Radical Left

Lots of Democrats Want Socialism

Malarkey over the 'wealth gap'

|

Nearly 10,000 people turned out to hear Bernie Sanders in Wisconsin. Why? Apparently, many Democrats want socialism. 

Sanders is the Vermont senator who is running for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination. 

Sanders calls himself a "democratic socialist," not to be confused with New York City mayor Bill de Blasio's preferred label, "social democrat," but both believe that more power and wealth in the hands of government (and less in the hands of free people and the free market) is a good thing. They just don't want you to think they're dictators like Stalin. They may institute terrible economic policies, but they'll have the backing of voters. 

More Democrats say they plan to vote for Hillary Clinton, but she's already sounding more socialist to ward off the Sanders challenge, slamming "corporations making record profits." 

In crucial early-voting state New Hampshire, next door to Sanders' home state, Sanders polls at 35 percent to Clinton's 43. 

A big reason for Sanders' appeal is his relentless criticism of America's wealth gap. His "solutions" include raising the federal minimum wage to $15, completing the government takeover of healthcare, mandating paid maternity leave, punishing bankers, expanding Social Security and spending more on job training. 

We must do these things, he says, because "wealth is centered in the hands of a very few." He accuses Republicans of preferring it that way.

That's a common refrain on the left, and it appeals to many voters. Some poor people think they'll be helped by "redistribution," and rich people who don't understand the process that made them rich want more rules to "level the playing field." 

I wish someone would educate them and ask Clinton, "What's wrong with 'record profits'? What do you think happens to that money? Greedy executives just sit on it? No! Profit is reinvested in ways that make all of us better off!" 

Libertarians and real free-marketers agree that too few people are rich but understand that today it's largely because of government. 

The minimum wage laws that Sanders likes decrease the odds that people on the bottom rung will get hired and learn the basics of being a good employee. Other laws make it harder for them to move up. 

Today's thicket of regulations means entrepreneurs must hire lawyers and "fixers" to get anything done, and those middlemen cost money. Not a big problem if you're already rich, but a big obstacle if you're just starting out, or trying to expand a small business. 

Requiring paid maternity leave makes companies even more wary of hiring young women. The law forbids such discrimination, of course, but bosses just give some other reason for not choosing female applicants. 

That same unintended consequence happened with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the well-intended law supported by Democrats and Republicans meant to help more disabled people enter the workforce. But fewer disabled people work now that the law is in effect. Fifty-one percent held jobs when the law passed; now only 32 percent do. 

Greece "protects" workers by banning part-time work and banning working more than five days a week. You'd think American socialists would learn something watching Greece fail. But, no, they never learn. 

Government interventions in health care—such as Obamacare—haven't made health care cheaper, but they sure helped rich insurance companies. By writing the companies' roles directly into the law, Obamacare makes it harder for others, such as the new fee-for-service health stores, to compete. 

Complex financial regulations mean that rich investors who are already cozy with big law firms, big banks and the Fed are better at understanding and manipulating the rules than a small "angel investor" who wants to back a new invention or interesting start-up. 

For 200 years, poor Americans pulled themselves out of poverty by finding new and better ways to do things, or just by working hard. Today, fewer lift themselves up. One big reason is that rules meant to help poor people end up favoring the well-connected rich while keeping poor people dependent.

Sen. Sanders and his fellow socialists should stop callously ignoring how government makes life harder for poor people. 

COPYRIGHT 2015 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.

NEXT: Does Donald Trump Belong at FreedomFest?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. But fewer disabled people work now that the law is in effect

    Fewer people working isn’t how we measure things anymore. Unemployment rate is easier to manipulate than employment rate. It’s the new math.

    1. I do wonder if this is less of a matter of the ADA and more a matter of expanding the definition of “disability” to include lots of people who just don’t feel like working and would rather collect a check. I’m not entirely clear what the mechanism would be there that would result in fewer disabled people working. Sure you could say the regulations have the natural knock off effect of diverting resources to compliance that could be spent on hiring employees but why would the effect be so hugely magnified for disabled people vs the population in general? I am more comfortable saying it didn’t help than saying it had a significantly negative impact.

      1. Fear of a lawsuit.

        There are disabled people who make their living going into corporate establishments and actively searching out every and any minor deviation from the accessability regulations and then suing the company for “discriminating against them”.

        Every time you hire a disabled person you are risking a lawsuit that will cost you more than $100,000.

        This doesn’t mean no one will ever hire a disabled person but it does act to reduce the number of jobs open to them by a significant margin leaving more unemployed

        1. You also risk a lawsuit if you don’t hire them not to mention these same lawsuits are available to customers of a business so it isn’t as if employment is their only avenue to file suit and I would say suing as a visitor is just as easy. Still seems wanting as an explanation but I suppose its possible.

          1. You also risk a lawsuit if you don’t hire them

            Not so much. The burden on the employer increases once you establish the employer-employee relationship.

    2. “Fifty-one percent held jobs when the law passed; now only 32 percent do. ”

      There you have the disabled employment rate, and if you’re mathematically challenged, their unemployment rate is 100-32= 68%.

      Regardless,

      Stossel’s point is now that government makes it illegal to discriminate against the disabled, and to “accommodate” them instead, so employers are less likely to hire them in the first place. The reasons being they are afraid of lawsuits from not providing sufficient accommodation or discriminating against them (possibly later in promotions).

      In the past, employers were more likely to hire the disabled, though sometimes at a lower wage to accommodate for their disability (in anticipation of lower productivity), but both the employer and employee were usually happy with the arrangement because both profited. And the disabled employee was valued for what they could do, rather than what they couldn’t. And in the past, employers were able to make what they felt were reasonable accommodations, while now government decides what is reasonable often after the employee is hired.

      Freedom is better and makes us more prosperous. More government harms people, after all, ALL government does is use force against individuals, and that isn’t a good thing (and is what criminals also do).

  2. 10,000 socialists ready to vote folks into more slavery, while ignoring history on purpose. Because this time around, the right person with the right socialism will get it right.

    Fuck of slavers.

    1. Fuck of slavers.

      I love it!

      A murder of crows.
      A gaggle of geese.
      A fuck of slavers.

      1. +10

    2. liberal states are rich and do all the work and pay all taxes. poor states are conservative and take the money of hard-working liberals. youre right, we are enslaved–to the lazy-ass rednecks and frat boys who insist that the feds make up for their failures.
      last week stossel had an article about how liberals are all anti GMO. then pew poll reveals that there is no distinction between left and right on GMO.s did stossel apologize? no. why do work when youve had everything handed to you for your entire life?

      1. Aren’t those liberal states the ones with the greatest inequality? Doesn’t that suggest progressive policies concentrate wealth

        Since the richest states are indeed liberal, i am not sure how liberals can claim the GOP is the party of the rich?

      2. Perhaps Stossel wasn’t convinced of the accuracy of such polls. Anecdotally, almost every person I’ve heard complain about GMO’s are on the liberal side of the fence. I’m curious, why do you think that Stossel’s had stuff handed to him? For my money, he’s a breath of fresh air in an otherwise disgustingly pro-government, elitist, and incompetent profession.

        1. The health foods crowd crosses over left-right, but tends to skip over the middle.

          1. No, actually they don’t. You leftists are crazy, plain and simple.

            1. It’s the brain damage from the vegetarians and vegans not getting their B-12 and other vital chemical compounds only naturally available by eating meat.

              Humans are omnivores and read meat is literally brain food.

              1. @Galane “Read meat” is brain food? Have another steak…

            2. Leftists will be right, after we re-engineer (genetically I assume, although cyborg radio mind-control from Washington, DC, might work just as well) human nature. After all free will is eliminated, and All is for the Sacred Hive, ***THEN*** socialism will FINALLY work! Then we, the Socialistic Borg, can take over the entire Local Galactic Cluster… And turn it into some sort of Grand Cluster-Fuck, I bet!

        2. I know at least a couple hundred folks who are VERY concerned about the proven dangers/harms of GMO food and the associated increase in the use of dangerous herbicides that do NOT break down, and some of which are known carcinogens, and cause other proven harms…… and NOT ONE OF THEM is what would be called “liberal”, socialist, progressive. They are simply people with their eyes open, who “trust but verify” and reject when indicated, who do NOT swallow the gummint kewlade, are capable or rational thought, research. So much for your theory.

          1. And yet no citation on any of that…

            1. HE IS MORE POPULAR THAN YOU LOSER HE HAS 100’S OF FRIENDS

        3. It’s interesting to see how things polarize as buying power stagnates, infrastructure crumbles, and wealth continues to concentrate. Here on Reason, we’re actually reading stuff like “Profit is reinvested in ways that make all of us better off!” – the same old argument we were hearing when buying power was growing, infrastructure hadn’t started to crumble, and wealth was a bit more evenly distributed. How are we supposed to react? By saying, “Well, shucks! And I thought the fact that I can’t get ahead and my mother has to work at Wal-Mart has something to do with the rich getting richer! And, doggone! I can get rich too if I just work hard enough and vote for more tax cuts for the rich! It just takes a while, I guess.”

          You’ll have to come up with better than that to sell to the people, pal. We may be dumb, but we know there’s only so much to go around. We heard Koch say “I want my fair share, and that’s everything.” We know who’s running the show, and it’s not we the people. And we know the big boys in charge also know there’s only so much to go around. We know that “voting for less government” really means voting for the right to freeze in the dark alone and die on the pavement. If your paymasters are so dead set against goverment, they why do they want us to elect them to run… the government? We’re dumb, yeah. But not that dumb.

          Your employers are trembling, and it’s not from the cold. We’re the ones who are cold, and there’s more and more of us.

          1. The economy is not zero-sum. Wealth can be and is created all the time – when regulations aren’t stifling it.

            And go ahead and post your citation for that absolutely fabricated Koch quote. You think the Clintons don’t want everything?

            1. Well Team Blue did end up buying what the Koch Bros were selling on gay marriage & legalized pot. It just takes them about 30-40 years to piece it together. (citation Koch bid for LP presidential nomination)

        4. What profession is that? I assume you mean that of journalist. This guy is no journalist, he’s a propagandist – just like the “journalists” at the New Yok Times.

      3. I can’t make out how Sanders is a socialist. Socialism is ‘the ownership and control of the means of production by the workers’.

        1. It’s ownership by the state, with the (unjustified) assumption that the state will represent the workers. Communists purport to favor eventual transfer of ownership directly to workers’ communes from the state, but somehow they never seem to get there,

      4. It’s also the case that anti-vaccine people are fairly divided across the political divide, but that doesn’t stop every lefty int he world from claiming it’s an instance of ‘right wing anti-science’ ideology.

        The rest of your comment is just diarrhea; try being cogent and then you’ll be worth responding too.

        1. Anti-GMO and anti-vaccine are still predominantly Left philosophies. Just look at the positions of the hard greens and that tells you everything you need to know.

          1. you need to get out more often and explore new crowds. I know very few “lefties” but nearly everyone I DO know is concerned about GMO’s, support labelling, even elimination (how is it that the entire EU, all of Central America, Chine, Brasil, and a good part of the rest of South America bans GMO crops?) and are VERY careful about what they eat, and what they feed their children (yes, most of the people I know have children, plural, something very few “lefties” are much about). Those that are awake enough to not have bought the GMO scam are also awake enough to be VERY wary of vaccines and their proven dangers. One man I know used to be something of a left-leaning socialist liberal type… until his six year old daughter got a vaccine against his better judgement…. and was dead within a week, proven result of the vaccine. THAt knocked him adrift for a while, and when he had done conetmplating it all, he is now a very concservative, anti0government, libertarian leaning non-conformist, certainly far from any possible labelling as “leftie”, progressive, liberal, socialist, etc.

      5. A new study from George Mason University’s Mercatus Center confirms what many of us already knew:
        Liberal “blue states” are fiscally irresponsible.
        In fact, 11 of the 14 least fiscally solvent states are also on the list of the “dirty dozen” most liberal blue states. In descending order of fiscal irresponsibility, from 50th to 37th, here’s the list of fiscal shame:
        #50 ILLINOIS
        #49 NEW JERSEY
        #48 MASSACHUSETTS
        #47 CONNECTICUT
        #46 NEW YORK
        #44 CALIFORNIA
        #42 MAINE
        #40 HAWAII
        #39 VERMONT
        #38 RHODE ISLAND
        #37 MARYLAND
        The 12th state in the “dirty dozen” list?Delaware?does not fare particularly well either, placing 30th out of the 50 states.
        The Mercatus Center report ranked the 50 states “based on their fiscal solvency in five separate categories:”
        (1) Cash solvency. Does a state have enough cash on hand to cover its short-term bills?
        (2) Budget solvency. Can a state cover its fiscal year spending with current revenues? Or does it have a budget shortfall?
        (3) Long-run solvency. Can a state meet its long-term spending commitments? Will there be enough money to cushion it from economic shocks or other long-term fiscal risks?
        (4) Service-level solvency. How much fiscal “slack” does a state have to increase spending should citizens demand more services?
        (5) Trust fund solvency. How much debt does a state have? How large are its unfunded pen?sion and health care liabilities?

  3. i used to work with a dishwasher who also did other jamaican ladies’ hair on the side (apparently it’s very different from WASP hair, and there’s an enormous jamaican population on nantucket for some reason). The best way I could think of to improve her work and economic situation is stop making her do haircuts in her living room, but she didn’t have the resources to get a govt license to do hair. It’s insane, by the way, that you need a aesthetician’s license to aesthetify someone but any junkie off the street can get hired to cook your food (not saying you should need a license to cook; one of the things ive always liked about that field is it’s one of the very very very few places left in this country you can start off as an uncredentialed teenager and work your way up on merit alone, which leads to way more interesting coworkers than in some office, I suspect; I’ve never worked in an office)

    1. “there’s an enormous jamaican population on nantucket for some reason”

      I once knew a man from Nantucket

      1. There once was a man from Perdue
        Who wrote limericks of lines numbered two.

        I once knew a man from Verdun.

