Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Why Young Americans Are Drawn to Socialism

They may take for granted the bounty capitalism has bestowed.

Capitalism has been the most dynamic force for economic progress in history. Over the past century, it has delivered billions of people out of miserable poverty, raised living standards to once-unimaginable heights, and enabled an unprecedented flourishing of productive creativity. But among young Americans, it finds itself on trial.

The University of Chicago's GenForward Survey of Americans ages 18 to 34 finds that 62 percent think "we need a strong government to handle today's complex economic problems," with just 35 percent saying "the free market can handle these problems without government being involved."

Overall, 49 percent in this group hold a favorable opinion of capitalism—and 45 percent have a positive view of socialism. Socialism gets higher marks than capitalism from Hispanics, Asian-Americans, and African-Americans. Sixty-one percent of Democrats take a positive view of socialism—and so do 25 percent of Republicans.

Contrast the millennials' opinions with those of their parents. A survey last year found that only 26 percent of baby boomers would prefer to live in a socialist country. Among young people, the figure was 44 percent.

What explains this generational divergence? The first factor is that young adults may take for granted the bounty capitalism has bestowed, from cellphones to inexpensive air travel to an endless array of food and beverage options. They can't remember the time when those things didn't exist.

But they will never forget the pain and uncertainty caused by the brutal recession of 2007-09, which has taken years to overcome. Financial catastrophe is bound to foster disenchantment with the economic order.

The Great Depression of the 1930s gave rise to a far more powerful and intrusive federal government—and caused some people to embrace communism. This found an echo in the Great Recession, as a lot of young people reached adulthood in a dismal job market. Their earnings and advancement suffered—and the effects persist.

Many of them associate capitalism with crisis, not progress. That may change as the economy continues expanding. But some of capitalism's more dogmatic advocates have done it lasting harm.

For eight years, as the economy steadily improved, many Republicans denounced President Barack Obama as a socialist out to demolish the free market. Obama left office with a 77 percent approval rating among millennials. If he was a socialist, many of them must have decided, socialism can't be so bad.

Without that experience, Bernie Sanders could not have come so close to getting the Democratic nomination in 2016. The socialist label lost much of its stigma from being cynically overused by the right.

The demise of Marxism in so many countries has actually been a boon to the left. Socialism was once seen as the path to communism. But with the Soviet Union dead and China only pretending to be socialist, those fears have faded.

It doesn't help the reputation of capitalism that many of those fervently opposed to government interference and redistribution are strongly at odds with millennials on social issues—including gay rights, racial inequality, immigration, gun control, and abortion rights.

The refusal of most conservatives to recognize the human role in global warming alienates those who will have to live with the environmental damage their elders did. In many minds, free markets have been discredited by their association with intolerance, rejection of science, and disregard for the poor.

For baby boomers, the champion of capitalism was Ronald Reagan. For millennials, it's Donald Trump. Among those who are 15 to 34, a recent poll found, two-thirds disapprove of his performance as president—and most regard him as "dishonest," "racist," and "mentally unfit."

What millennials may not realize is that many of the distinctive burdens they face are caused at least as much by government involvement as by free markets. Federal loans and grants have pushed up college tuition. Medicare inflates demand for health care. High housing costs in New York and San Francisco owe a lot to rent control and land-use restrictions.

When markets are allowed to work, they continue to generate innovations that expand options and reduce costs. Amazon, Apple, Uber, Starbucks, and Walmart have made life better for consumers. Food and clothing take less of our disposable income than ever before. Cars, TVs, and appliances are better and more reliable than they used to be.

In the end, though, economic systems have to retain their moral and political legitimacy if they are to last. Capitalism has always had to overcome its critics. But today, it may suffer more from its friends.

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.

  • DajjaI||

    Socialism is a conspiracy of schemers. They each believe that they will rise to control over the world by public displays of compassion and sympathy for the poor and vulnerable and that no one else ever thought of it and in a time of crisis will quickly dispatch anyone who stands in the way. What they preposterously don't realize is that in fact millions of others nurse this same fantasy and have much sharper knives.

  • ehelldane||

    If I was a serial killer, I would probably put a decent amount of effort into presenting myself as a likable person. And a lot of people would think I was a nice guy too, until they found out I wasn't, the hard way.

    A lot of the most noteworthy people who call themselves communists\socialists are actually not that, by definition. They are instead other things, and hipocrits: people mascarading as something they are not (lying).

    Learn what these thing actually are, please, and use that information to judge people based on what they do, not what they call themselves. And please stop trying to define what these concepts are by the behaviors of people who use their label to mislead others. It makes you look awefullly silly.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Learn what these thing actually are, please

    From who. We have way too few teachers of liberty. And way to many preachers of it.
    Losing is inevitable.

