think Russia is headed in this direction right now.

I support a mix of capitalism (private enterprise) and socialism ( state controlled enterprise ) where it's capitalism for wants, socialism for needs ( both regulated, of course ). This, I believe, is what dem socialists are advocating. DSoc'ists are basically new deal dems. They are NOT socialists, in the classic sense of the word.

That's my first glance, opinion,(of Venezuela) admitting I haven't studied the situation down there in depth. Others in the know might shed light on this.

Do you agree that using Venezuela as an argument against dem socialism is a strawman?

( it is ).

Click to expand...

LOL Thanks but no thanks, don't care about the strawmen on the DP or investing in their futures.

Besides, you seem to not like them, so I think you may be wrong about investing in their futures.

I prefer, a fantasy strawman that sings and dances down a yellowbrick road in a colorful movie.

As for Venezuela,

https://www.investors.com/politics/...xcept-to-economically-illiterate-journalists/

Investor's Business Daily Editorials 5/04/2017

Title:What Caused Venezuela's Collapse Is No Mystery — Except To Economically Illiterate Journalists

snippets from the article

Economics: Why is it that reporters keep scratching their heads about Venezuela's descent into extreme poverty and chaos? The cause is simple. Socialism. End it and you will end the misery.

When the New York Times wrote about Venezuela's ongoing collapse a year ago, it described how the country was suffering "painful shortages … even of basic foods," and how "electricity and water are being rationed, and huge areas of the country have spent months with little of either."

Here is how the Times explained the reason for Venezuela's dire situation: "The growing economic crisis (was) fueled by low prices for oil, the country's main export; a drought that has crippled Venezuela's ability to generate hydroelectric power; and a long decline in manufacturing and agricultural production."

There's no mention — not one — of the fact that Hugo Chávez tried to turn Venezuela into a socialist paradise, policies that his successor Nicolás Maduro has continued. The Times' coverage is par for the course.

Venezuela was never a model free market economy. A couple decades ago, the Heritage Foundation gave it a 59.8 ranking on its Index of Freedom — which measures how free or government-controlled an economy is. That put it at the edge of being "moderately free."

Then Chavez nationalized the oil industry, agricultural operations, transportation, power generation, telecommunications, steel production, banks. Today Venezuela is the third least free economy in the world, ahead of only Cuba and North Korea.

As a direct result of those actions, Venezuela went from being on the wealthiest countries in South America — one rich in natural resources — to a country where people are literally fighting for scraps of food. Last year, Venezuela's economy shrank 18%. The unemployment rate is 25% and climbing. Inflation could reach 2,068% next year. Riots have become routine.

As we have noted many times in this space, it is socialism, not oil prices or the weather or greedy businessmen or any other such factor that's to blame for Venezuela's economic crisis. This is what socialism produces. Always and everywhere. It is as close to an iron law of economics as there can be.

snipped

Roseann

OscarLevant said:

Okay, it's creative writing and not a strawman, you win.

But, given the number of strawmen offered on DP, you might want to invest in straw futures, anyway. just sayin'.

By the way, thats' a joke, not a strawman. (and please, no "don't quit your dayjob" responses, not claiming to be a comedian ).

As for Venezuela,

Democratic socialism did not destroy Venezuela, incompetence, greed, and corruption did, and such things are not monopolized by any party on the political spectrum. The hyperinflation occurring in Venezuela reflects a government that want's to pay for things without earning the money to do it beforehand ( by legit taxes, oil sales, etc ). That's fiscal incompetence.

Besides, I do not support totalitarian socialism ( where the state owns all of the means of production & distribution).

Socialism, without capitalism to keep it in check, socialism run amok will kill an economy. I don't dispute this. But capitalism without regulation and socialism to keep it in balance, will lead to capital aggregating in fewer and fewer hands, where the gap between the poor and rich get wider and wider, this becomes a dictatorhip/oligarchs-withi-a-titular-head ( fascism) and the masses become oppressed which tends to leads to revolution of some kind. I think Russia is headed in this direction right now.

I support a mix of capitalism (private enterprise) and socialism ( state controlled enterprise ) where it's capitalism for wants, socialism for needs ( both regulated, of course ). This, I believe, is what dem socialists are advocating. DSoc'ists are basically new deal dems. They are NOT socialists, in the classic sense of the word.

That's my first glance, opinion,(of Venezuela) admitting I haven't studied the situation down there in depth. Others in the know might shed light on this.

Do you agree that using Venezuela as an argument against dem socialism is a strawman?

( it is ).

Click to expand...

Continued to answer your last question.

You believe, you know what dem socialists are advocating.

So far, I don't have enough substantial information concerning the Democrat Socialist's policy ideas or how they would govern.

So far, the only information I have heard from them and others were mere talking points.

The talking points I have heard give me pause that they are advocating what you expressed in your sentence concerning that subject.

So, for now I can't answer whether or not Venezuela is an argument against Democrat Socialism being a strawman?

Roseann

CharisRose said:

As we have noted many times in this space, it is socialism, not oil prices or the weather or greedy businessmen or any other such factor that's to blame for Venezuela's economic crisis. This is what socialism produces. Always and everywhere. It is as close to an iron law of economics as there can be.

snipped

Roseann

Click to expand...