        1. And (sigh), I remember the gal from Cabrille’
          who used a dynamite stick for a thrill.

          1. There once was a creature from Venus,
            Who came equipped with a prehensile penis,
            Said the women who loved it,
            They loved when he shoved it,
            Around, beneath, and between us!

            1. There once was a man from Peru,
              Who fell asleep in his canoe,
              While dreaming of Venus,
              He fingered his penis,
              And awoke in a glob of goooo!!!!

              1. There once was a person from Reason,
                Who, loving freedom, was full of treason,
                They said he must repent,
                His life, in sin, he had spent,
                “All for the Hive” is in season!

    2. there’s an enormous jamaican population on nantucket for some reason

      They’re islands people.

  4. Again, if we had anybody actually running on a libertarian bent or actual semblance of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism, this wouldn’t even be talked about.
    But the Ds and Rs have shown themselves to be one and the same. Hence, the people turning out for Bernie Sanders are thinking “Well, f*** it, if the gov’t is gonna be this big gargantuan monstrosity, it might as well provide more for me.”

    So instead of blaming Sanders and ilk, you should be blaming the people next to you that continually vote terrible people into office. All those people that “don’t throw their vote away” on a third party candidate.

    1. BUT IF I DON’T VOTE FOR THE REPUBLICAN, A DEMOCRAT MIGHT WIN! EVERY ELECTION IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE EVER! WE’RE ONLY 100 REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL VICTORIES IN A ROW AWAY FROM ROLLING BACK THE NEW DEAL!

      1. which is the lesser of the two evils again?

        1. Yes

        2. Well when your options are Bush and Clinton I’ma say Cthulhu is the lesser evil

          1. Well if you’re going to get all science fiction – y about it, I’ll go with the re-animated corpse of James Madison.

      2. We can’t let the *wrong* lizard get in!

      3. Don’t blame me, I voted for Kodos.

        1. The Executioner? I don’t know but his daughter was freakin hot!

          1. Hmm…a Star Trek freak who is also a lover of Norse mythos. You’re not from Montana, are you?

      4. What about impeaching Obama? Won’t be long now?

        1. I hope you heard the whooshing sound as you clicked submit.

    2. instead of blaming Sanders and ilk, you should be blaming the people next to you that continually vote terrible people into office

      Those categories are hardly mutually exclusive.

  5. I don’t think the Dems know what they want. They just know they don’t want Hillary. No one likes her! Bernie Sanders is a joke but he seems to be the only other game in town. Joe Biden probably could have walked away with the whole thing if he was more organized. We’ll have to wait and see. Rand Paul is driving them crazy because they know if it ever comes down to it, he will bring more Dems over to the other side than they have ever seen before in history.

    1. Harry, what makes you think that Rand will bring Dems/Indys over to him? I know that that is the conventional wisdom, particularly here, but do you have any evidence for this? If you do, I would love to see it.

      1. Many of the Democrats i know agree with Rand Paul on a lot of really big issues, but they would never, ever vote for him because he has that R after his name. TRIBEZ SON

        1. This fact probably explains a good deal of the failure of classically liberal-minded politicians to do well in the US. In theory they should be choice candidates because of the ability to draw people from the other side, but politics is too much like team sports and too much a matter of pride and self-image for things to actually work out that way.

      2. Rand is TEH RACEIST because one time he speculated on the constitutionality of the CRA and he hates homos so much he wants to illegal marriage@!!!!!!111!!!!!

        1. not sure why that posted as a link…

          1. Because Hitler.

            1. Make that Because@Hitler

          2. The Reason squirrels are too busy with alternately ignoring and duplicating posts to fix their URL and email regular expressions.

            1. *sigh* — You shouldn’t use regex to handle email-address validation.

              (Here’s proof.)

          3. That “at” sign in the middle confused the system into seeing it as an email address.

    2. Huckabee might bring over even more.

  6. Stossel for President! Moustache 2016! JFS 2016!

    1. You can say that again.

  7. Stossel for President! Moustache 2016! JFS 2016!

  8. Sen. Sanders and his fellow socialists should stop callously ignoring how government makes life harder for poor people.

    That’s too nice by half. They’re not ignoring it; they want it that way. Ensuring that a poor person can’t improve his own life makes him beholden to the government, which is heaven on earth to the socialists.

    1. I disagree. I believe most of them do have good intentions. They’re just so blinded by those good intentions that they cannot see the results of the well-intentioned policies that they so adore. That’s how the the road to hell is paved.

      1. I agree with sarcasmic. I think Sanders is a true believer. People like HRC are more likely to be manipulative and want to keep people in thrall to the state.

        1. HRC is interested only in power. The quote most people know is that power corrupts, but I prefer another quote:

          “All governments suffer a redurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible.”

          FRANK HERBERT, Chapterhouse: Dune

          1. I like to call it the Cincinattus paradox: the person who most deserves the position of power and will hold it most responsibly is generally the one who least wants it, and the one who wants it most is usually the one who deserves it least and will hold it most irresponsibly.

        2. I laugh when I hear Hilary spouting nonsense about “income inequality” or “affordable housing”. It is so glaringly obvious that she doesn’t mean a word of it.

          I suppose there are true believers out there but they quickly get co-opted by *real* politicians for their own ends – the Cuomos, the Clintons, the Deblasios.

        3. I’m willing to give Sanders the benefit of the doubt, myself. If he actually believes socialism is the answer, at least it makes him consistent.

          1. If he actually believes socialism is the answer, at least it makes him consistent stupid, as opposed to evil.

            FTFY.

          2. Yeah, Sanders sticks by his principles. They’re wrong and dumb, but he sticks by ’em.

            1. Except when it comes to ice cream.

        4. I would have a higher regard for his competence (and less for his humanity) if he were intentionally enslaving the nation’s naive into government dependence. But I’m pretty sure that’s not the case. He really continues, in his 70s, to believe the same doomed utopia-building shit as a lot of 22 year old kids whose entire life experience exists inside of classrooms (and their 70-something professors whose entire life experience exists inside of classrooms). I guess what I’m saying is that he’s just really not very competent. I’d say he’s going to get the entire incompetent demographic, but there’s a whole other layer of that class devoted to Donald Trump.

      2. That’s certainly a wise working hypothesis, until you have solid evidence that they really are evil shitbags.

        1. I’d like to think that most people mean well, and that evil shitbags are a distinct minority. Unfortunately, well-meaning people who are blinded by their good intentions become useful idiots for evil shitbags.

          1. Way to go Sarcasmic!

            “blinded by their good intentions” == self-righteousness… A way, way, WAY-too common human failing! I do not get my panties in a wad about these kinds of things, atheists v/s agnostics v/s Buddhists & Xtians and on and on and on… As a broad-minded or wanting-to-be-broadminded semi-Xtian, I would just say, “By their fruits, you will know them.” Regardless of their creeds! … Self-righteousness is the root, MeThinks, of a shit-load of rotten, putrid, horrid fruit, which I for one would like to bury in the nearest ocean-bottom-muck subduction zone, wrapped in 12 alternating layers of concrete and steel, and hope and pray it does not re-surface for the next few tens of millions of years!

        2. The fact that not a single one of these idiotic programs put into law is done away with once they see the disastrous consequences should leave no doubt about where these socialists really stand on the scale of “true believer with good intentions” vs. evil.

      3. ^This. I recently had a discussion with some leftists who thought that Baltimore’s “priorities” were wrong because they were building a new youth jail and not “investing in education.” I pointed out that Baltimore has some of the highest per-pupil spending in the country, and has been run by Democrats exclusively for generations, so why did the place still suck? They had no good answers, and concluded by saying that people like me were the real cause of the problem.

        *SIGH*

        1. and concluded by saying that people like me were the real cause of the problem.

          Well, yeah. If you disagree with their methods then you must disagree with their good intentions, which must mean you have bad intentions, which must mean you are a bad person. Q.E.D.

          1. feelings trump facts. They view everything through an emotional and intentional lens, so opposition is due to an opposing intention. They intend for good things to happen, so it must be that their opposition intends for bad things to happen.

        2. I would argue, in reference to your experience, that their intentions regarding other actual people (the ones they think they’re helping) aren’t actually that relevant to what the believe. I think it’s not as much about good intentions vs. evil as it is about people’s self image and their perceived place in the world.

          When someone is trying to helps someone else, and you explain that their ‘helping wrong’, if they’re sincere, they would actually be concerned and want to hear what you have to say, even if they think it’s on’y an off chance that they’re actually not helping. If the person is evil and is only helping in order to manipulate, they wouldn’t care one way or the other whether they’re casually helping.

          Most people, rather, get angry and resort to ad hominems when you demonstrate that they’re not really helping. I think it’s because you’re challenging their self-image as an enlightened, altruistic, progressive person. Or because your challenging the integrity of their intellectual tribe. In my opinion, most people form their opinions not based on logically deducing the way the world most likely is or what most likely should be done to achieve some end; most people pick the opinions that are most associated with the traits that they want people to think they have; or they pick the opinions that will ingratiate them most with the people whose approval they seek.

      4. I think the vast majority have good intentions and are so blinded to reality that they believe just about anything they are told. There are a few who know exactly what they are doing.

        1. ^^^ Yup.

          Google “Pathological altruism.”

          What little research has been done into this area suggests that humans are geared to make snap decisions based on intuition, then use their intellect to build rationalizations to support their intuitive notions.”

          So, unless you make a conscious effort to break things down intellectually before forming your opinion, you’re really just using FEELZ.

          Pretty much sums up modern “political discourse.”

      5. I believe most of them do have good intentions.

        I don’t. Their “good intentions” only amount to “Give the icky-scary people money so I don’t have to see them being icky. And give them housing in a separate part of town so they don’t come close to me.”

        Which is the exact same intention they’ve had since the 60’s except now we have proof positive that their intentions don’t help and make things worse. The fact that their intentions haven’t changed one bit means these people don’t have good intentions and are pure evil. I refuse to let them use stupidity as an excuse.

        1. People definitely have that attitude towards schizophrenics & some other psychotics.

        2. _I don’t. Their “good intentions” only amount to “Give the icky-scary people money so I don’t have to see them being icky. And give them housing in a separate part of town so they don’t come close to me.”_

          So if I read right, you’re okay with having the icky-scary people live next door to you? Or do you propose to get government off their backs so they can “pull themselves out of poverty by finding new and better ways to do things, or just by working hard”?

          1. Believe it or not–and libs never do–some ‘poor’ people are actually happy as they are and just want to live their lives in peace. Not everyone is obsessed with climbing the ladder or winning the rat race.

            1. And I say they’re welcome to live their lives poor and in peace.

              That said, they don’t need handouts then, if they’re so happy. If they’re happy then they should decline assistance in the form of EBT, WIC, welfare, Section 8 housing, and everything else that they haven’t earned.

              They won’t, though. Because they’re really not happy being poor.

          2. Yeah, why not?

      6. There are those with nothing but the BEST intentions. But they have never been confronted with the brutal history of Socialism, never been faced with the facts on the ground, and are now too bought in to deal with it. They won’t face what monsters Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, and Che were because recognizing it would break them and on some level they know it. They won’t face what a mess Socialism made of the British economy, the Greek economy, the French economy, and so on because it runs counter to their deeply held religious beliefs.

        And for a long time, they have been allowed to go their way largely unchallenged, because they (and the ones with bad intentions that Mr. Sandwich is talking about) controlled the discussion.

        Over the last few decades we have heard, time and time again, that political discourse in this country is becoming mean and divisive. That is the cry of Liberal Intellectual Radical Progressives being forced to face other opinions, and deal with the facts as they stand. That is what politics USUALLY is like; they just took control of it for a few decades in the middle of the 20th Century, and the ones that grew up in that artificial environment think it is the natural state of things. The LIRPs are losing control of the debate, losing the ability to ignore the facts, and they HATE it.

        Poor diddums.

        *spit*

    2. Well for freaks sake. If libertarians or fiscal conservatives wanna point out how government makes life harder for poor people, then why can’t they even utter the words TARP anymore – and point out the consequences of that sort of cronyism – and hammer that issue home (and yes that means hitting the beneficiaries of it hard)? Instead I can guarandamntee that those two are simply gonna do the usual BS of blaming the poor for being moochers and pretending that all the poor need is a good kick in the butt. Yeah that’ll work.

      1. then why can’t they even utter the words TARP anymore

        We did, we still do occasionally, and we will again. But what the fuck good does it do to harp on a program that only lasted a couple of years? If there’s a TARP-2 Electric Boogaloo, I can promise you libertarians will be over criticizing it. And then the other 99% of the media will ignore us just like last time.

        Instead I can guarandamntee that those two are simply gonna do the usual BS of blaming the poor for being moochers and pretending that all the poor need is a good kick in the butt.

        There is a difference between being poor and being a moocher. One is a state of being, the other is a choice. The poor don’t need a “kick in the butt”, they need opportunity and an end to handouts. That means we cut regulation, taxation, and welfare. The sorts of things we do harp about all the fucking time.

        Yeah that’ll work.

        And your solution is what, exactly?

        1. I can promise you libertarians will be all over criticizing it

  9. It amazes me with the Greece fiasco anyone can mention more socialism with a straight face. I suppose this is what happens when people can vote themselves things they otherwise wouldn’t have.