  • Shirley Knott||

    Which renders the last 300 years of history inexplicable.

    Also, note well that one can learn without a teacher — or where did teachers come from?

  • JesseAz||

    Based on college entrance exams and applications, teachers come from the bottom half of college applicants. So your average middling student.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach, teach gym.

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    Those who can't teach gym get some other government job

  • UltraModerate||

    And those who can't teach, do, but do without understanding why people are so hard to teach.

  • mooo||

    Teach this. Once enacted, they'll come back. Capitalism itself needs liberalization.

    "Alan Greenspan has proclaimed himself 'shocked' that 'the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders equity' proved to be an illusion... The Reagan-Thatcher model, which favored finance over domestic manufacturing, has collapsed. ... The mutually reinforcing rise of financialization and globalization broke the bond between American capitalism and America's interests. ...we should take a cue from Scandinavia's social capitalism, which is less manufacturing-centered than the German model. The Scandinavians have upgraded the skills and wages of their workers in the retail and service sectors -- the sectors that employ the majority of our own workforce. In consequence, fully employed impoverished workers, of which there are millions in the United States, do not exist in Scandinavia." - Harold Meyerson, "Building a Better Capitalism", The Washington Post, March 12, 2009.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Which renders the last 300 years of history inexplicable.

    But stopped expanding roughly 150 years ago ... and NOTHING on the table now, advance further.
    THAT is inexplicable.

  • Sevo||

    "But stopped expanding roughly 150 years ago ... and NOTHING on the table now, advance further.
    THAT is inexplicable."

    Mike, you ought to read that to which you're replying. It might fool some people into thinking you're not a 'tard.
    Maybe...

  • DrZ||

    We certainly have a lot of teachers of the "socialism is good" school. These teachers are public school employees. The same ones whose unions negotiate with Democratic politicians for unsustainable retirement perks.

  • babybird722||

    What is funny is this...51% of Americans earn less than $30,000. 99% of Americans earn less than $250,000 and that is not rich. Perhaps you guys are smarter and more educated than public school teachers and government employees, but financially you are no better off than they are. Show of hands, how many of you guys earn even $100,000 a year. I thought so.

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    Keep going up. I'll tell you when you hit my number.

  • Sevo||

    "Show of hands, how many of you guys earn even $100,000 a year. I thought so."
    Suffice to say:
    1) You're full of shit
    2) Your post is totally irrelevant to the issue
    Now, would you like to continue proving you're an imbecile, or get lost?

  • Egypt Steve||

    Re: "If I was a serial killer."

    Interesting thought experiment, OJ.

  • Ariki||

    Socialist "hipocrits"?
    Fat, grey, thick skinned bastards, with smelly breath, who eat African children?

    Sounds about right.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Do you really believe that self-righteous babbling is any way to defend capitalism?
    If so, YOU are the problem..

  • Michael Hihn||

    Do you really believe that self-righteous babbling is any way to defend capitalism?
    If so, YOU are the problem..

  • jm15xy||

    Talk to Chapman, then.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Do you really believe that self-righteous babbling is any way to defend capitalism?
    If so, YOU are the problem..

  • Michael Hihn||

    Do you really believe that self-righteous babbling is any way to defend capitalism?
    If so, YOU are the problem..

  • Michael Hihn||

    Do you really believe that self-righteous babbling is any way to defend capitalism?
    If so, YOU are the problem..

  • Michael Hihn||

    A new "low" in software performance.

  • Rat on a train||

    Another market failure.

  • Shirley Knott||

    Nah, just the chirping of hihnsects. Much sound and fury, signifying nothing.

  • Widhalm19||

    Hihn is truly an idiot first-class.

  • Mock-star||

    Wait, now Hihn is AGAINST self-righteous babbling? Whats the world coming too?

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""Wait, now Hihn is AGAINST self-righteous babbling? Whats the world coming too?""

    Only a problem with other people's self-righteous babbling. His own is superior to all others, so he believes.

  • Mark22||

    "Do as I say, not as I do."

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    He is certainly in his own echo chamber today.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    Hihn was demonstrating 'self-righteous babbling'.

  • Michael Hihn||

    So ... in this thread ,,, who are the cyber-bullies ,,,, AND .... waiit for it ...
    ... SO self-righteous!

  • ||

    What are you, twelve-years-old?

  • Michael Hihn||

    "What are you, twelve-years-old?

    ANOTHER SELF-RIGHTEOUS BULLY!!!