What I'm seeing being described in Ven. is the nationalization of strategic industries by incompetents.


When you are that deep into socialism, you have entered the "totalitarian" range, close enough.


As a social dem myself, I would never suggest such a thing. Totalitarianism doesn't work, especially when it's being run by incompetent people. the happiest place on earth is, by the rights' definition, a socialist country, what, Norway ( or was it finland, no matter, it was not America )

Evidence of venezuela gov's incompetence is hyperinflation. That is what is tearing the nation apart. Nothing functions well in a hyperinflationary economy.


how many big businesses did Trump run into the grown? ( he's no socialist ). how many businesses in the heap of capitalist history, have destroyed personal lives and wealth? (quite a few).


I hate to break it to you, but hyperinflation, nor incompetent management of a private or public enterprise is not the province of a particular political philosophy.

The Right looks to be getting ahead of itself.

Moscow says USA is Venezuela already and since 2016.

Regardless, while a US supported coup seems to be the Trump answer in Venezuela, voters in USA are working up a head of steam toward the 2020 quadrennial election.

It's also the case nobody of any consequence or significance in the Democratic Party has supported the late Hugo Chavez or his successor Nicholas Maduro or their policies and programs. Moreover we get the question of what the hardnosed Right would do if voters elected a Potus who called him/her self a "socialist."


Russia Compares U.S. to Venezuela, Says a Lot of People Didn’t Want Donald Trump as President Either

1/31/19

Russia has compared the ongoing crisis in Venezuela to the political situation in the United States following the 2016 election of President Donald Trump, who was opposed by at least half the population.

Addressing a press conference Thursday, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova condemned what she described as "the White House's plan to implement a coup d'état in Venezuela," where the Trump administration has endorsed opposition leader and National Assembly head Juan Guaidó's challenge to President Nicolás Maduro.

Maduro warned Wednesday that a "campaign has been prepared to justify a coup d’état in Venezuela," one that has been "set, financed and supported actively by the Donald Trump administration." He warned that the U.S had its sights set on his country's vast oil reserves, such as those in Iraq and Libya, and compared any potential conflict with Venezuela as being "a new Vietnam," but "worse."

The U.S. has a decades-long history of intervening against left-wing and socialist movements across Latin America and, in order to deal with the current crisis in Venezuela, Trump has appointed Elliott Abrams, a former assistant secretary of state convicted for his role in a 1980s plot through which former President Ronald Reagan's administration secretly sold arms to Iran throughout its war with Iraq in order to fund counter-revolutionary militias known as "contras" against the socialist Sandinista-led government in Nicaragua.

Abrams was also said to be behind a coup attempt against Maduro's predecessor, Hugo Chávez. After being pardoned by former President George H.W. Bush, Abrams would go on to serve on the younger Bush's national security council, a position which he used to secure funds for an uprising against Chávez in 2002. In September, The New York Times reported that Trump administration officials had met with Venezuelan opposition figures within the past year in order to plan a coup and The Associated Press reported just last week that secret talks between the opposition and international foes of Maduro had taken place in order to form an anti-Maduro coalition.

https://www.newsweek.com/russia-us-venezuela-trump-election-donald-1313572

OscarLevant said:

What I'm seeing being described in Ven. is the nationalization of strategic industries by incompetents.


When you are that deep into socialism, you have entered the "totalitarian" range, close enough.


As a social dem myself, I would never suggest such a thing. Totalitarianism doesn't work, especially when it's being run by incompetent people. the happiest place on earth is, by the rights' definition, a socialist country, what, Norway ( or was it finland, no matter, it was not America )

Evidence of venezuela gov's incompetence is hyperinflation. That is what is tearing the nation apart. Nothing functions well in a hyperinflationary economy.


how many big businesses did Trump run into the grown? ( he's no socialist ). how many businesses in the heap of capitalist history, have destroyed personal lives and wealth? (quite a few).


I hate to break it to you, but hyperinflation, nor incompetent management of a private or public enterprise is not the province of a particular political philosophy.

Click to expand...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffre...dic-countries-are-not-socialist/#5e6917e174ad

As the American left embraces a platform that continues to look more and more like a socialist’s dream, it is common for those on the right to counter with the example of Venezuela as the nightmare of socialism in reality. A common response from the left is that socialism (or democratic socialism) works just fine in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark.

It is certainly true that Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Denmark are notable economic successes. What is false is that these countries are particularly socialist.

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.

To the extent that the left wants to point to an example of successful socialism, not just generous welfare states, the 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.

Second, as evidence of the lack of government interference in business affairs, there is the fact that none of these countries have minimum wage laws. Unions are reasonably powerful in many industries and negotiate contracts, but the government does nothing to ensure any particular outcome from those negotiations. Workers are paid what they are worth, not based on government’s perception of what is fair.

A third example of Nordic commitment to free markets can be found in Sweden which has complete school choice. The government provides families with vouchers for each child. These vouchers can be used to attend regular public schools, government-run charter schools, or private, for-profit schools. Clearly, the use of government funds to pay for private, for-profit schools is the opposite of socialism.

