Trump 2020!

[The Lamb]

I hope you know i love our talks I would go one step further and say insurance is no more than state sponsored gambling vrs socialism. If it were true socialism, it would be free, but more to my point the private, for profit insurance companies are taking your money betting you wont get sick and or die, and your giving them your money betting you will get sick or die. lol The only question is do you keep pumping in the quarters or get sick and Jackpot!

I still fail to see the logic that social needs paid for by tax dollars, generally built by and RFP to the private sector is socialism.

[Most Lee Harmless]

Socialism isnt about getting stuff for free : there is an argument that a pool of ready labour serves a function in society thus why should the unemployed not be paid by society? The US govt fundss businesses like Amazon, UPS and such so as to have their cargo-jets ready as a strategic reserve : but its ever 'good business' paying off corporations yet 'evil socialism' paying off the workers. Walmart and Boeing can dip their snouts into the state funds trough but not the workers they fire. Go figure.
Dont confuse the 'insurance corps' with 'insurance'!

The basic premise of insurance is that we all contribute a little and get supported should we fall. 'From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs.' : there is nothing in that says you do nothing and get everything for free.

[Most Lee Harmless]

As an aside, does anyone else find it uncomfortably amusing watching the protests led by organisations and groups more usually associated with staunch defence of States Rights and fundamental opposition to Big Fed demanding the federal gov'mint over-rule states and impose central rule on 'opening up'?

[Stede Bonnet]

As a conservative myself, I have had to divorce a lot of what I personally value from my political party. At a fundamental level I, more than anything else, value the conservation of individual freedom. Conservationism certainly has some roots in that, it's literally in the name, but it's changed from that in some ways. in a political system with two major groups you typically have those that argue that fundamentally most things should stay the same or should fundamentally change, classic Liberal v. Conservative. For much of history in much of the world the Conservative argues that the individual should be suppressed to maintain society. But in America for at least the last century, because the status quo values individualism and liberty above all else, that is what many Conservatives value. Now it has to some degree since changed into some weird amalgamation thanks in large part to Reagan and Bush, I still feel like that POV is fundamentally conservative.

I wouldn't doubt if America leaned more heavily into the Libertarian axis than many other countries as a whole.

[Most Lee Harmless]

It is complex and made so by the increasing partisanship which has negated consensus politics. Consensus politics can agree an outcome is mutually beneficially and keep the argument to how to best achieve it whilst keeping the mutual benefits. Partisanship tends to throw the mutual baby out with the argumentative water. If 'they' want it, it must be per se 'bad' thus must be prevented by all means to hand. If 'we' want it, it is 'good' thus any means justify the ends. If baulking the opposition leads to poor or negative outcomes of benefit to none, that is 'their' fault for being 'wrong'. Thus the impass in the US legislature forcing executive action just to get anything actually done, for good or bad. And all sides embrace that partisanship now.
The UK saw a similar progression from 'One-nation' Conservatism, which held that one had to at least consider the section of the population that did not vote for you, to the 'Thatcherite' brand of Conservatism which considered such to be the 'enemy within' which had to be fought on all fronts until they realised the only way out of the dungheap was to adopt the new Conservative values and then you got rewarded. Or get left on the scrapheap for 'choosing to fail'. The only concern is pleasing a sufficient percentage of the electorate to win elections. Thus the growth of populism to do that. Sound-bites matter more than policy, slogans more than manifestos, attack ads more than meaningful debate, derogatory insults more than logical argument.
Sadly, history tends to teach us that such reliance on populism often has rather tragic outcomes

[Meliva]

The funny thing is, that our first president bloody warned us against political parties. Other founding fathers didn't even wait til he died to form them-poor old George must have been so disappointed-literally gave them one job.

Regardless, I do think that socialism and communism are on the whole worse then capitalism. Or the very least, most nations that have chosen the formers turn out for the worse then the latter. Whether that's due to corruption of the ideas they were meant to stand for, or just the ideas themselves that I suppose is debatable.

[Most Lee Harmless]

Much like poor old George : the label dont seem to matter nor the ideology once a grouping has power it dont give it up easily. Even the 'single party' states are a warren of warring factions and alliances of interests : all in defence of 'the party', of course. We havent seen socialism, just versions twisted to serve power-grabs. Same with democracy : most countries pay lip service to that concept too.

[The Lamb]

True, but i wouldn't want to live in an actual democracy anyways, like I want California and NY to decide everything lol they cant even manage their states!

Kinda wish we had state electoral colleges.

[Meliva]

True, but i wouldn't want to live in an actual democracy anyways, like I want California and NY to decide everything lol they cant even manage their states!

Kinda wish we had state electoral colleges.

I think a pure democracy can work, but a few factors have to be true to make sure. First, all, or at least the majority of the voting citizens must be educated and well informed. Don't think folks who believe the earth is flat or vaccines cause autism having any say in major decisions is a good idea.

Second, a relatively small area, with only one major group of people. Because most folks will prioritize their own groups well being over others. But if everyone is in the same group that takes care of that problem.

The only place that currently does pure democracy, and does it well that I know of is Switzerland- and they meet both of those factors.

Edit-and obviously the good old US does not meet either factor. Pure democracy would be terrible here. As you said, NY and Cali would have all the power. Even if the entire bloody Midwest where I live united against them, we wouldn't be able to have any say so. Would be a nightmare.

[The Lamb]

Well, that is the exact reason we are not a democracy, the founding fathers new the same thing. I would like to say one thing though, who determines who is educated and who isnt? If you exclude those who arent "worthy" then its not a true democracy. Also, what does educated mean? Im just playing devils advocate. I have my masters, but i had to fight off the ideas of others in the same college who had some of the dumbest ideas being spoon fed garbage from the professors. Is that educated or am I?

Just for fun, check out this voting map of Connecticut from 2018. Connecticut is a deep blue state right?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... ut.svg.png

Yeah, deeeep blue lol. This is also why Connecticut is loosing working residents to other states. Certain policies that keep the majors cities (deepest blue in map) voting themselves money is also bankrupting the state.

Double fun... here is NY's 2018 election map .... Deeep blue too right?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... 18.svg.png

Oh and Sweden is a small homogeneous demographic with a common culture with shared ideas and beliefs. That is changing as we speak though and stuff is going down .