    1. but greece really only had a problem of people NOT paying taxes. If everyone paid their taxes it would all be sunshine, olive oil, and early retirement.

      /sarc

      1. It is true that people in Greece don’t pay their taxes, but that on its own is telling (especially when you see them celebrating in the streets after their cute little referendum), and even if they did pay it wouldn’t make any difference.

    2. But what’s happening in Greece is the fault of those mean old Germans and proves that austerity doesn’t work. I’ve actually been told this.

      1. That was Ayn Rand’s true (and only) brilliance, recognizing the most loathsome creature alive – the petulant, self-righteous beggar.

      2. Like Sanders said, the ECB is a bank, and the IMF is *like* a bank, therefore the problem is Wall Street!

      3. I’ve heard the “austerity failed” line way too many times. Yet no one can give one example where an indebted government actually tried to live within its means.

        In a similar vein, I frequently here the “we’ve tried free market capitalism” line in reference to the U.S. No one seems to have an answer when I ask, “When?”

        1. Greece will have a balanced budget for the first time this year following a decade of severe profligacy that resulted in massive debt. The mendacity of people who claim “austerity” has even taken place, nonetheless is responsible for the situation, would be laughable if it wasn’t so widely tolerated.

        2. Also, in what ways exactly are we economically so worse off than the ‘socialist’ countries in Europe? In terms of median income, we’re like 4th in the world, and the 3 euro countries above us all have fewer than 10 million people, and none gets nearly as many impoverishent immigrants pulling down the numbers than us.

          It’s like the people making the comparisons never even bothered to look at the numbers. The Europeans most certainly have not left us in the dust. I mean, they’re not as fat as us and (relatedly probably) they live longer, but something tells me that’s not a socialism vs. capitalism issue. All the socialism in the world won’t stop Americans from stuffing their faces with cheeseburgers.

          1. “All the socialism in the world won’t stop Americans from stuffing their faces with cheeseburgers.”

            Agreed, which is why we need to install cameras with face recognition on every corner, so that we can identify and monitor people who selfishly damage our nation’s health by eating cheeseburgers.

            To prevent abuse and ensure the efficiency of this system (and create jobs!) we each camera will be monitored by its own (exhaustively trained) Monitoring Technician. The tax revenue from all these new jobs ensures that the entire project will remain budget-neutral.

            I call it the “Freedom from Bloating and Obesity” act.

    3. “this is what happens when people can vote themselves things they otherwise wouldn’t have”

      On our local far-left radio station (KPFA) their straight-faced take was “the Greek people *voted* that they shouldn’t have to pay their debts. Why are we even still acting like they should have to?”

      1. In some ways, I don’t have a huge problem with that – provided Greece is treated like any other scofflaw. No bailouts, no loans, nothing. If they ever recover, make claims on their assets.

        1. I can agree with that. KPFA’s point was that they should also have their debts forgiven, and receive further subsidies, because they need them and it would be unfair to ask them to cut social benefits in any way. Rich people should pay for it, since their money is rained on them by “the Economy,” which everyone deserves to benefit from, not just the idle Rich.

          I am not exaggerating.

          1. I figured a leftist site would have that kind of conclusion. A number of my leftist friends hold similar sentiments. Their mentality seems to be that the only reason there are poor people or poor countries is because they have been screwed by the powerful.

            That said, it’s hard to see any good guys in the Greek fiasco on either side.

            1. “it’s hard to see any good guys in the Greek fiasco on either side.”

              This, for sure. The whole “that crack-addicted petty thief I keep loaning high-interest money to won’t pay it back, somebody help me!” argument is less than compelling, also.

            2. Their mentality seems to be that the only reason there are poor people or poor countries is because they have been screwed by the powerful.

              Well, duh. The only reason the rich people in rich countries are rich, is because they go to poor countries with poor people who have nothing, and take it from them.

    4. The Greeks think they gotta be socialist because that’s the only way to keep the juntas from coming back. & vice versa.

  10. Bernie Sanders’ Kid #1: “What should we get dad for his birthday?”
    Bernie Sanders’ Kid #2: “Depends.”

    1. That’s my go-to response when I’m asked “Boxers or Briefs?”

  11. The weak and the powerless always seek supermen to protect them from the wild and wicked world.

    1. “One of the saddest days of my life was when my mother told me Superman did not exist. I was like what do you mean he’s not real. And she thought I was crying because it’s like Santa Claus is not real and I was crying because there was no one coming with enough power to save us.”

      1. The average “socialist” wants cradle to grave support of all basic human needs so that he or she can spend their life fucking around and enjoying themselves.

        1. Even George Jetson had a job.

          1. Yeah, but don’t tell him that button he presses isn’t connected to anything.

        2. Someone I know on Facebook posted some bs quote from R. Buckminster Fuller about how we shouldn’t have to go about the drudgery of working. Rather we should all be free to think.

          It continually amazes me that people so smart can be so fucking dumb about people and reality.

          1. If someone was a good thinker, I could pay them to think of things for me.

            However, the evidence of this quote on their page tells me that they are not a good “thinker.”

  12. Generally, people who claim to like “socialism” will turn out, if you talk to them, to be motivated by a few primary emotions: envy and hatred of those who have more than them. The people with this consuming envy don’t care if policies help them or others in any way; they only care if the policies are presented as having a detrimental effect on their primary targets of envy: the rich and corporations/businesses.

    These people will always support these policies, especially when the policies are presented as also helping the poor somehow (which they always are presented as, regardless of whether they have ever worked that way). Because that envy never sleeps, and it is powerful.

    1. Amen, sister.

    2. Aye. You see it when they have an emotional reaction whenever the subject of wealth or inequality or even capitalism comes up. The logical part of their brain shuts completely off, and emotions take over. They cease to respond and can only react. They become animals.

      1. And that is the proof that they have no good intentions whatsoever.

        1. I think it’s proof that they’ve got a fucked up sense of what “good” is.

    3. That, plus they think they are going to get free shit paid for by someone else. Just consider the proggie who was shocked because she thought someone else was going to be paying for Obamacare.

      1. I was discussing presidential candidates with my liberal sister- always a bad idea. She brought up Elizabeth Warren, and when I countered with what a bad idea “free” college for everyone is, she was shocked. “But your children would benefit from this.” She could not understand how I could be against a program that would give my family free shit. She left, acting like I was bat-shit crazy.

        1. The “Star Trek” Generation. Gene Roddenberry created a world that was a liberal progressive socialist’s wet dream, a “post-scarcity” world, where humans would no longer have to fight for resources and material wealth, and they have been fighting to try and get that nightmare to become a reality. I call it a nightmare because it would be incredibly boring.

          1. Deep Space Nine pretty much destroyed any pretense that Roddenberry’s world was all that different from ours. What we had seen prior to that show was a very artificial environment with a select group of people, insulated from the wider world, who were provided the most advanced technology available at the time. It turns out that, when you get off the flagship of the fleet, there’s money, greed, religion, violence, politics, desperation, and all sorts of realities that Picard and Kirk could just warp away from at the end of a mission.

            1. Hell, Kirk’s Federation seems a lot less ‘post-scarcity progressive utopia’ than Picard’s. I seem to remember someone mentioning currency ‘credits’ and there being a non-denominational religious centre. Far cry from Picard’s arrogant moralizing about money or religion.

          2. Another lefty on Facebook posted some dumb-ass meme:
            Mad Max/Road Warrior was the Libertarian Paradise
            ST:TNG was the Socialist Paradise

            As a fan of TOS, there wasn’t much socialism nonsense in it. The TNG brought out the whole socialistic thing.

            Of course: Lord Humungous didn’t exactly have any respect for private property rights.
            And I won’t hold my breath waiting for the magical, free source of energy that enables people to go hundreds of times the speed of light for no other reason than peaceful exploration.

            But thinkins iz HARD!

          3. The problem with Star Trek and its ‘post-scarity-but-not-really’ world is not that it’s boring,it’s that its stagnant. If you have the technological capacity the Federation seems to have you can start building dyson spheres and such. You can’t claim to be ‘post-scarcity’ and still have land disputes with the Klingons. At least Banks understood that glaring problem with the Culture series.

    4. Also, at least in my experience, many people who claim to like socialism cannot explain what it is, beyond “everything that I like.”

      1. To add to that, when socialists talk of libertarians, it’s always in terms of what libertarians like. They cannot comprehend abstractions and principles, so they assume that it all comes down to like and dislike.

      2. That’s because the primary philosophy behind socialism is the redistribution of wealth, and that means “take from the richer by force and ostensibly give to the poor”, but the part they really get off on is the “take from the rich by force” part. So yes, they are being honest when they say it’s “everything that I like”.

        1. They also fail to understand that without capitalism, there will be no wealth to take. Socialism is a zero-sum game, while capitalism grows the pie. Once you divvy up the pie, if there’s no one left to grow it, you’re done.

          Like the Iron Lady said: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”

          1. That’s because central banking ruins nearly everyone’s understanding of money.

            1. It blows people’s minds when I tell them that inflation wasn’t the norm 150 years ago, and that it’s merely a modern construct. They can’t comprehend the fact that you could literally bury a dollar in 1795, dig it up in 1859 and it would buy more in 1859 than 1795.

              Central Banking has become so inherent in modern society that they can’t even imaging what it would be like without it.

      3. Keep in mind that none of these terms mean what they used to mean. My office mate describes himself as a “Socialist,” but as far as I can tell what he means by that is “not an anarchist.”

        Meanwhile, another office mate commented about being nervous about going to rural Idaho because of the “libertarians” they have there. To the mainstream left wing media, libertarian = “racist anarchist warlord.” To the mainstream right wing media libertarian = anarchist libertine atheist traitor.

        Polls, however, consistently show that while people respond favorably to the word “Socialism” they respond unfavorably to the idea of the government managing the economy (this describes my office mate exactly). While people respond unfavorably to the word “Capitalism,” they tend to respond favorably to the idea of free markets.

        What we have is two parties utterly floundering to misrepresent both their own views and the views of libertarians, which I find encouraging in a long-view kind of way.

        1. Let’s deconstruct that word, Socialism.

          The root word is “Social”, meaning “of society”. But, what is society?

          The best dictionary definition I could find that suits the purpose of this demonstration is:

          the community of people living in a particular country or region and having shared customs, laws, and organizations.

          Now, let’s replace “Social” with “Society”. We now have “Societyism”.

          The reason people respond positively to ” Socialism “, I think is because people seem to think it means that ” society ” will be the Government. And they think that they are this “Society Government”.

          1. Social is a leftwing euphemism for “horrible sort of”. Like socialism, social justice, or social media.

        2. Let’s deconstruct that word, Socialism.

          The root word is “Social”, meaning “of society”. But, what is society?

          The best dictionary definition I could find that suits the purpose of this demonstration is:

          the community of people living in a particular country or region and having shared customs, laws, and organizations.

          Now, let’s replace “Social” with “Society”. We now have “Societyism”.

          The reason people respond positively to ” Socialism “, I think is because people seem to think it means that ” society ” will be the Government. And they think that they are this “Society Government”.

        3. Well, duh, “capitalism” was a coinage of a communist! As Clarence Carson & others have pointed out, if constructed in parallel w other -isms, it’s not a good word for free enterprise. So say “free enterprise”, which means free enterprise.

    5. Progressivism 101: “Profits are evil”

  13. Socialism means never having to take responsibility for your bad decisions. Who wouldn’t want that?

    1. Adults.

  14. OT: We must save people from themselves, part (insanely huge number)

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/healt…..ailsignout

    While some may see Staples’ unfortunate accident as a nominee for the Darwin Awards, his mother, Kathleen Staples, sees it as a call for stricter laws regarding who can and cannot handle explosives. “At least it’d be a little bit more than, ‘Here you go,'” the grieving mother told the Associated Press. “That’s an explosive. They didn’t just hand me a license and put me in the car.”

    1. What about the dumb fuck that jumped in the alligator’s mouth?

      1. There was also a dumb Texan who went swimming in Australia last week. There were signs reading, “Don’t Swim, Crocodiles in the Water.” He ignored the signs, the croc didn’t ignore him. Can’t find the story right now.

        1. More laws would have physically prevented him from entering that water.

          1. Maybe a tax to fund a Crocodile Patrol? We know that the Bear Patrol worked in Springfield.

            BTW & OT: Harry Shearer signed a new contract yesterday.

            1. False.

              Not sure if you meant Stanley Charlie, Australian recently killed by crocs while swimming in the Endeavor River (Queensland, Aus.) ,”described as Aboriginal, approx. 170 cm tall, with a slim build, short grey hair…”

              Of if you (as I suspect) you meant Tommie Woodward, the Missouri-born idiot killed last week by Texan crocodiles. Per St. Louis Post Dispatch: “A relative confirmed that Woodward grew up in Pacific, Missouri but moved away to find work….”

              http://www.stltoday.com/news/l…..4bc85.html

              If the swimmer had been a native Texan, the crocodile would be dead & the Texan would have new boots.

        2. That’s the one I’m talking about, I believe. Unless there were two brain-dead assholes who jumped directly into an alligator’s mouth at dinner time.

          1. Got it.

          2. Here’s the story:

            http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/04/…..or-attack/

            For some reason I thought this happened in Australia. Someone was attacked by a croc in Australia last week but it wasn’t fatal and she wasn’t being particularly stupid.

        3. His soon to be famous last words, according to a witness, were “fuck the alligators”.

          1. The poor alligator was just protecting itself. Rolling Stone tells me that 1 in 5 alligators has been sexually molested, so it obviously took “Fuck the alligators” as an actionable threat.