I snipped a section here (due to length restriction) you will need to read the article

Socialism can take the form of government controlling or interfering with free markets, nationalizing industries, and subsidizing favored ones (green energy, anyone?). The Nordic countries don’t actually do much of those things. Yes, they offer government-paid healthcare, in some cases tuition-free university educations, and rather generous social safety nets, all financed with high taxes. However, it is possible to do these things without interfering in the private sector more than required. It is allowing businesses to be productive that produces the high corporate and personal incomes that support the tax collections making the government benefits feasible. The Nordic countries are smart enough not to kill the goose that lays the golden egg.

If the left insists on naming a system of generous government benefits combined with a free market democratic socialism, I cannot stop them. That seems unnecessarily confusing since the government is actually running no industries other than education (and meddling somewhat in healthcare). It certainly isn’t socialism. In fact, the only reason most such countries can afford those benefits is that their market economies are so productive they can cover the expense of the government’s generosity

Perhaps a better name for what the Nordic countries practice would be compassionate capitalism.

Roseann

OscarLevant said:

What I'm seeing being described in Ven. is the nationalization of strategic industries by incompetents.


When you are that deep into socialism, you have entered the "totalitarian" range, close enough.


As a social dem myself, I would never suggest such a thing. Totalitarianism doesn't work, especially when it's being run by incompetent people. the happiest place on earth is, by the rights' definition, a socialist country, what, Norway ( or was it finland, no matter, it was not America )

Evidence of venezuela gov's incompetence is hyperinflation. That is what is tearing the nation apart. Nothing functions well in a hyperinflationary economy.


how many big businesses did Trump run into the grown? ( he's no socialist ). how many businesses in the heap of capitalist history, have destroyed personal lives and wealth? (quite a few).


I hate to break it to you, but hyperinflation, nor incompetent management of a private or public enterprise is not the province of a particular political philosophy.

Click to expand...

Also, you can check out another link concerning the Nordic Countries type of governance and the downside for women in the workforce compared to the United States.

https://www.cato.org/publications/c...omen-are-worse-democratic-socialist-countries

Roseann

CharisRose said:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffre...dic-countries-are-not-socialist/#5e6917e174ad

As the American left embraces a platform that continues to look more and more like a socialist’s dream, it is common for those on the right to counter with the example of Venezuela as the nightmare of socialism in reality. A common response from the left is that socialism (or democratic socialism) works just fine in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark.

It is certainly true that Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Denmark are notable economic successes. What is false is that these countries are particularly socialist.

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.

To the extent that the left wants to point to an example of successful socialism, not just generous welfare states, the 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.

Second, as evidence of the lack of government interference in business affairs, there is the fact that none of these countries have minimum wage laws. Unions are reasonably powerful in many industries and negotiate contracts, but the government does nothing to ensure any particular outcome from those negotiations. Workers are paid what they are worth, not based on government’s perception of what is fair.

A third example of Nordic commitment to free markets can be found in Sweden which has complete school choice. The government provides families with vouchers for each child. These vouchers can be used to attend regular public schools, government-run charter schools, or private, for-profit schools. Clearly, the use of government funds to pay for private, for-profit schools is the opposite of socialism.

I snipped a section here (due to length restriction) you will need to read the article

Socialism can take the form of government controlling or interfering with free markets, nationalizing industries, and subsidizing favored ones (green energy, anyone?). The Nordic countries don’t actually do much of those things. Yes, they offer government-paid healthcare, in some cases tuition-free university educations, and rather generous social safety nets, all financed with high taxes. However, it is possible to do these things without interfering in the private sector more than required. It is allowing businesses to be productive that produces the high corporate and personal incomes that support the tax collections making the government benefits feasible. The Nordic countries are smart enough not to kill the goose that lays the golden egg.

If the left insists on naming a system of generous government benefits combined with a free market democratic socialism, I cannot stop them. That seems unnecessarily confusing since the government is actually running no industries other than education (and meddling somewhat in healthcare). It certainly isn’t socialism. In fact, the only reason most such countries can afford those benefits is that their market economies are so productive they can cover the expense of the government’s generosity

Perhaps a better name for what the Nordic countries practice would be compassionate capitalism.

Roseann

Click to expand...

Actually I don't call them socialist Norway is a capitalist country all of them are. it's the right that is calling them socialist and because apparently you're on the right I assume you would too. also notable Democratic socialism is not real socialism it's just New Deal Democrats. When we argue these things we really have to agree with the terms mean so whatever you want to call it I'll go by that if it's compassionate capitalism then I'm all for it

OscarLevant said:

Actually I don't call them socialist Norway is a capitalist country all of them are. it's the right that is calling them socialist and because apparently you're on the right I assume you would too. also notable Democratic socialism is not real socialism it's just New Deal Democrats. When we argue these things we really have to agree with the terms mean so whatever you want to call it I'll go by that if it's compassionate capitalism then I'm all for it

Click to expand...

The labels used in the article, they are not mine. I simply provided information for the reader to read and expected the reader to make up their own minds. Just like I make up my own mind.

There are so many labels that are applied by various sources used to describe what the labelers think are the best fit for what they are labeling.

The labels tend to vary to fit the needs of the labelers and may are may not be correct.

Note: In my profile, I did not label my political lean.

My reason, The typical labels don't quite fit my multifaceted political leanings.

My lean is complicated and hard to define. I also think that description would also apply to many Americans.

You stated it's the right that calls them socialists. Please define who you mean by the right. TIA

You state, it is notable Democratic Socialism is not real socialism it's just New Deal Democrats.

That is a simple statement without any information to back up your statement.

Can you please provide information to show Democrat Socialism is worthy of attention or notice or that they are remarkable.

Can you provide any documentation stating their political aims combined with the principles of the New Deal Democrats.

Information is necessary for me to determine for myself that Democratic Socialism is not real socialism.

You just making a statement is insufficient.

I found some links

Democratic Socialists of America Link : https://www.dsausa.org/

Socialists Party USA: https://www.socialistpartyusa.net/

Couldn't find any information concerning New Deal Democrats. Perhaps, you could provide some links.

TIA Roseann

CharisRose said:

The labels used in the article, they are not mine. I simply provided information for the reader to read and expected the reader to make up their own minds. Just like I make up my own mind.

There are so many labels that are applied by various sources used to describe what the labelers think are the best fit for what they are labeling.

The labels tend to vary to fit the needs of the labelers and may are may not be correct.

Note: In my profile, I did not label my political lean.

My reason, The typical labels don't quite fit my multifaceted political leanings.

My lean is complicated and hard to define. I also think that description would also apply to many Americans.

You stated it's the right that calls them socialists. Please define who you mean by the right. TIA

You state, it is notable Democratic Socialism is not real socialism it's just New Deal Democrats.

That is a simple statement without any information to back up your statement.

Can you please provide information to show Democrat Socialism is worthy of attention or notice or that they are remarkable.

Can you provide any documentation stating their political aims combined with the principles of the New Deal Democrats.

Information is necessary for me to determine for myself that Democratic Socialism is not real socialism.

You just making a statement is insufficient.

I found some links

Democratic Socialists of America Link : https://www.dsausa.org/

Socialists Party USA: https://www.socialistpartyusa.net/

Couldn't find any information concerning New Deal Democrats. Perhaps, you could provide some links.

TIA Roseann

Click to expand...

I had no particular point to make, just generalizing. Let's just drop it.

CharisRose said:

Also, you can check out another link concerning the Nordic Countries type of governance and the downside for women in the workforce compared to the United States.

https://www.cato.org/publications/c...omen-are-worse-democratic-socialist-countries

Roseann

Click to expand...

Arguing about socialism is a fool's errand. I"m not a true socialist, using a dictionary definition.

Okay, for now....

I'm really interested in where you are on health care.


Do you believe government should be involved with health care? If not, why?

Socialism is government ownership of the means of transportation, communication, production.

USA is not a socialist country.

For decades now when Bernie Sanders says he is a socialist I ROTFLMAO. I myself am a capitalist who thinks Bernie and His Bunch share a disdain of the Robber Barons and the Guilded Age because they were too much like the European elites and their kind elsewhere that Americans got out from under by migrating across the oceans. The Guilded became Republicans such as the Koch Brothers and the entrepreneurs became Democrats such as Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos -- either in name or in sentiment.

Single payer health and medical care are not socialism; neither is the Obamacare program socialism. Bureaucracy is meanwhile the fact of government in an advanced economy so it needs to be controlled for its efficiency and to ensure it remains a servant of the people and the society. Which is a major reason why state and federal employees swear an oath to the state constitution and the US Constitution, i.e., there is no professional or binding moral requirement to support a particular leader, government, party or public policy. No one is above the Constitution.

OscarLevant said:

I had no particular point to make, just generalizing. Let's just drop it.

Click to expand...

Debating between Democratic Socialism and Socialism is a problem based on the fact that there are no clear descriptions or set limits (vague) between the two ideologies. AKA ill defined.

A problem exists when there is a situation you want to resolve, but no solutions are readily apparent. ...

The ill-defined problems are those that do not have clear goals, solution paths, or expected solution.

The well-defined problems have specific goals, clearly defined solution paths, and clear expected solutions.

Based on the fact that there are no clear descriptions or set limits (vague) between the two ideologies.

That fact brings into play the idea or a potential course of action which could lead to something unacceptable, wrong, or disastrous. AKA the slippery slope.

Slippery slope being...

The power of the people acting as a group (collective) and their ability to interfere in the Constitutional rights of the individual.

The various people acting as groups regardless of political leanings are limited to the actions they take in the public arena via the various public outlets available to them including protests which can momentarily interfere in the lives and Constitutional rights of individuals.

My problem is not the collective acting in the public arena but in the voting process that puts political parties into governmental positions that have the potential to permanently interfere in the lives and Constitutional rights of individuals.

My problem is there could be Candidates who label themselves as Democrat Socialists but who are in reality Socialists that use acceptable Democratic talking points to get elected.

Based on their knowledge that if they told the American voters (like you) they were actually Socialists they most likely would not succeed in getting elected.

Once elected they can pursue via incremental changes that may result in a Socialist America and if enough of them get elected, the better chance they have of getting their Socialist America.

Especially, if they can get one of their own elected to the office of President.

It is my opinion and I admit could be wrong, you ended our debate via your use... that you were just generalizing.

That is exactly what Democratic Socialist Candidates/Politicians have done via their use of acceptable Democratic talking points to get elected.

Correct me if I am wrong, you gave up on the debate based on the fact that there is a very thin line of demarcation between Democratic Socialists and Socialists.