          2. What? No “Hold onto my beer and watch this”?

            1. It’s Texas, not Florida.

    2. Sorry lady, but you can’t fix stupid.

    3. The kid’s already dead, arresting the corpse for handling explosives without a license seems like overkill.

  15. What could possibly go wrong

    1. At this point, might as well just fuck it all.

  16. a Venn diagram would be helpful.

  17. I disagree. I think lots of very loud Democrats want socialism. That, coupled with the repeated success of Barack Obama at the polls, has convinced the Democratic Party that it’s time to go socialist.

    Most of America disagrees, as evidenced by the Dems’ success during the last six years worth of elections without Obama on the ballot.

    Let them nominate Sanders. It will guarantee a victory for the Republicans.

    1. what if it doesn’t. i guess that’s worth knowing, too.

      1. Well, then we’ll know that we can start measuring industrial productivity based on tonnage of woodchippers built in Agricultural Machinery City #4.

        The upside is that in America, we’ll have *four*-year plans

      2. what if it doesn’t. i guess that’s worth knowing, too

        If Sanders were elected into office with a bunch of Congressmen sympathetic to his cause? I think we’d be to armed hostilities by the next election, and that’s not necessarily a good thing for long-term liberty.

        I noticed something this 4th of July. There were a heckuva lot of ‘Murica conservatives who were celebrating what America “once was.” It was like a funeral almost.

        I think there is a large faction of conservatives who are at a tipping point, and would try to go all Confederate if Bernie Sanders got any legislative traction. Perhaps I’m just seeing extended fallout from Obergefell, but I don’t think so. The tenor of this year’s 4th of July was markedly different from the Tea Party camp than it has been previously.

  18. You know who else wanted more socialism…

    (but don’t worry this time it will work fer sure – Scout’s honor!)

    1. Eugene V. Debs

  19. Commies gonna commie, John.

  20. Sanders calls himself a “democratic socialist,” not to be confused with New York City mayor Bill de Blasio’s preferred label, “social democrat,”

    Pretty easy mistake to make, considering that “social democrat” is a term that came into the vogue when certain socialists wanted to split themselves off from revolutionary and internationalist socialists and anarchists and work within the parliamentary system.

    1. No doubt, they consider each other to be heretics.

      Here’s hoping epic LULZ ensue as their rhetoric pushes them to denounce each other.

      1. So we’re talking Judean People’s Front vs People’s Front of Judea here?

        1. Pretty much.

          I’m just hanging around wondering who will want to change his name to Loretta.

          1. MAN, this would be BRILLIANT! Wouldn’t it be a hate crime to vote against her?

        2. It’s more like two different styles of camouflage covering the same thing.

        3. I was brought up (dragged up) in Europe.

          Until you see it in places like local government in the UK, it’s hard to imagine that the most vicious screeching slapfests are between people with ideologies so similar that you can’t slip a credit card between them.

          With some people, the purity test is at least as important as the belief system. Not that we as enlightened libertarians would believe that.

      2. Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, “Don’t do it!”
        He said, “Nobody loves me.”
        I said, “God loves you. Do you believe in God?”
        He said, “Yes.”
        I said, “Are you a Christian or a Jew?”
        He said, “A Christian.”
        I said, “Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?”
        He said,”Protestant.”
        I said, “Me, too! What franchise?”
        He said, “Baptist.”
        I said, “Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?”
        He said, “Northern Baptist.”
        I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?
        He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist.”
        I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative
        Baptist Eastern Region?”
        He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region.”
        I said,”Me, too!” Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?”
        He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912.”
        I said, “Die, heretic!” And I pushed him over.
        ? Emo Philips

  21. I don’t think American’s understand socialism in terms of Bernie’s beliefs. However, Bernie is doing an outstanding job of underscoring the issues that truly upset the majority of Americans: Wall Street and big bank theft, a consistent foreign policy of ongoing war and a class war that is gaining ground due to the loss of jobs and a widening gap between rich and poor. The middle class is under siege and there is no doubt that the progressive deep thinkers have no idea how and why a $15 minimum wage will do far more harm than good.

    Bernie’s right about a lot of things and Hillary is clearly a dishonest, self-absorbed crook. Republicans continue to prove they’re tone deaf on almost every issue. …It is a sad time in our political evolution…

    1. I’m really hoping that one candidate (either party, really) directly and explicitly accuses Hillary of being the criminal that she is and runs on a platform of prosecuting her.

    2. And he’s totally going to solve all of those problems by making the government bigger and more powerful.

      And there’s the problem.

  22. Democrats are now the progressive party. And progressives are decidedly socialist. Well, in a fascist sort of way.

  23. I’m with Stossel, as usual. The more freaking laws we have the harder it is for entrepreneurs to get started. But our fine proggy friends demand more laws…..as long as those laws to intrude on those same proggies.

    1. Who needs the market when you have government? We can go to supermarkets run by the FDA, consume media approved by the FCC, have all crime processed by the FBI, and we can just pay the DOE for our electricity instead of those mean old energy companies.

  24. The American economy is in shambles compared to the way it was in the 1990-2006.. Our borders are wide open and allowing the ILLEGAL ALIENS to come across.. These include all nationality’s, and because of the broken economic system, HIGH UN EMPLOYMENT, and open Borders… The U.S. is becoming like the E.U.

    It’s simple.. look at the E.U. and look at what has happened… Then take a look at OUR current Government solutions….

    1…. CLOSE and secure the Borders… Talked about since Reagan, NOTHING DONE. Just as porous as it was in 1980. (SEN. J McCain was going to build a G.D. Fence in 2010 if re-elected to Senate.) Nothing Done…

    2. EMPLOY AMERICANS and BUY AMERICAN.. Those elected to public office, have watched AMERICAN corporations move to Foreign countries, so they can compete using cheap labor. Yet, The AMERICAN Corporation is still PROTECTED by THE American Military ….. Look at G.E. for example, Caterpillar for another…Hell, look at Microsoft…. We taught the Foreign Companies how we made things…. They came they saw…..and we are conquered.

    No wonder VOTERS are flocking to a socialist agenda in the Democratic Party… Lost Sheep can’t find there way home… They need to be tethered and lead.

    1. Hey Donald!

      Taking time off from stomping around fundraisers?

      1. You know we’ve made no real progress because even billionaires cannot fix their hair. We’re totally primitive still!

    2. “EMPLOY AMERICANS and BUY AMERICAN.. Those elected to public office, have watched AMERICAN corporations move to Foreign countries, so they can compete using cheap labor.”

      Cheap labor is why we can have so many cheap products, thus raising our standard of living, and raising the standard of living of those foreign countries by providing them with jobs. Would you want to pay $50 for a t-shirt? $20 for a coffee mug?

      1. How about $2000 for a new Android phone or $5000 for a HDTV that we can buy at Walmart for $700 here in the USA? Like in some countries that have very protectionist import policies.

        No thanks. I don’t want to pay these prices so that union employees can make $75 an hour and receive lifetime pensions for pushing a broom.

        1. Look at NAFTA. A good idea, but I think people attached riders to it that ruined it.

      2. Butbutbut AMERKA!!!!

    3. (SEN. J McCain was going to build a G.D. Fence in 2010 if re-elected to Senate.)

      Anybody who cites to anything Sen. John McCain did as a good thing instantly loses my respect. Thanks to Johnny M, I began my journey away from the GOP.

      EMPLOY AMERICANS and BUY AMERICAN..

      Fuck off Slaver! I’ll employ people of whatever nationality I wish, and buy products from wherever I wish! I’ll take Free-market capitalism over tariff protected nationalist pseudo-markets any day of the week!

      Lost Sheep can’t find there way home… They need to be tethered and lead.

      Fuck off Slaver! The American people aren’t sheep to be “tethered and lead(sic),” they’re individuals who need to be left the fuck alone!

      Stop trying to impose your Right-wing statism on us! Your right-wing socialism is no better than the left-wing socialism you decry!

  25. Sanders is socialist-istic; or more precise, democratic socialist-istic. This contrasts with socialism which would be a top down comprehensive implementation where the state owns everything including all of the means of production and the citizens nothing. Sanders is not expressing this view.

    His view is supporting SOME elements of socialism – but this is exactly the state of america today, a hybrid of pure market based and socialistic.

    So saying that he seeks socialism is flat out wrong and is really so much ‘dog whistle’ Read Scare propaganda derived from the constant repetitions of the last century, an attempt to wave Sanders off w/ a one word rebuttal despite the fact that he is the only one in the current presidential field who is telling the truth that the emperor indeed has no clothes on.

    He wants America to be closer to its ideals as expressed in the preamble to the constitution, which ideals are closer to democratic socialism than UNAmerican, laissez faire, ayn randian , ‘me first, me only’ views that have been operating in America for the last 30 years.

    Also, Reason said: “Mularkey over the ‘wealth gap’ “. So Reason . com is flat out denying that there is serious income and wealth inequality in America and a vanishing middle class. THis flies in the face of a parade of economists that I can trot out giving the aggregate stats as well as the first hand experience of this commenter in my own life as well my direct observations for many many others.

    1. He calls himself a socialist and has done so for years. Sorry, but when the guy affirms his label, it’s pretty hard to argue about it. Also, socialism is not the total government ownership of everything including the means of production. It can refer any combination of types of ownership, with the key being that the government essentially directs production and consumption toward some common good. The definition of the word is easy to look up and arbitrarily changing it to fit your political goals isn’t an argument.

      Neither is cobbling together a bunch of spooky scare words (laissez faire, “UNAmerican, “ayn randian) and laughably categorizing them as operating in America for the past thirty years. We have more regulations on the books than any country in the history of the world. We’ve expanded the welfare state and the size of government exponentially. Your statement is just factually wrong.

      1. When did laissez faire (ie hands off) become a scary concept?

        1. It was used that way in context in the original post as a smear. The trouble is that it doesn’t mean what the original poster thinks it means. Letting people engage in fraudulent behavior is clearly not the same thing as recognizing the right of people to freely trade and enter into contracts. Unfortunately people such as this think that what happened with the banks, the government, and derivatives is somehow an example of laissez faire, when in fact it was the exact opposite, government colluding with the banks and incentivizing risky lending practices.

    2. As to your last point, the wealth gap that you are bemoaning can largely be traced to the actions of the very government that Sanders wants to expand. He endorses policies like Medicare and Social Security that siphon money from the largely poor (the young) into the pockets of the wealthy (the elderly). That aside, though, even poor Americans have a much, much higher standard of living than they did thirty years ago. While there certainly is wealth inequality, the argument is whether or not such inequality is actually bad. By the way, appealing to “a parade of economists” is called an appeal to authority. It’s not an argument. Try again when you actually have one.

    3. “Sanders is not expressing this view.”

      Yes, because he wants to be elected. Some of us can distinguish the next play from the endgame.

    4. NEEDZ MOAR DERP!!!!!11!!!1!!

    5. Wealth inequality is the consequence of power inequality between the state and the individuals that together comprise The People. The Big Lie of democratic socialism is that the people and the government are one. The government is a group of elites that rule The People with lies and fear, and if the people don’t want to become slaves, they had better find functional mechanisms for restraining government and holding it accountable. Guns are sort of tolerable as a defense against force, but fraud is much more profitable for the state, especially since its toadies have subverted all major institutions of speech and thought.

      1. Very good point. Wealth inequality as we have it now is the result of cronyism, regulatory capture, etc, all baked into democratic socialism. The people screeching about wealth inequality are the very ones who have created it as it exists now and are striving desperately to increase it.

        *disclaimer*
        In a truly free market wealth inequality will exist due to differences of individuals motives, abilities, efforts etc. It is not a bad thing in itself and will always exist. But in a truly free market capitalist system it would be greatly reduced from what it is now.

    6. I find it amusing when progs accuse others of being me first and greedy….when the progs want to force other people to take care of them. How selfless of you!!

      1. Keeping the fruit of your own labor is greed. Taking the fruit of other’s labor by force is not.

    7. he is the only one in the current presidential field who is telling the truth that the emperor indeed has no clothes on.

      Well, why would the emperor want to stink up his clothes with the one shitty type of deodorant still left on the “market?”

      He wants America to be closer to its ideals as expressed in the preamble to the constitution

      BAAAAAAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAHAHAHAHA!

      the preamble to the constitution, which ideals are closer to democratic socialism than UNAmerican, laissez faire, ayn randian , ‘me first, me only’ views that have been operating in America for the last 30 years

      HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHHA! Laissez faire in the last 30 years??!???!?!? HAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAAAAA!!!!

      s well as the first hand experience of this commenter in my own life

      So, you’re pissed because mommy and daddy government won’t pay for you to sit on your ass all day? Is that what this is about?

      Go practice your act at DailyKos and DU, and come back when you learn to debate like an adult.

  26. “mandating paid maternity leave”

    Isn’t that rather sexist? Where’s the paternity leave?

    Ha ha. But I kid.

    Obviously, since men relatively believe in freedom, they should expect no benefits from the Progressive Theocracy.

  27. But INTENTIONZ!!11!!!1!!!!!!!!!!!

  28. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.jobnet10.com

  29. Greece “protects” workers by banning part-time work and banning working more than five days a week. You’d think American socialists would learn something watching Greece fail. But, no, they never learn.

    Socialists are socialists either because they’re evil or they don’t know how to think rationally, or both. Of course they never learn that socialism is an unmitigated disaster because their cognitive inabilities actively prevent them from learning.

    1. They are evil. To the extent that they are good it is because they are an example of how good well meaning people manage to rationalize themselves into supporting and enacting monstrously evil policies.

      1. All of them are not evil. Some, I say most of them are being manipulated by evil people because they’re too mentally and emotionally weak to fight it.