In other words, you can't tell who is who until it is to late.

It is the prerogative of any voter that is willing to take that risk and vote for Democratic Socialists with the hope they are not Socialists in disguise.

It is my prerogative to point out the problems that give me pause.

What I wrote may be a futile effort and readers may just ignore what I wrote but I figure it is a worthwhile trying.

https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2012-spring/individualism-collectivism/

Roseann

https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2012-spring/individualism-collectivism/

I found this article about individualism versus collectivism interesting. It is very long.

I'll provide a few snippets to peak interest in the subject matter of the article. Hoping there may be some readers who will also find the subject interesting.

Section: Politics, Individualism, and Collectivism

The politics of individualism is essentially what the American Founders had in mind when they created the United States but were unable to implement perfectly: a land of liberty, a society in which the government does only one thing and does it well—protects the rights of all individuals equally by banning the use of physical force from social relationships and by using force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. In such a society, government uses force as necessary against thieves, extortionists, murderers, rapists, terrorists, and the like—but it leaves peaceful, rights-respecting citizens completely free to live their lives and pursue their happiness in accordance with their own judgment.

Toward that end, a proper, rights-respecting government consists of legislatures, courts, police, a military, and any other branches and departments necessary to the protection of individual rights. This is the essence of the politics of individualism, which follows logically from the metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics of individualism.

What politics follows from those of collectivism?

“America works best when its citizens put aside individual self-interest to do great things together—when we elevate the common good,” writes David Callahan of the collectivist think tank Demos.9 Michael Tomasky, editor of Democracy, elaborates, explaining that modern “liberalism was built around the idea—the philosophical principle—that citizens should be called upon to look beyond their own self-interest and work for a greater common interest.”

This, historically, is the moral basis of liberal governance—not justice, not equality, not rights, not diversity, not government, and not even prosperity or opportunity. Liberal governance is about demanding of citizens that they balance self-interest with common interest. . . . This is the only justification leaders can make to citizens for liberal governance, really: That all are being asked to contribute to a project larger than themselves. . . . citizens sacrificing for and participating in the creation of a common good.

This is the ideology of today’s left in general, including, of course, President Barack Obama. As Obama puts it, we must heed the “call to sacrifice” and uphold our “core ethical and moral obligation” to “look out for one another” and to “be unified in service to a greater good.”11 “Individual actions, individual dreams, are not sufficient. We must unite in collective action, build collective institutions and organizations.”12

But modern “liberals” and new “progressives” are not alone in their advocacy of the politics of collectivism. Joining them are impostors of the right, such as Rick Santorum, who pose as advocates of liberty but, in their perverted advocacy, annihilate the very concept of liberty.

“Properly defined,” writes Santorum, “liberty is freedom coupled with responsibility to something bigger or higher than the self. It is the pursuit of our dreams with an eye toward the common good. Liberty is the dual activity of lifting our eyes to the heavens while at the same time extending our hands and hearts to our neighbor.”13 It is not “the freedom to be as selfish as I want to be,” or “the freedom to be left alone,” but “the freedom to attend to one’s duties—duties to God, to family, and to neighbors.”14

Such is the state of politics in America today, and this is the choice we face: Americans can either continue to ignore the fact that collectivism is utterly corrupt from the ground up, and thus continue down the road to statism and tyranny—or we can look at reality, use our minds, acknowledge the absurdities of collectivism and the atrocities that follow from it, and shout the truth from the rooftops and across the Internet.

What would happen if we did the latter? As Ayn Rand said, “You would be surprised how quickly the ideologists of collectivism retreat when they encounter a confident, intellectual adversary. Their case rests on appealing to human confusion, ignorance, dishonesty, cowardice, despair. Take the side they dare not approach; appeal to human intelligence.”15

A few words from CharisRose post:

“America works best when its citizens put aside individual self-interest to do great things together—when we elevate the common good,” writes David Callahan of the collectivist think tank Demos.9 Michael Tomasky, editor of Democracy, elaborates, explaining that modern “liberalism was built around the idea—the philosophical principle—that citizens should be called upon to look beyond their own self-interest and work for a greater common interest.”

This, historically, is the moral basis of liberal governance—not justice, not equality, not rights, not diversity, not government, and not even prosperity or opportunity. Liberal governance is about demanding of citizens that they balance self-interest with common interest. . . . This is the only justification leaders can make to citizens for liberal governance, really: That all are being asked to contribute to a project larger than themselves. . . . citizens sacrificing for and participating in the creation of a common good.

This is the ideology of today’s left in general, including, of course, President Barack Obama. As Obama puts it, we must heed the “call to sacrifice” and uphold our “core ethical and moral obligation” to “look out for one another” and to “be unified in service to a greater good.”11 “Individual actions, individual dreams, are not sufficient. We must unite in collective action, build collective institutions and organizations.”

Click to expand...

Of course, the libertarian for some odd reason prefers to deny history which shows that people working together, working toward the "common good", have created the society we live in today.

John Dingell, the longest-serving Congressman, recently died but before he passed on, he dictated his final opinions on American society to family members.

John Dingell's Last Words for America

Impoverishment of the elderly because of medical expenses was a common and often accepted occurrence. Opponents of the Medicare program that saved the elderly from that cruel fate called it “socialized medicine.” Remember that slander if there’s a sustained revival of silly red-baiting today.

Not five decades ago, much of the largest group of freshwater lakes on Earth — our own Great Lakes — were closed to swimming and fishing and other recreational pursuits because of chemical and bacteriological contamination from untreated industrial and wastewater disposal. Today, the Great Lakes are so hospitable to marine life that one of our biggest challenges is controlling the invasive species that have made them their new home.

We regularly used and consumed foods, drugs, chemicals and other things (cigarettes) that were legal, promoted and actively harmful. Hazardous wastes were dumped on empty plots in the dead of night. There were few if any restrictions on industrial emissions. We had only the barest scientific knowledge of the long-term consequences of any of this.

And there was a great stain on America, in the form of our legacy of racial discrimination. There were good people of all colors who banded together, risking and even losing their lives to erase the legal and other barriers that held Americans down. In their time, they were often demonized and targeted, much like other vulnerable men and women today.

Please note: All of these challenges were addressed by Congress. Maybe not as fast as we wanted, or as perfectly as hoped. The work is certainly not finished. But we’ve made progress — and in every case, from the passage of Medicare through the passage of civil rights, we did it with the support of Democrats and Republicans who considered themselves first and foremost to be Americans.

Click to expand...

Libertarians do love their Ayn Rand but it is her words with one change that apply better to their philosophy than to the ones she thought she was fighting.

"The libertarian) case rests on appealing to human confusion, ignorance, dishonesty, cowardice, despair". Yes, I agree - appeal to human intelligence and the intelligent humans will see the falseness of the libertarian ideology.

Quag said:

The question isn't should America have socialism, it already does. The question is how much should it have

Click to expand...

The U.S. military is one of the most socialist organizations on the planet. Every check is from the state (taxpayers). Every service is from the state (taxpayers). Republican/wingnuts love the military, because it defends them from socialism.

<alt>doxygen said:

The U.S. military is one of the most socialist organizations on the planet. Every check is from the state (taxpayers). Every service is from the state (taxpayers). Republican/wingnuts love the military, because it defends them from socialism.

Click to expand...

Elementary/high school/public roads/fire/police/welfare/medicare/farm subsidies etc etc etc...

CharisRose said:

Section: Politics, Individualism, and Collectivism

The politics of individualism is essentially what the American Founders had in mind when they created the United States but were unable to implement perfectly: a land of liberty, a society in which the government does only one thing and does it well—protects the rights of all individuals equally by banning the use of physical force from social relationships and by using force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. In such a society, government uses force as necessary against thieves, extortionists, murderers, rapists, terrorists, and the like—but it leaves peaceful, rights-respecting citizens completely free to live their lives and pursue their happiness in accordance with their own judgment.

Toward that end, a proper, rights-respecting government consists of legislatures, courts, police, a military, and any other branches and departments necessary to the protection of individual rights. This is the essence of the politics of individualism, which follows logically from the metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics of individualism.

What politics follows from those of collectivism?

“America works best when its citizens put aside individual self-interest to do great things together—when we elevate the common good,” writes David Callahan of the collectivist think tank Demos.9 Michael Tomasky, editor of Democracy, elaborates, explaining that modern “liberalism was built around the idea—the philosophical principle—that citizens should be called upon to look beyond their own self-interest and work for a greater common interest.”

This, historically, is the moral basis of liberal governance—not justice, not equality, not rights, not diversity, not government, and not even prosperity or opportunity. Liberal governance is about demanding of citizens that they balance self-interest with common interest. . . . This is the only justification leaders can make to citizens for liberal governance, really: That all are being asked to contribute to a project larger than themselves. . . . citizens sacrificing for and participating in the creation of a common good.

This is the ideology of today’s left in general, including, of course, President Barack Obama. As Obama puts it, we must heed the “call to sacrifice” and uphold our “core ethical and moral obligation” to “look out for one another” and to “be unified in service to a greater good.”11 “Individual actions, individual dreams, are not sufficient. We must unite in collective action, build collective institutions and organizations.”12

But modern “liberals” and new “progressives” are not alone in their advocacy of the politics of collectivism. Joining them are impostors of the right, such as Rick Santorum, who pose as advocates of liberty but, in their perverted advocacy, annihilate the very concept of liberty.

“Properly defined,” writes Santorum, “liberty is freedom coupled with responsibility to something bigger or higher than the self. It is the pursuit of our dreams with an eye toward the common good. Liberty is the dual activity of lifting our eyes to the heavens while at the same time extending our hands and hearts to our neighbor.”13 It is not “the freedom to be as selfish as I want to be,” or “the freedom to be left alone,” but “the freedom to attend to one’s duties—duties to God, to family, and to neighbors.”14

Such is the state of politics in America today, and this is the choice we face: Americans can either continue to ignore the fact that collectivism is utterly corrupt from the ground up, and thus continue down the road to statism and tyranny—or we can look at reality, use our minds, acknowledge the absurdities of collectivism and the atrocities that follow from it, and shout the truth from the rooftops and across the Internet.