        This is why our Marxist academic institutions are now working around the clock to produce an entire generation of emotionally crippled idiots. And they’re being wildly successful.

        1. You underestimate the banality of evil. John is right. They are evil, they just rationalize that they are doing good. They are greedy fucks that envy what others have and justify taking it by saying to themselves that others don’t deserve what they have. It is the rationale of every thief who ever lived.

          1. Well imagine there exists a socialist with an IQ of 50, who was told by his parents, school teachers, authority figures, celebrities and peers that “socialism= caring for poor people”. All else being equal could you describe that person as evil? You might fairly describe their beliefs as evil, but that person might be operating in good faith for what they have been misled to think is good.

            Granted that case doesn’t fit with very many socialist weasels, but I think you can be a good person who’s astoundingly stupid and told nothing but a pack of lies for their entire life.

            1. We are just quibbling over the definition of evil. Operating in good faith does not negate evil. The person who slaughters the babies of a rival tribe may believe that the other tribe is evil and not really human anyway. He may believe in good faith that he is ridding the world of an evil when in fact, he is creating evil.

              Does evil require intent? I say no.

        2. You do have a point though, they are mentally and emotionally weak. And the institutions are Marxist and actively working to produce such. I think it is inevitable that they would become what they are. There is nowhere else for people who have bad, unworkable ideas than academia, where having bad, unworkable ideas doesn’t effect your job performance. So, naturally they settle there.

          1. Tax dollars at work. How much less polluted with bad ideas would academia (and the world) be without “investors” being forced to promote those ideas financially?

          2. No, I completely agree with you that SOME of them are evil because of their envy and sloth, but I think you are underestimating just how many truly ignorant and fucked up people there are in society that are not evil, they are just not capable of rational thought to any degree at all. That they manage to even get dressed and get to the local Walmart to spend their monthly take is a spectacular feat of will and ingenuity for them.

            This is why I laugh every time that someone thinks we can educate all the people, get them college degrees and employ them in useful skilled jobs. No we can’t. It’s impossible. The Democrats have spent an entire generation of populating society with these permanently dependent retards and now they’re making sure the ones capable of thought are so emotionally fucked up that they can’t do anything to protest either.

            1. This is why I laugh that anyone thinks that democracy is the best type of statist governance possible. As you say, the vast majority of people range from functionally retarded to just plain stupid. And even if we take into account all of the “smart people” like rocket scientists and brain surgeons, how many of them actually know their head from their ass when it comes to the proper role and functionality of social institutions like laws and governments?

              1. Interesting.

                Groups are usually more than the sum of their parts. Groups of dumb people out-dumb themselves, and unfortunately, groups of smart people out-smart themselves.

                1. You have people with multiple PhDs going on about how everyone has free healthcare in such and such country, but ask them about wait times, rationing, and tax rates in those countries and they will absolutely refuse to answer you and typically change the subject completely. Willful ignorance?

                  1. Ask them about the NHS supporter who fell and broke his leg and was told to fuck off when he called for an ambulance. Ask them about the old woman who died from thirst in a NHS hospital bed.

                    There are thousands of stories just like those and more happening every day, and at an increasing frequency due to other people’s money beginning to run out.

              2. Free Society. It is not that people are stupid. It is that they are rationally disinterested. More importantly, they only get one vote so they cannot allow more than one issue determine their vote. This makes single issue committed groups very powerful.

                1. Free Society. It is not that people are stupid. It is that they are rationally disinterested. More importantly, they only get one vote so they cannot allow more than one issue determine their vote. This makes single issue committed groups very powerful.

                  Well there’s some truth to that. Yes there are stupid people and there are people who are rationally disinterested. But there is another group we might call “irrationally interested”.

                  Let’s assume most smart people might qualify as disinterested in politics for rational reasons, but what about the ‘smart’ people who are very interested and yet also profoundly wrong? A brain surgeon might think socialism is just wonderful which is not all that strange since when you think about it, brain surgery is his specialty, abstracting and theorizing about social institutions is not his specialty, or even his strong suit, yet his vote still counts the same as a janitor libertarian who spends all his leisure time reading up economics and legal theory.

            2. Obligatory:

              http://www.peopleofwalmart.com

              *I happen to be a big fan of Walmart, I just go when the hordes of living dead are not there.

              1. Don’t go late at night. Ever. Best time is after 6pm on week nights, but before 10pm. Also, avoid the first week of the month like the plague.

                1. Problem with going on Sunday evening is that they will be out of stuff. Due to just–in-time-inventory and people who come in and buy all of an item for some institution because Walmart is often cheaper than wholesale. Lots of items will not be restocked until Monday.

              2. OMG… that first woman… what to say, I don’t even…

                1. When I think of the prototype Walmart person, I get a vision of a 500 lb person in their 5 sizes too small pajamas and pink bunny slippers riding the huvaround cart.

    2. How is the worker protected by banning overtime? I work swing shift in a steel mill and as I only have one day off between the week I work day turns and the week I work afternoons I occasionally work six days in a Sunday through Saturday work week. When the company I work for schedules someone else to work one of my nominally scheduled shifts I get angry! That’s my fucking overtime! Of course the company I work for is not required to give me more than forty hours in a week but if these are my normally scheduled shifts I feel I should be the one working them. The idea of a government prohibiting overtime in order to protect the worker is absurd.

  30. Those 10k ignorant sheep actually do believe that socialism is for the people, not the socialist.

    1. When you want to help people you tell them the truth. When you want to help yourself you tell people what they want to hear.” – Thomas Sowell

  31. “That’s a common refrain on the left, and it appeals to many voters. Some poor people think they’ll be helped by “redistribution,” and rich people who don’t understand the process that made them rich want more rules to “level the playing field.”

    Nah, the ‘rich’ who call for redistribution want someone else’s wealth redistributed, not their own. When Steven King or Warren Buffet call for higher taxes on people like themselves what they are really doing it signaling that they are one of the good ones, take your pitchforks somewhere else.

    As for the poor, here is an excellent example:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bg98BvqUvCc

    1. Buffet, as he well knows, will not be affected by tax increases to the extent that he will ever feel the pain. It will fall hardest on the middle class who receive their income through payroll, as always. I’m not saying that the rich don’t already pay enough taxes. Just saying that the middle class will be hit hardest. The rich can afford any insignificant increase and the poor already do not pay any taxes, most of them actually receive tax subsidies. Couple of years ago some guy I know was bragging about how he was receiving a 15k tax refund. He hasn’t worked or paid taxes in at least 10 years. I had to try to explain to the idiot how you cannot get a refund on nothing. I may as well have been talking to a dog, it would haven understood just as well.

      1. Well keep in mind (nearly) everyone who consumes goods and services pays taxes in some way. Say you buy a pair of shoes, the rubber manufacturer was taxed in the value of his property, maybe his corporate earnings, his sales, his payroll, his income, his capital gains, tariffs et cetera. As was the manufacturer of the shoelaces and the textile producer. As was the wholesaler, the distributor, the retailer and the consumer too in all likelihood. The amount of wealth squandered by taxation would be breathtaking to the average person if they could actually see it all.

        1. Oh, I’ve thought about that, a lot. That’s why I’m for the flat or fair tax, whichever one you want to call it, just as long as it’s a flat consumption tax and elimination of the income tax.

          1. Yes. Severly restricting means and amount of taxation would eliminate a huge amount of government evil.

            Allowing a gaggle of power mongers and control freaks let their imaginations run wild with new and creative ways of reaching into your pocket is probably not the wisest strategy that has ever been devised.

            1. Add elimination of central banking to the list, or government money altogether and I’ll get behind that.

    2. http://www.wnd.com/2014/07/hey-obama-…..e-payment/
      follow up
      “When I interviewed Peggy, I was astonished that Peggy explained that she was now anti-Obama. She told me, ‘He was not who we thought or expected him to be.'”
      “Truth and honesty are important,” Joseph explained to Gilbert in the film. “He lied about everything.”

  32. Everybody wants a mixed economy. Everybody wants taxation and redistribution. It’s just a question of from whom to whom and how much. There is no great moral chasm separating government @10% of GDP vs. 25%, except in terms of how much human misery your chosen mix causes by either action or inaction.

    1. Yes Tony because there is no chance that government spending would ever increase misery. No the relationship only goes one way. I mean look at all the good that has occurred in Greece.

      1. I implied that it could. You can have government at 50% of GDP doing death camps, and I would be against that.

        I simply maintain that your hands are not clean if you impose a very limited government and people go without basic needs they could have gotten with a bigger government.

        1. I simply maintain that your hands are not clean if you impose a very limited government and people go without basic needs they could have gotten with a bigger government.

          Bigger government leads to fewer people having their basic needs met.

          Your error is that you assume that the function and consequence of government is to meet people’s needs. In fact, the function of government is to preserve individual liberty, and very little government is needed for that.

          1. Nope, just the parts of government that shoot and imprison people. For freedom. Nobody really needs medicine, education, or clean water and food. Just liberty and natural selection.

            1. How do tribes in the amazon survive without all these modern amenities?

                1. What do you mean by poorly? What if they prefer it that way? Are you looking to impose your beliefs on them?

                2. What do you mean by poorly? What if they prefer it that way? Are you looking to impose your beliefs on them?

            2. “Nobody really needs medicine, education, or clean water and food. ”

              Is this statement referring to any actual person’s belief?

              Can you not understand that being of the opinion that government is not a good provider of these things is not the same as being of the opinion that people should be denied them?

              I am in favor of school vouchers, for example, which is to say that I think the government sucks at education, in fact. Demonstrably and indubitably. This is not the same as being “against education.”

              Do you *really* not understand the difference, or are you just to committed to TEAM politics to allow yourself to understand it?

              1. I get that this is your claim, not backed by the evidence. If markets alone were sufficient to provide for universal access to basic needs, nobody would have needed to invent social safety nets in the first place.

                1. Troll doth troll.

                  You know the answer to this. Social safety nets are not the unique preserve of government. They existed in Britain in some form or the other from the 15th century onwards, and probably, in some places, earlier than that – without government money, oversight or interference. What do you think “Friendly Societies” were anyway?

                  The assumption that every social good that can exist must be spewed out of government’s gilded cornucopia is not just a fallacy, but outright propaganda.

                  It must chap your ass no end that people like Carnegie actually built and stocked libraries for the poor without having to steal from them first.

                  1. He stole from them by making evil profits. The greedy son of a bitch should have been put against the wall.

                    (This is what Tony actually believes)

                2. “If markets alone were sufficient to provide for universal access to basic needs”

                  Not my claim. Do you ever argue with anyone *other* than straw men?

                3. Have you considered safety nets are for those who want to dodgr personal responsibility?

            3. Nobody really needs medicine, education, or clean water and food.

              We need those very much, which is why they should be supplied by markets, not government.

              Just liberty and natural selection free markets.

              FTFY

            4. Straw man much? You only need to shoot and imprison people who rob and murder others. Everyone else you leave the hell alone. That’s freedom.

        2. What are the basic needs and why? Who in the united states doesnt have basic needs?

      2. If only they had more tax collectors. From listening to tony i am starting to think that progs are very self centered and me first people…the whole care for others is an over compensation to hide their true feelings.

        Essentially their ideology is what is mine is mine and what is yours is also mine

        1. We simply advocate for the best version of what every country on earth that is not a miserable shithole has, a mixed economy with a decent safety net. Why this is such a foreign concept to you is baffling, especially as someone who advocates a bizarre, untested, and radical order that would almost certainly fail the first week.

          1. The united states has a mixed economy. Didnt you say it was soul crushing?

            What would constitute a decent safety net and how did you determine?

            I get the sense you want to deflect responsibility from yourself to others as to take care of you. Not very selfless imo

            1. I have a decent life and my system would almost certainly result in my paying more taxes. But that’s OK, because I pay attention to my returns on investment. It’s a better use of my dollars to pay taxes that support a national healthcare system than to pay an insurance company to dick me around and charge me more for the same services.

              1. Well i dont have healthcare. Since you are cool with giving more i am thinking you can help me out as part of the social contract?

              2. See, there’s the problem. It’s all about self-gratification and fuck anyone else’s needs and expectations.

                Go find out what an indifference curve is, slaver.

                If the world ran the way you wanted, we’d all be using Axe deodoant and washing with Irish Spring.

              3. Yum, cuz the government will never ‘dick you around’… You deserve exactly what you wish for–just leave the rest of us the hell out if it.

          2. Of course, all of those other countries have the money to spend (not really, but I’ll entertain your batshittery for a moment) because they are being covered under the umbrella of America’s military. Let’s reduce our military spending, pull all of our troops home, and see how long they can defend themselves from every tinpot wannabe Putin while simultaneously providing all the free fucking ponies and unicorn rides idiots like you expect someone else to give you.

      3. Tony hasn’t learned from England. He hasn’t learned from here. He hasn’t learned from Venezuela, or from Greece. He isn’t going to learn. Seeing that socialism has been a spectacular failure every single time it has been tried, without exception, and still supporting it is pretty strong evidence of idiocy.

        Another Sowell quote: “It is amazing that people who think we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, and medication somehow think that we can afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, medication and a government bureaucracy to administer it.”

        That is the stupidity of socialists in a nutshell.

        1. That quote is stupid. The socialist program known as Medicare is more streamlined in costs than private alternatives for obvious reasons (a single administrator, no profits). A private healthcare system is, based on both all the evidence in the world, more costly for people. You haven’t learned from England. Every developed country in the world doesn’t have a nationalized healthcare system because they were suckered by charismatic academics in Che Guevera shirts. The anomaly is us, who have a large private healthcare sector because our politicians are more easily moved by campaign donations than considerations of the public good.

          1. What evidence do you have to support this and have you considered the govt intervention leading to excessive costs?

          2. Your post seems contradictory around the anamoly area

            1. The US has the most market-centered healthcare system in the civilized world and also the most expensive healthcare. Connection? You be the judge.

              1. “the most expensive healthcare”

                Not supported by the data. Are you counting the debt levels of countries with national healthcare systems, or are you just counting “free” as being cheaper than “not free?”

                1. I’m saying the US spends a lot more per capita on healthcare than any other country and does not have better healthcare outcomes. Its higher costs are mostly found in higher prices for goods and services, not a major difference in supply and demand. Therefore, capitalism makes healthcare more expensive here. You pay a big premium for not having a national health system. Call it a a freedom tax.

                  1. What would constitute better healthcare outcomes?

                    1. Have you considered govt involvement in driving up costs like we have seen with tuition?

                  2. My question is, how are you counting? When you say “spent by the U.S.” are you talking about direct government spending, or money spent by individuals *in* the U.S.?

                    If the latter, are you counting money spent by people who came here *from* countries with national health care systems for better care?

                    Are you counting what people spend on extra insurance I’m countries like France, and the out-of-pocket co-pays, or just government spending?

    2. Can describe how you determined the from to whom and how much?

      What is the correct pct gdp and how did you arrive at that figure?

      1. Enough to pay for the programs I think are necessary and proper to maintain a healthy, thriving, and sustainable society, same as you.

        1. What programs are those? Can you be specific and why do you feel entitled to that?

          1. I don’t feel entitled, I feel extremely lucky to have randomly been born in the wealthiest society on earth, one that can easily afford a robust social safety net but which has chosen to have a relatively paltry one in favor of concentrating wealth in the hands of a few gazillionaires.

            Do you think it’s possible for government to produce a system that funnels wealth upward instead of downward? Or is that a mere theoretical possibility, and to be safe you might as well defend the distribution and focus on the “entitlement” of the people doing all the actual work and getting paid shit for their trouble?

            1. “Do you think it’s possible for government to produce a system that funnels wealth upward instead of downward?”

              Yes – it’s what governments do. That’s why a lot of us have a hard time reconciling your vaunted concern for the poor and your inability to see anything but more government as the way to help them.

              1. It’s what markets do extremely well, and since there’s always going to be a government, it might behoove us to have one strong enough to fend off private influence to make markets do it even more.

                1. Aux contraire, free markets distribute wealth from those who have it to those who provide goods and services. Governments guard against that, and always have.

                  How do private parties influence markets absent government?

                  1. They fill the power vacuum themselves. Market failures like monopolies are what necessitate government responses. If markets were the pure and magical things you claim they are, nobody would have ever thought to push back on their failures, as there wouldn’t have been any.

                    1. Why is a monopoly a market failure? Seems it is the opposite as govt helps establish them as a monopoly while hurting competition….how do you feel about this scenario?

                    2. I never claimed markets are pure and magical things. How do you see through all that straw?

                      What monopolies have ever existed absent government support?

                    3. Thanks for bringing up monopolies.

                      Things are so bad for the supposedly-anti-monopoly crowd that they have to invent the term “virtual monopoly,” as in the case of Microsoft, who dared provide a “free” media player in their OS, thus making it harder for imaginary would-be competitors to compete in the media player market. Never mind that Real and other companies were making money, and that Microsoft was giving their consumers more of what they wanted for less money. (What’s the argument against monopolies? That they *might* jack up the prices and screw the consumer if they’re the only provider?) And never mind that people didn’t even have to use MS products if they didn’t want to.

                      And never mind that the most notoriously bad monopolies for consumers in the past 75 years have either been government itself (the USPS) or government mandated (AT&T, local cable providers), or “virtual” government monopolies like public schools, which screw the very people you claim to want to help (only the wealthy can afford to pay twice, in taxes + tuitions, for a system that isn’t degrading on a continual basis).

                      As far as “pushing back on [market] failures,” apparently the lefty thing to do nowadays is to reward the failures with bailouts.

                    4. monopolies cannot exist without force.

            2. I thought you said it was soul crushing?

            3. Nobody was randomly born here. Every single person is here because he or some ancestor migrated here–usually to get away from controlling people like yourself. Most didn’t come here wanting or needing handouts from Uncle Sam either.

    3. Sanders voter? Or Hillary? I know you have a sad that Warren isn’t in the race.

    4. Tony wants to make sure that there will always be some misery for everyone.

      For the fairness.

      And Tony – I don’t want the government taking anything from you – for my benefit, my family’s, my descendants’ – or anyone else’s. I know this may sound like a lie, but it isn’t.

      Why do you assume that everyone adheres to your poisonous, envy-bound ideology? Do you believe that we do, but we’re too cowardly to commit it to paper?

      1. I think everyone believes in some mix of public and private (except true anarchists, who obviously aren’t to be taken seriously*). I think libertarians take their mix, whatever it is, and stamp it with the seal of approval of some divine arbiter they made up, then call everyone else evil for preferring a different mix.

        *If you are a true anarchist, I will take you seriously once you have lived for a time in an ungoverned place, come back and say a swell time was had by all. Otherwise you’re just being silly.

        1. What would be your ideal mix and how?

          Also i have little money to meet needs. Can you help me out via paypal? Since you seem to embrace the social contract to help others

          1. As somewhat of a consequentialist, I don’t particularly care what percentage of GDP government takes up as long as it can afford to meet people’s basic needs. Which leads to the second bit: and this makes for a stronger, more innovative, and, yes, freer market. Would you be more or less productive in the economy if there were no roads? If you didn’t have a basic education? If you didn’t have property rights protections, for that matter? I like having an economy that produces great prosperity, not one that creeps along with most people bartering for bread.

            1. What are the basic needs?

              1. Food, water, shelter, energy, mobility, law enforcement, education, healthcare, and I am perfectly willing to add to the list as society becomes more advanced.

                1. How do you provide mobility as a way to meet needs?

                  1. Build a highway system and trains and airports and seaports. Require ramps at places of business for the disabled.

        2. Funnily enough, Tony, I’ve done maybe the nearest thing to living in an “ungoverned place” that you could do in the 21st century. And no, it wasn’t a 48 hour stayover in Detroit.

          No police, no public services, some modern technology, but not enough to make life ‘easy’. Somewhere, there were probably some soldiers maintaining national security, and a court system, although I think that it would have been nearest to French legal code, but it was far enough away that I was ignorant of its location.

          Just how long would you say I’d have to have lived in that place to have met your exacting demands?

          1. I’d mostly like to know the population and life expectancy.

            1. No matter what the answer, you’d say a single project is an anecdote, and not data.

              We weren’t scrubbing around in the mud like Dennis the Peasant, squealing about the violence inherent in the system. If one of us had been injured, we could have called on a modern convenience called a helicopter, that would have taken the injured party to a place called a hospital, where trained specialists would have returned the individual to health. They would have been paid for it, by an insurance policy, being capitalized by willing contributions made by numerous individuals who determined without coercion that it was a good idea to manage the inherent risks of living on Earth.

              All the participants in that story were private individuals or corporations. The only involvement of government in that situation was the inevitable leech-like extraction of vig known as taxes, which was a net negative to all participants.

              The reason you believe anarchism is a fantasy, is because you’re convinced that the only entity that can create order is a boot stomping on someone’s throat.

              The idea that anyone, anywhere should be able to exercise free will must terrify and revolt you.

              1. They would have been paid for it, by an insurance policy, being capitalized by willing contributions made by numerous individuals who determined without coercion that it was a good idea to manage the inherent risks of living on Earth.

                Almost exactly how I’d describe a functioning democratic government. I’d need more specifics still. Were there children? What happens to children born to parents who opt not to buy insurance, should they get sick?

                1. So, if I understand correctly, your position here is that functioning democratic government is a prerequisite for effective commerce?

                  1. No, a government of some sort is required for effective commerce, unless you define commerce down to mean whatever people can get away with. A democratic government is a prerequisite for people getting a say in what that government does, by definition.

                    1. If what you’re trying to say is that a functioning democratic government is necessary for the protection of contracts between individuals, then you still don’t get it.

                      As long as there’s someone, or some people, within the society who are willing and capable of ensuring that contracts entered into between two or more parties are observed, they certainly don’t need to be democratic. They don’t even need to be a government. They just need to be arbiters who are acceptable to both parties in the contract dispute and whose judgments will be observed.
                      And there’s more than one way (violence or implicit violence) to ensure that the judgment is observed.

                    2. And when you take that logic to the scale of millions of people, doesn’t the apparatus start to resemble a government?

        3. Tony, you’re still living under the delusion that current economies and forms of government represent a steady state. Progressivism has created a large population of people like you, people too ignorant to manage their finances, feed themselves, raise their children, or protect themselves. That’s why, right now, there is an optimal mix of public and private. But, you know, even your children (should you have any) don’t have to be as uneducated and ignorant as you. People and societies can change for the better.

          Given that the US did just fine on a few percent of GDP spent on government, we certainly know that we can shrink government to a fraction of its size. That’s a good start.

          1. There is no point in history any rational person would rather live than after modern mixed economies with safety nets were developed. If you have a survivalist fetish, godspeed, but most of us would prefer that we not have to spend all of our lives hunting and gathering.

            1. Do you do any hunting and fishing for survival currently? If not why are you complaining? Sounds like your needs are met

            2. Fuckin’ straw man, why won’t it burn?

              You seem to believe that the only way that humans will specialize and cooperate is if government oversees the project?

              You’ve been hanging out here shitting on the threads long enough to have come across the term ‘spontaneous order’, right?

              1. I just don’t see much of a distinction between the “spontaneous order” that resolves disputes and pools resources among a group of 10 people and one that does so on a much larger scale–we call them governments. Governments were not imposed by aliens; we invented them out of necessity.

                1. Government is not the same as society. It is not the name we give to the act of “doing things together”.

                  1. It’s the name we give to the apparatus that enacts collective action on the scale of cities, states, and countries.

                    1. What does this collective action entail?

                2. I just don’t see much of a distinction between the “spontaneous order” that resolves disputes and pools resources among a group of 10 people and one that does so on a much larger scale–we call them governments.

                  Epic fail. You are comparing voluntary pooling of resources to forced confiscation. Then you are assuming that it’s necessary to be both large scale, and that force would be the only way to achieve such a large scale.

                  So riddled with fallacies that, beyond pointing them out, it’s not worth further responding to.

            3. There is no point in history any rational person would rather live than after modern mixed economies with safety nets were developed.

              What makes “modern mixed economies” desirable is not the “mixed” part but the “modern” part; i.e., all the good stuff free markets created despite the best efforts of people like you.

              And plenty of rational persons (myself included) have done the math and immigrated from places with more of a safety net to places with less of a safety net.

        4. toro caca. Tony.
          you are just saying that because you think that it will convince us that you are a moderate of sorts when the truth is that once you get your “reasonable request” you will then demand another, then another until we end up wlth full on socialism

          1. I just want a debate on the merits of specific policy proposals instead of throwing around accusations of bad faith and evilness over a few percentage points in GDP.

            1. “throwing around accusations of bad faith and evilness over a few percentage points in GDP.”

              But this is, in fact, exactly what you are doing while proudly claiming that you’re having it done to you.

              1. Yea his logic is very confusing.

    5. Everybody wants a mixed economy. Everybody wants taxation and redistribution. It’s just a question of from whom to whom and how much.

      No, that’s incorrect. Many people want no redistribution from government, and to the degree that it occurs, it is an unwanted side-effect of government functions they want for other reasons.

      here is no great moral chasm separating government @10% of GDP vs. 25%, except in terms of how much human misery your chosen mix causes by either action or inaction.

      You’re making a steady-state argument, but the optimal, steady-state size of government is 0% of GDP, with all its functions replaced by private arrangements.

      The fact that many libertarians (including myself) currently accept some government as inevitable is because we are far from that steady state, in large part because over the last century, we have removed so many functions from the market and put them in the hands of government that the markets don’t exist anymore and dolts like you don’t even know how to survive without the helping hand of government to guide you.

      To get to that optimal steady state of 0% of GDP spent on government, we need to gradually reduce the size of government until it’s gone.

      1. You’re arguing with a sock, or, at the minimum, a person who cannot or will not distinguish between action and inaction. It’s pointless.

        1. True, but the argument is frequently made by progressives, and it’s good to think through answers.

          It took us a century to go from 4% to 40%. Unless we want major disruptions and chaos, it will take us at least a century to get back to 4%, and probably another century to go to 0%. But 0% is still the optimal and desirable outcome. Progressives and socialists need to understand that those positions aren’t inconsistent.

          1. I’ll need evidence that the process is reversible first. Austrian economic theory seems to indicate that the irrational bubble will continue until it pops.

      2. Sorry, I prefer a democratically accountable government that treats everyone equally before an enforced system of laws than roving gangs of psychopaths making law for me, so my optimum is not 0%.

        1. No. You don’t want equality of treatment.

          You want equality of outcome. You’ve said as much over and over in this one thread.

          1. Nope, just a floor on the level of misery our society permits people to endure.

            1. Or to put floor another way, wait for it, Equality of Outcome.

        2. Tony how much of your income pct wise goes to taxes?

        3. Sorry, I prefer a democratically accountable government that treats everyone equally before an enforced system of laws than roving gangs of psychopaths making law for me, so my optimum is not 0%.

          Everybody would have that preference.

          But what you actually prefer in practice is progressivism, i.e., government by an unaccountable band of psychopaths with guns, whereas minimal government and free markets means that other people are fully accountable to you for their actions.