What would happen if we did the latter? As Ayn Rand said, “You would be surprised how quickly the ideologists of collectivism retreat when they encounter a confident, intellectual adversary. Their case rests on appealing to human confusion, ignorance, dishonesty, cowardice, despair. Take the side they dare not approach; appeal to human intelligence.”15

Click to expand...

The 1st sentence of your quote is absolutely wrong, so I did not bother to read the rest.

The Constitution contains a preamble which clearly explains what they had in mind when they created the United States

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Click to expand...

I see nothing about the politics of individualism in there. Not one word.

OscarLevant said:

Arguing about socialism is a fool's errand. I"m not a true socialist, using a dictionary definition.

Okay, for now....

I'm really interested in where you are on health care.


Do you believe government should be involved with health care? If not, why?

Click to expand...

Not if the heath care is...

1.One size fits all.
2.Forced
3.Exclusive
4.Under complete control of the government.

I would like to see creative ideas using the private sector as the main source of health care.

Government being the last resort for a back up to the private sector.

I would completely rule our Single Payer Government controlled health care.

Why? The following link is my answer.

Why Single-Payer Would Make Health Care Worse for Americans | The Heritage Foundation

The Heritage Foundation Sep 26th, 2018 Commentary By:

Meridian M. Paulton Research Assistant in Domestic Policy Studies

Robert E. Moffit, Ph.D. Senior Fellow

Title: Why Single-Payer Would Make Health Care Worse for Americans

Did you know?

Is there a medical doctor shortage in the USA?

Is there a medical doctor shortage in the USA? - Quora

Is Medical School Worth it Financially? – BestMedicalDegrees.com

The Deceptive Salary of Doctors – BestMedicalDegrees.com

Roseann

sangha said:

The 1st sentence of your quote is absolutely wrong, so I did not bother to read the rest.

The Constitution contains a preamble which clearly explains what they had in mind when they created the United States



I see nothing about the politics of individualism in there. Not one word.

Click to expand...

American Passages - Unit 4. Spirit of Nationalism: Context Activities

snippet

Although the term "individualism" was not in general use until the 1820s, the foundational principles behind the concept were established by the mid-eighteenth century. Enlightenment philosophers like Newton and Locke argued that the universe is arranged in an orderly system, and that by the application of reason and intellect, human beings are capable of apprehending that system. This philosophy represented a radical shift from earlier notions that the world is ordered by a stern, inscrutable God whose plans are beyond human understanding and whose will can only be known through religious revelation. Enlightenment philosophy encouraged thinkers like Franklin and Jefferson to turn to Deism, a religion that privileges reason over faith and rejects traditional religious tenets in favor of a general belief in a benevolent creator. By privileging human understanding and the capacity of the individual, these new ideas reordered the way people thought about government, society, and rights.

The Declaration of Independence is emblematic of the eighteenth-century regard for the interests of the individual. Taking as unquestionably "self evident" the idea that "all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," the Declaration makes the rights and potential of the individual the cornerstone of American values. The fact that these lines from the Declaration are among the most quoted in all of American letters testifies to the power and resonance of this commitment to individual freedom in American culture. The Second Continental Congress affirmed the Declaration's privileging of the individual by making the signing of the document an important occasion. That is, by using the representatives' signatures as the means of validating this public document, they attested to the importance of individual identity and individual consent to government. John Hancock's famously large signature is thus a graphic emblem of the revolutionaries' commitment to individualism. Of course, the Declaration's assertion that "all men are created equal" conspicuously left out women and did not even seem to include "all men": when America achieved independence, many individuals found that their right to liberty was not considered self-evident. For African American slaves, Native Americans, and many others, the new nation's commitment to individual rights was mere rhetoric rather than reality.


Roseann

CharisRose said:

American Passages - Unit 4. Spirit of Nationalism: Context Activities

snippet

Although the term "individualism" was not in general use until the 1820s, the foundational principles behind the concept were established by the mid-eighteenth century. Enlightenment philosophers like Newton and Locke argued that the universe is arranged in an orderly system, and that by the application of reason and intellect, human beings are capable of apprehending that system. This philosophy represented a radical shift from earlier notions that the world is ordered by a stern, inscrutable God whose plans are beyond human understanding and whose will can only be known through religious revelation. Enlightenment philosophy encouraged thinkers like Franklin and Jefferson to turn to Deism, a religion that privileges reason over faith and rejects traditional religious tenets in favor of a general belief in a benevolent creator. By privileging human understanding and the capacity of the individual, these new ideas reordered the way people thought about government, society, and rights.

The Declaration of Independence is emblematic of the eighteenth-century regard for the interests of the individual. Taking as unquestionably "self evident" the idea that "all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," the Declaration makes the rights and potential of the individual the cornerstone of American values. The fact that these lines from the Declaration are among the most quoted in all of American letters testifies to the power and resonance of this commitment to individual freedom in American culture. The Second Continental Congress affirmed the Declaration's privileging of the individual by making the signing of the document an important occasion. That is, by using the representatives' signatures as the means of validating this public document, they attested to the importance of individual identity and individual consent to government. John Hancock's famously large signature is thus a graphic emblem of the revolutionaries' commitment to individualism. Of course, the Declaration's assertion that "all men are created equal" conspicuously left out women and did not even seem to include "all men": when America achieved independence, many individuals found that their right to liberty was not considered self-evident. For African American slaves, Native Americans, and many others, the new nation's commitment to individual rights was mere rhetoric rather than reality.