    6. Everybody wants a mixed economy. Everybody wants taxation and redistribution.

      False.

      1. You didn’t hear him. He said “EVERYBODY”. Now shut up and get in line with the rest of us.

        1. EVERYBODY!! Also known as a weak appeal to the majority.

          1. I don’t know this EVERYBODY asshole, but if I meet him he’ll wish he was never born!

      2. You missed the part where he said that if you don’t agree your opinion doesn’t count.

      3. I missed all of those parts, my bad.

    7. “Everybody wants taxation and redistribution.”
      Not me.
      I want taxation to pay for essential/necessary government functions, only.
      Redistribution is not an essential government function.
      “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” – James Madison

  33. Tony say I like taxes. I like redistribution. I can stay in mommy basement all day, get drunk and fall on my thick skull. Derp.

  34. “We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions.”

    Take a guess: is that Sanders or some other politician?

    1. Can I Godwin for $500, Alex?

      1. I don’t think Godwin applies. This is not some gratuitous similarity. The politicians in question actually come from the same political tradition, and their movements are historically linked.

    2. I don’t know. But we’ve all seen what happens when one succeeds in the following:

      we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions

      And it ain’t purty

    3. It was Gregor Strasser, often misattributed to Hitler by rightwinger blowhards with what they think is a point to make. Ironically it does you no favors, for Strasser was killed and Naziism therafeter became one of the most extreme rightwing movements the planet’s ever known. Appeals to socialism in that era, if you must cite them, are like appeals to freedom. Politicians do it because normal people like it.

      And anyway a Nazi pointing out that it’s bad to treat people as cogs in a capitalist machine instead of as people doesn’t make the point wrong.

      1. “Ironically it does you no favors, for Strasser was killed and Naziism therafeter became one of the most extreme rightwing movements the planet’s ever known.”

        I thought right wingers were evil because they want *no* government. Were the Nazis anarcho-capitalists?

      2. No, as far as the Nazis were concerned, the proper role of people was as cogs in a nationalist machine. THEIR nationalist machine.

        If the individuals had skills that made them more valuable as cogs in a commercial organization which was, in turn, co-opted by the nationalist machine to build stuff that advanced its aims, then everything was hunky-dory.

        Whether the individual felt, or even was ‘freer’ under National Socialism or Post-Bismarkian ‘Capitalist Hell’ is a decision best left to the reader.

      3. “Naziism therafeter became one of the most extreme rightwing movements”

        It is to laugh.

        1. Somehow right winger covers the entire spectrum from anarchists to strict government control.

          1. Funny how that works.

      4. It was Gregor Strasser, often misattributed to Hitler by rightwinger blowhards

        You mean “right wing blowhards” like John Toland, Pulitzer prize winner and author of Hitler’s definitive biography? Hitler used those words at a 1927 speech at the Clou restaurant celebrating May Day. See Chapter 8, Section 5.

        And anyway a Nazi pointing out that it’s bad to treat people as cogs in a capitalist machine instead of as people doesn’t make the point wrong.

        They didn’t just “point it out”, anti-capitalism and economic fairness was at the core of their ideology. What makes the point wrong is that they tried to put it into practice and it failed. It failed in all the ways that modern behavioral and political economics says it would fail.

        Nor is this agreement between progressives and Nazis accidental; the Nazis came out of the progressive movement. Besides anti-capitalism, another other major ideological viewpoint of progressives was eugenics, and the Nazis explicitly based their eugenics program on the eugenics programs of American progressives.

  35. I don’t like Socialism mainly because it can not work. I have no problem with someone who starts a business and becomes a millionaire or even billionaire. Good for them. Wish I was that smart. That said you tell me why an CEO of a bank or major corporation say like Alcoa can cut benefits and wages and yet increase his own salary 10% or more yearly. The average worker of say Alcoa makes around $50,000 without overtime while the CEO makes in access of $12,000,000. And the worker will contribute more to the bottom line in a week than the CEO does in a year. That is why so many people find socialism so attractive. The promise of some equality in the workplace. True socialism will eventually destory the best of countries but most workers like most CEOs are very near sighted

    1. CEOs are the politicians of the business world. COOs are their technocrats counterparts. Entrepreneurs are something else.

    2. Even if socialism did work, which it doesn’t, I would loathe it with every fiber of my being because it’s evil.

    3. I am not sure i buy the worker will contribute more to the bottom line than the CEO. As the worker by themselves can’t do a whole lot and contribute to the bottom line without all the other folks of the organization doing their roles. Plus they may have an impact due to the brand of the company…otherwise if they were solo they probably wouldn’t be able to bring in the same amount.

      the easier they are to replace along with the pool to choose from dictates what pay. Now don’t get me wrong i think some companies overpay for their CEOs but that is their own problem.

      1. CEO pay and control is intimately related to the legal system.
        There is a real and large agent-principle problem in the CEO-shareholder relationship. And stock ownership is incentivized by a web for government programs and regulations.

  36. Lots of Democrats Want Socialism

    ummmm correction

    ALL DEMOCRATS WANT SOCIALISM

    thats what democrats, liberals, progressives etc… are socialists. they all favor one form of socialism or another. The only difference there is between them and Communists is that they favor a peaceful progression toward socialism as opposed to a radical revolutionary change,

    BUT…. make no mistake they all want a system of control by the government of all means of production and a society socially directed by a central authority.

  37. I suggest we stop using the word “socialism.”

    Call it “marxism.”

    If I were to write “socialists killed tens of millions in the 20th Century” you would think me nuts.

    But changing that word to “marxists” makes it correct.

    Is it unfair trying to link Sanders et al to mass killers?

    Yes.

    But I want to win.

    Don’t you?

    1. President Bush (III) is winning?

      1. No, but you’re certainly whinny.

      2. We already have President Bush part tres.

        He’s the one you fawn all over.

    2. Why would someone think you were nuts if you wrote that? Besides, marxists are only part of the problem. The national socialists killed quite a few, as did the anarchists.

  38. “Libertarians and real free-marketers agree that too few people are rich but understand that today it’s largely because of government.”

    That and the irresponsible behavior of poor people, such as having children they cannot afford and spending money in excess of their income.

  39. “Lots of Democrats Want Socialism”

    Because Democrats, losers all, just want more “free” stuff paid for by anyone but themselves. What’s not to like?

  40. Tony in this thread you mentioned that energy is a basic need. The other thread you established that you only support non-polluting/non environment harming energy for which there is none. How do you reconcile this basic need with your stance on needing to be non-polluting?

    1. With respect to energy I think we have two choices: 1) Mobilize on a global scale to replace fossil fuel?based energy with sustainable forms, a massive undertaking to be sure, but we won WWII and flew to the moon, so maybe we can do this too. 2) Wait and pray that the market gods fix everything despite having no mechanism to deal with global-scale pollution.

      1. What are sustainable forms that result in no harm to the environment?

        1. Are you still positing a coal plant in the background somewhere? We get all the energy we need from the sun, with a bonus from geothermal sources. We simply need to build the infrastructure to harness it.

          1. ^ The serious, empirical, reality-based commenter, everyone.

          2. Are you saying these will have no environmental impact? Have you considered the amount of land animals will have to forgo to meet this basic need of 7 billion people using just the sun and geo thermal?

            Solar panels take up quite a bit of space…use some nasty chemicals to make as well. You may have to sacrifice the animal’s home in favor of you.

            1. Why is this the one field of innovation in which you guys are pessimists? The sad thing is none of you actually realizes you’re playing team sports and are bullshitting in favor of the global oil cartel.

              To answer your very disingenuous question: none of the problems with these energy sources, and none of the problems with nuclear, are as bad as the problems with fossil fuels.

              1. What if it is a minor fossil fuel problem like 55 gallon drum leaks in a pond compared to a nuclear melt down? Are you saying the former is worse?

                You said you favor non-polluting and non environmentally harmful forms of energy. What evidence do you have to support that going strictly solar won’t harm the environment in any way?

          3. “We get all the energy we need from the sun, with a bonus from geothermal sources. We simply need to build the infrastructure to harness it.”

            Exactly, if it comes from the sun, there aren’t any downsides. Like if millions of years ago, solar energy was stored in chemical bonds and then locked away inside the earth, that’s clean and free.

          4. Wow, you really don’t know a lot, do you? Solar energy can be used for a few things, usually to generate heat or light, is extraordinarily difficult (and inevitably prohibitively expensive) to harness it for almost anything else.

            The inability of solar (or wind) energy to be harnessed in the ways we harness it with fossil fuels is not an infrastructure problem; it’s a physics problem. I know you have high regard for the state, but it can’t repeal the secocnd law of thermodynamics.

            http://www.forbes.com/sites/qu…..efficient/

            Of course it would be great if idiot leftist environmentalists would stop standing in the way of nuclear energy, which is far and away the best (currently perhaps only) viable alternative to fossil fuels.

            1. Nailed it

      2. Re: Tony,

        With respect to energy I think we have two choices

        Your limited intellect came up with only 2 choices. No wonder you hate the market.

        1) Mobilize on a global scale to replace fossil fuel?based energy with sustainable forms, a massive undertaking to be sure, but we won WWII and flew to the moon,

        WWII was won after 60 million people were brutally murdered and we didn’t fly to the moon ? a government agency spent money the US didn’t have to shoot a few guys to the moon. That’s an entirely different thing.

        Besides, those so-called “sustainable” energy sources are incredibly inefficient when it comes to power density. Those efforts you talk about would result in massive privation for billions. Maybe that is what you want and you just don’t want to tell us.

        2) Wait and pray that the market gods fix everything despite having no mechanism to deal with global-scale pollution.

        You’re an incredibly stupid person, Tony. Those “market gods” you so deride is the network made of billions of daily interpersonal transactions by billions of persons. That’s a neural net bigger than a human BRAIN. There is simply NO way to emulate such a complex spontaneous machine.

        1. All solar would be very bad for critters habitats imo. The amount of space required would be enormous

  41. In 2008 and 2012 I learned something very unpleasant about my fellow citizens. I hope I learn something different in 2016. On the other hand, I’m not optimistic about the Republicans offering much of an alternative.

  42. Tony i dont have healthcare so i was wondering if you could help me out as part of the social contract?

  43. Tony i dont have healthcare so i was wondering if you could help me out as part of the social contract?

      1. No, not the government ? YOU.

        1. I did, I voted for Democrats.

          1. Voting is not the same as giving. He’s asking you to put your money where your snout is.

          2. Hasn’t the ACA raised premiums and deductibles for millions of folks while only insuring a 1/4 of those that were uninsured? Weren’t you just complaining about you having to deal with excessive costs above for healthcare? Yet you approve of government intervention in healthcare which has increased those costs

            1. It’s not the system I or Democrats would have designed if they had the votes for a better one, but don’t worry, Republicans will keep setting their hair on fire over the Mexicans and we’ll get a single-payer system soon enough.

              1. They had a super majority in the senate, the presidency and the house. They passed it with no GOP involvement.

                How do you reconcile your claim that the democrats would have established a better one (single payer) but didn’t have the votes (with 2 house and the potus),…yet some how single payer is going be soon due to having the amount of votes with the GOP controlling both houses? Would this not mean the GOP would get credit for single payer?

              2. Meanwhile, forcing people to give money to those evil insurance companies you complain about above is *almost* as good . . .

                1. The insurance companies are doing great ironically…the ACA was a big hand out to them

              3. Re: Tony,

                It’s not the system I or Democrats would have designed

                Stop obfuscating. You’re not addressing Frankjasper1’s point at all, which is that you exempt yourself from the obligation you feel you have by making the rest pay for your favorite policy.

              4. Haha, WTF. It was passed only by Democrat votes. If they were willing to pass something “better,” they could have done so.

              5. “It’s not the system I or Democrats would have designed”

                Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

                Holy shit that is weapons grade fucking retard right there. You had the whole goddamn federal government sown up.

                Just admit to yourself that Obama and the Democrats gave the Insurance Companies a gold plated fucking goose.

                1. It was really a republican plan!! The GOP made the DEMs do it! Because Romneycare totally the same!!

                  Even though he didn’t campaign on romneycare and was only statewide. I think mass also trending liberal had something to do with it. Romney didn’t exactly strike me as a limited govt guy either

                  1. It was the most business-friendly approach to healthcare reform imaginable. It came from the Heritage Foundation. The only alternative Republicans offered was nothing, with a big portion of whining and yelling. That means they endorsed the status quo, which everyone agreed needed reforming until Obama decided to do it.

                    1. “The only alternative Republicans offered was nothing”
                      Err no, plenty of Republicans argued for voucher type systems; hell for two years every day there was another article at Forbes and the WSJ on proposed alternatives to the ACA.

                      And if no one right of the socialists has any alternative ideas, why is it that every time someone proposes the ACA be replaced by an alternative model, lefties start acting like they defecated in the holy grail? There are plenty of alternatives, and they’ve all been summarily dismissed out of hand.

                    2. Can you explain how the democrats didn’t have the votes for better? There was NO republican support..the dems controlled both houses and the presidency. Take some ownership.

                      Is something worse than the status quo preferable? You seem to have the mentality that “WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING” even if the something is worse.

                      The ACA was great for insurance companies…not so great for small businesses (read about the fine for businesses that are less than 50 employees who give them money to buy their own plan?)….higher deductibles and higher premiums

                    3. Tony what is the system you and the democrats would have designed?

          3. Dumbass.

      2. Tony you said you were willing to pay more to help others out. You haven’t done such thing. Can you at least navigate it and set up my healthcare? I’ll pay you back though my kids won’t get presents for Xmas this year 🙁

        1. If you’re so poor why don’t you simply work harder?

          1. You said you were willing to help people out as part of your social contract. Since you support redistribution and seem to be a caring individual, thought i would ask you as none of these selfish libertarians give a shit about my situation.

            Or is that you want OTHERS to be forced to give up their money while YOU get to take credit for your nobility?

            1. Re: Tony,

              If you’re so poor why don’t you simply work harder?

              In my case, I am willing to work harder; and not ask for handouts, which I feel only the scummiest of the scum of the earth would do. What I am not willing to do is support a bunch of idle leeches with my taxes.

            2. “Or is that you want OTHERS to be forced to give up their money while YOU get to take credit for your nobility?”

              Cf. above:

              Tony|7.8.15 @ 5:48PM|#

              I did, I voted for Democrats.

  44. Re: Tony,

    I just don’t see much of a distinction between the “spontaneous order” that resolves disputes and pools resources among a group of 10 people

    If those 10 got together voluntarily, that’s spontaneous order. If they didn’t but at the point of the bayonet, that’s called Socialism.

    and one that does so on a much larger scale–we call them governments.

    No, YOU want to call that “government”. Government is not 10 people pooling their resources together for their benefit. It is 10 thieves pooling the resources taken from 100 other people in order to pay for their own stuff.

    Governments were not imposed by aliens; we invented them out of necessity.

    You’re confusing government (the bureaucracy) with governance. You don’t need a government (the bureaucracy) to have governance, which is what “spontaneous order” entails.

    1. Even in a group of 10 people some form of government will emerge, and it might very well be totalitarian. They’d be smart and lucky to make it democratic. But some choices will have to be made and sometimes 4 will have to defer to 6. Is it still voluntary because 4 didn’t get their way on a vote? What if one of them has a child and 10 becomes 11? At what point to we seek the infant’s consent to be governed by the 10?

      1. Re: Tony,

        Even in a group of 10 people some form of government will emerge

        You’re confusing “government” with governance, again.

        But some choices will have to be made and sometimes 4 will have to defer to 6

        You mean under threat? I don’t think so.

        Is it still voluntary because 4 didn’t get their way

        It is voluntary if the 4 accept the decision voluntarily. That’s not what happens under a government. If the 6 impose their decision using a threat, then it is not voluntary. That’s what happens under a government.

        What if one of them has a child and 10 becomes 11?

        What if it is NOT a child and 10 impose their will on the 11th, at the point of the bayonet?

        Remember that the prohibition on gay marriage was an imposition of the majority over the minority.

        1. You’re treating government as an alien imposition again. Government, governance, whatever. You have a place in your brain that fires when you read the word “government” and it turns you into a rambling idiot.

          We accept the decisions of majorities voluntarily when we don’t do anything about it. You’re welcome to take up arms and defy it, and good luck with that. The way people have a choice in modern free societies is to vote for representatives. We surely haven’t built the best system, but you’re still evading the point. You don’t get your way all the time when you have to share this planet with other people. Most everyone else learns this in kindergarten.

          1. So did you approve of the majority wanting gay marriage to be banned back in the day?

            1. No I think a constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the law is a pretty swell idea.

              1. The choice of the free society back in the day was to ban gays from marrying…why do you support those views

  45. Comrade Bernie says we have a right to free Ben & Jerry’s !- any flavor !!

  46. Tony my electric bill is also due soon i was wondering if you could help me out?

  47. The title, Lots of Democrats Want Socialism, is a bit of a joke. The head of CP-USA was asked several years ago just why his party had quit running candidates for President. His answer? “We don’t need to: the Democrat Party has taken all our positions.”

    In other words, the Dems are full-fledged commies: it’s not that a lot of them want Socialists. They are almost all communists (a variant of Socialist).

    Really, this is not news.

  48. They claim to be pro-choice but support communist mandates.

    They claim to celebrate diversity, but only those things approved of by central committee.

    1. You have the freedom or choice to do what they tell you

  49. Every discussion I’ve ever had with a socialist has involved their taking umbrage at my use of the term “socialist.” As if there were ever any bad history that gave it a stigma.

  50. Tony these incompassionate libertarians would like to see me suffer. Since you are fellow advocate of the social contract and helping others that are less fortunate…i was hoping you could extend me a hand to help pay for my children to get some new clothes

    1. That’s the polite way to do it. Tony would rather that you go through a middleman thug who insists Tony hand over the money, threatening otherwise to kidnap Tony at gunpoint and imprison him… then give your children’s clothes to a crackhead’s family, because you’re obviously making too much.

  51. In general, WOMEN are socialists… which is why the 19th Amendment will likely forever stand as America’s single biggest legislative mistake.

    1. The mistake is to let pulpit-thumping mystical bigots (the true meaning of right-wing during the Red Terror) pretend to be for free markets (e.g. shooting abortion doctors and pot smokers). Small wonder lots of women and hippies decide that if THAT is capitalism, then so were Germany’s Nationalsocialists. The only reason conservatives oppose communism is because it is a religion much like their own. And if the proles believe there are two (02) alternatives, socialists and Holy Inquisition Prohibitionists, of course they are going to go for the “lesser evil” like any altruist.

      1. The mistake is to let pulpit-thumping mystical bigots (the true meaning of right-wing during the Red Terror) pretend to be for free markets

        In the real world, you have to form coalitions in order to govern, because society is too diverse. In Europe, those coalitions are explicit, in the US, they are implicit.

        There are maybe a dozen different political groupings, none of them with more than 20% of voters. Social conservatives are about 10% of those. The Republican party is about an equal mix of free market advocates, social conservatives, and pro-government conservatives.

        I hope we’re due for a reshuffling soon; the current coalitions are not working well anymore. Maybe with the Pope’s recent shift towards communism, we can finally stick the two major religions and nanny staters (Christianity, socialism/communism) into one party, and form another coalition of people who want small government for either economic or social reasons.

  52. Dang! William Jennings Bryan got nominated AGAIN? The Populist anaconda swallowing the Democratic Jackass in 1898 was supposed to be a cartoon. Here it is, 119 years later and the snake ain’t spit that jackass up yet.

  53. Dear Tony,

    My wife left me for another man 6 months ago about leaving me just to raise the kids. I admit i have been struggling to pay the bills and in the process am a bit lonely. I believe sexual intercourse is a fundamental need of humanity. Since you firmly believe in the social contract i was wondering if you could keep me company if you know what i mean. Sex with me that is. in case you were wondering i am bi.

    1. You’re not getting this social contract thing. Try harder. Now, are you attractive, and can you get rid of the kids while I’m around?

  54. “Sanders calls himself a “democratic socialist,” not to be confused with New York City mayor Bill de Blasio’s preferred label, “social democrat,””

    Yeah, like there’s a lick of difference between them. The truth is that the democratic party IS the communist party; they just lie and tell everyone they aren’t.

  55. Poor people were much better of before the new deal safety-net benefits, Not. See below

    “…The effects of the 2007 depression are much less severe than the 1929-41 depression because of safety-net benefits now provided. Consider the horrendous, though not uncommon situation of a household in 1932 comprised of elderly grandparents being supported by their working-age children with young children of their own, when the breadwinners became unemployed. The 1932 family would be destitute. Today the grandparents would have social security and Medicare benefits. Their working-age children could now collect unemployment benefits for up to 99 weeks. Additionally, the entire family could also be eligible for food stamps, Medicaid, rent subsidies, heating fuel subsidies, free school lunches and other benefits. The 1932 family might also have had a bank account in one of the many banks that failed and lost their savings. Today, Federal Deposit Insurance protects such bank accounts. You might say we are now in a depression with benefits…”
    http://seekingalpha.com/article/1543642

    1. Well technology is much better today and the standard of living is much higher. Im not sure the 2007 recession was as bad as some of the others. All these free goodies had to come from somewhere in the first place. If the 2007 was as bad as you claim all those goodies wouldnt have been available

      Your article is not very convincing

    2. so we should just have depressions/recessions all the time and everyone would be better off.

  56. Every society rests on a barbarian base. The people who don’t understand civilization, and wouldn’t like it if they did. The hitchhikers. The people who create nothing, and who don’t appreciate what others have created for them, and who think civilization is something that just exists and that all they need to do is enjoy what they can understand of it?luxuries, a high living standard, and easy work for high pay. Responsibilities? Phooey! What do they have a government for? – H. Beam Piper

  57. we have no way to know how many of these people are media, party donors and activists etc…etc…

    but you can be sure there’s at least 10, 000 libs – out of 350 million americans;
    that prefer their day jobs or living on their knees – to standing up with the rest of the country to oppose the absolute disgrace both sides of this administration are economically, socially, and politically in this country.

  58. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.Wage-Report.com

  59. Reason

    Any partisan “reporter or opinionator” who pretends that democrats and republicans are not working in lock step to make their government bigger and deny liberty and opportunities to Americans is disingenuous and not being honest with himself ? and the inability to be honest with yourself is a sign of stupidity, corruption and/or insanity.

    To ignore the “socialism” and “redistribution of wealth” that is the U.S. Industrial military complex reveals downright complicity with the real problems. Bernie Sanders, the darlingest prostitute of Lockheed Martin ? whose “profits” are 80%+ dependent on govt contracts and the pockets/purses/backs of middle income tax payers, knows full well that building machines that are ultimately meant to be destroyed, mothballed, or, like the F-35, never to be actually put into active use ? is not good for the national economy or men and women on the battlefield (though it provides meaningless #jobs for his fellow Vermonters), but he continues to support it. And he has hundreds of congressional republicans singing the same tune for their corporatist industrial military complex pimps. Ultimately self destructive warfare is the most obscene face of socialism, but it’s the one Bernie, Hillarious and a whole host of republicans are head over heels in love with.

  60. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.online-jobs9.com

  61. “What’s wrong with ‘record profits’? What do you think happens to that money? Greedy executives just sit on it?

    Of course they don’t sit on it. Bernie, Hillary and other socialists know what they really do with their profits. (gif)

    What I don’t understand is where did they come up with $15/hr for the new minimum wage? Working full time at that wage won’t even get you into the middle class! Why don’t they propose a $75,000 minimum salary for all employees in every industry?

    1. That’s too obviously ridiculous. They prefer incremental stupidity. Looking at where we are now, it seems to be working for them.

  62. Socialism has been a long-term goal of the powers that be for decades. Sanders is only openly admitting what he is.

    More importantly, though, is the fact that the vast majority of GOP and “Tea Party” legislators are not only advocating for, but fighting tooth and nail to sink the U.S. into a Mussolini-defined fascist nation-state.

    The media’s prescribed, tried and true propaganda method of, “Look over here,” while the dawn of overt fascism is upon us, should be our primary concern.

  63. Maybe it is not to help the poor at all. Maybe it is about placating the poor within a bureaucratic mushroom so the poor may be contained out of sight, out of mind and we can all feel good about ourselves without having actually done anything constructive. That’s why riots and mayhem always seem to catch us by surprise. What?! We’re feeding, and housing hundreds of thousands of poor in bad neighborhoods, providing substandard schools to educate the poor and they’re still not happy? When I was poor I was thrilled to receive assistance. Now the poor just say is that all I get? I think poor were better off in the hands of non-experts

    1. In other words, the poor were better off when we the individual workers and earners made our own charity choices. Now our charity choices are made by the self-styled experts of expertology of the Government Almighty, All Hail!!!! Sieg Hive, All must be for the Hive!

  64. At least Sanders is self-aware and honest. Hillary either doesn’t know she’s a socialist or she’s lying about it. Moreover, I believe there are Republican who fit that mold.

  65. It makes absolutely no difference which of these crooks is elected , they are all scammers.

    The entire US government, [no differently from any other government on the planet], is a fraud, a scam, from top to bottom.

    Unless, of course, you are dreaming 🙂 :

    Music: Dreams[ Anarchist Blues]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0o-C1_LZzk

    Regards, onebornfree.
    The Freedom Network: http://www.freedominunfreeworld.blogspotcom

  66. The free market has never been free and the latest economic research show that it never will. I support many Libertarian policies, but not refusal to examine your ideology critically.

  67. Capitalism: one money hungry greedy evil fat cat equals thousands of people with paychecks.

    Socialism: one power hungry greedy politician equals thousands of people without a paycheck.

  68. Madison is a hotbed of socialism dating from the Progressive era and Sen Bob La Follette. Many NHites are actually from Massachusetts, and even commute. What boosts wealth is the rise in equity the result of printing money to help the dwindling middle-class, actually increasing the disparity in income. The problem with the middle-class is that they’ve become too greedy, or corrupt, as our forebears would’ve put it.

  69. Not a single categorical statement in this article is correct, and empirically demonstrable.

    “Requiring paid maternity leave makes companies even more wary of hiring young women.” Really? Prove it.

    “Government interventions in health care?such as Obamacare?haven’t made health care cheaper” Really? Prove it.

    This is supposed to be “Reason” magazine. It ought to be required that categorical statements be based on facts, and not on the personal prejudices of the rich white man making them.

    Stossel claims to be smarter than Bill Gates, Paul Allen, Warren Buffett, Tim Cook, and a host of other wealthy entrepreneurs, whom the author derides as “rich people who don’t understand the process that made them rich,” — leading one to ask, “What, exactly, has Stossel done in the line of building up a business from scratch to international reach?” Oh, that’s right … nothing.

    If I have to make a business decision on the basis of advice from Bill Gates, or advice from John Stossel, why on earth would I choose the latter? Good grief.

  70. John Stossel, it’s clear your knowledge on socialism is very small. Please do better research before you make these articles. Passing off your ignorant assertions isn’t a good look.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.