Roseann

Click to expand...

The DoI is not a law so I am not sure why you quoted that piece, which I will also note is just one persons take on the matter.

I should note that I am not arguing that individual liberty was of no concern to the Framers; just that it was but one of many matters, which is why I think your first quote is way off base. Individualism was not what they essentially had in mind. It was one of many ideas they were concerned with. The preamble makes that clear.

Somerville said:

A few words from CharisRose post:


Of course, the libertarian for some odd reason prefers to deny history which shows that people working together, working toward the "common good", have created the society we live in today.

John Dingell, the longest-serving Congressman, recently died but before he passed on, he dictated his final opinions on American society to family members.


Libertarians do love their Ayn Rand but it is her words with one change that apply better to their philosophy than to the ones she thought she was fighting.

"The libertarian) case rests on appealing to human confusion, ignorance, dishonesty, cowardice, despair". Yes, I agree - appeal to human intelligence and the intelligent humans will see the falseness of the libertarian ideology.

Click to expand...

Individualism allows people the freedom of choice to use their resources voluntarily to...

Work together for the common good.

Donate their money to their choice of charities.

Practice personal acts of charity for other people in need.

Help their neighbors.

Help strangers.

Treat their fellow human beings with kindness and respect.

Practice any good works they may choose out of the goodness of their hearts.

Individualism promotes person to person interaction within communities.

Which many Americans have practiced voluntarily in the past and still put into practice today without the use of force via collectivism or government interference.

Collectivism must use force via government taxation and subjection to government laws to make everyone work together for the common good.

Government Collectivism promotes division of the people via hindering up close and personal interaction within communities via the idea it's now the governments job using our taxpayer money to help those people in need.

Replacement of personal for Government charitable acts actually promotes selfishness and sometimes resentment towards the people in need.

Personal acts of kindness have an emotional reward for both the doer and the receiver. Which helps promote more acts of kindness.

Government help is cold and impersonal and can also be a trap to keep people in the system.

Collectivism promotes demeaning government hand outs.

The better option would be the dignity kind of option via using a helping hands approach for the able bodied people stuck in the system to help them get out of the system.

imho Roseann

sangha said:

The DoI is not a law so I am not sure why you quoted that piece, which I will also note is just one persons take on the matter.

I should note that I am not arguing that individual liberty was of no concern to the Framers; just that it was but one of many matters, which is why I think your first quote is way off base. Individualism was not what they essentially had in mind. It was one of many ideas they were concerned with. The preamble makes that clear.

Click to expand...

More often than not it is just one persons take on the matter. I provided both pieces with the intent, that the readers will make up their own minds concerning it's significance.

Thank You for the explanation. I agree, yes it was one among many matters. Okay, I can except that.

There did come a point in time when our nation utilized the idea of individualism which did play an important part in the building our nation.

The idea of Life, Liberty and Pursuit of happiness does fit well with the idea of individualism.

Without protection of your Life, there would be no need for Liberty, without Liberty you could be hindered from pursuing your happiness.

As long as your pursuit does not prevent another persons same rights.

The six goals of the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution are:

1.To form a more perfect union.
2.Establish justice.
3.Ensure domestic tranquility.
4.Provide for the common defense.
5.Promote the general welfare.
6.To secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

Will you share some of your ideas or information that has made it clear to you concerning your interpretation of the preamble?

Roseann

CharisRose said:

More often than not it is just one persons take on the matter. I provided both pieces with the intent, that the readers will make up their own minds concerning it's significance.

Thank You for the explanation. I agree, yes it was one among many matters. Okay, I can except that.

There did come a point in time when our nation utilized the idea of individualism which did play an important part in the building our nation.

The idea of Life, Liberty and Pursuit of happiness does fit well with the idea of individualism.

Without protection of your Life, there would be no need for Liberty, without Liberty you could be hindered from pursuing your happiness.

As long as your pursuit does not prevent another persons same rights.

The six goals of the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution are:

1.To form a more perfect union.
2.Establish justice.
3.Ensure domestic tranquility.
4.Provide for the common defense.
5.Promote the general welfare.
6.To secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

Will you share some of your ideas or information that has made it clear to you concerning your interpretation of the preamble?

Roseann

Click to expand...

As far as the preamble goes, I take it pretty much as it reads, though I do think there is some significance that to form a more perfect union is listed first. Other than that, I do not think there is much, if any,, significance to the order of the list.

sangha said:

As far as the preamble goes, I take it pretty much as it reads, though I do think there is some significance that to form a more perfect union is listed first. Other than that, I do not think there is much, if any,, significance to the order of the list.

Click to expand...

The reason I asked for your idea is based on the searches I did on the subject. And there were many interpretations for all six of them. Some of them quite interesting.

Roseann

CharisRose said:

The reason I asked for your idea is based on the searches I did on the subject. And there were many interpretations for all six of them. Some of them quite interesting.

Roseann

Click to expand...

That is understandable. They are all quite broad and cover a lot of ground which is why I am reluctant to go much further. I am not prepared to write a book on it and anything short of that will come up short. However, if you have a specific question, I will do my best to answer it, given the limits of this forum and my abilities