    IS THERE A MINIMUM AGE FOR STANDING UP TO BULLYING AND AGGRESSION?

    They run in a pack ... like feral dogs

  • Elias Fakaname||

    You're bullying, and aggressive.you frequently attack commenters who never did a thing to provoke you. Whoever you are.

  • Fancylad||

    Oh wow.

    Serious question, are Hihn and Kirkland the same guy? The only difference I see is that Kirkland seems to a little more antipathy for the proletariat, whereas Hihn's views are just average haute bourgeois.

  • Rossami||

    re: "are Hihn and Kirkland the same guy?"

    I doubt it. While they are equally repetitive, dogmatic, abusive and utterly impervious to reason, they have very different writing styles.

  • Michael Hihn||

    We seem to be the only libertarians. We've been pissing off the Authoritarian Right and Left foe decades. Just count the unprovoked attacks in this subthread only

    Bellowing Blowhards be so self-righteous.

  • ||

    Actually, some of it is that I am questioning why you are so hostile to people who are generally on your side.

    The other part is why you find words so offensive.

  • ||

    It's not like you have been attacked with fists or clubs. I didn't even attack you with words, I merely asked why your react to words in such an immature way, ie, as if you were a child.

  • ||

    OTOH, if you're not prepared to carry on a conversation like a mature adult, (instead of say calling people goobers, bullies etc) maybe I should stop trying to interact with you in any way at all.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Self defense, goober.

  • ||

    Fuck you, but only in self-defense, dickhead. :)

  • Michael Hihn||

    Your unprovoked assault was launched here. It's totally visible and undeniable. How psycho can you be? And for what purpose?

    It's not like you have been attacked with fists or clubs.

    Why does EVERY cyber-bully claim that verbal aggression does not exist? (wink, wink)

    Verbal Aggressiveness ...A personality trait that predisposes persons to attack the self-concepts of other people instead of, or in addition to, their positions on topics of communication ... Verbal aggressiveness is thought to be mainly a destructive form of communication

    Verbal hostility, or in other words, verbal harassment or abuse is basically a negative defining statement told to or about you or withholding a response and pretending the abuse is not happening.

  • Michael Hihn||

    The other part is why you find words so offensive.

    Why do you ass-ume I find words offensive? Libertarians have been calling out aggression for over 50 years now. It's a core principle, Non-Agression.

  • Ariki||

    Hahah is it snowing in here?
    Pathetic wee Hihn.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Another bully (yawn)

    They travel in a pack - like feral dogs
    Competing for the worst insult.
    High-fiving each "Good One!"
    So competing to be the foulest trash mouth.
    NEVER anything of substance, or on topic.
    Most guys outgrow that infantile shit around 12-16.
    But they are their own cheerleaders,
    in a pack
    like wild dogs.

  • Sevo||

    Oh, goody! Several more ransom notes!

  • UltraModerate||

    Exactly. I'm constantly surprised by how those who rail hardest against socialism do everything in their power to make it look appealing. I don't support socialism, but supporting a system that allows the powerful to fuck over the weak is only setting the stage for socialism. The powerful will still fuck over the weak with socialism, but the people who fear socialism will be fucked over too.

  • Sevo||

    UltraModerate|5.21.18 @ 9:51PM|#
    "Exactly. I'm constantly surprised by how those who rail hardest against socialism do everything in their power to make it look appealing."

    I'm constantly amazed at what a stupid 'argument' this is.

  • dxh@yahoo.com||

    In my experience most who proclaim to be socialists are either a) MOOCHERS and LOOTERS who are lying and are actually pushing socialism because like you said they are schemers who think they will come out on top, or b) uninformed useful idiots who believe the lies and think they will be sticking it to the man

  • babybird722||

    Perhaps you should get out and meet more people because the socialist I have meet are nothing like you imagine. Looters? Is that code? Careful, your hood is slipping!

  • Baron Von Weinermobile||

    Looters simply means someone who is intent on living off the public dole with no intent to remove themselves from it. If you see any other "code" in it than that, then that says more about your biases than anything else.
    So, who's hood is slipping here my friend?

  • JoeBlow123||

    "The University of Chicago's GenForward Survey of Americans ages 18 to 34 finds that 62 percent think "we need a strong government to handle today's complex economic problems," with just 35 percent saying "the free market can handle these problems without government being involved.""

    We are boned!

    Anyways, good article Mr. Chapman.

  • Robert||

    Yeah, well if you state things vaguely like "strong gov't", who knows?

  • Michael Hihn||

    The problem is ... self-righteous babbling like Chapman's. NOBODY is defending OR promoting capitalism. In the court of public opinion, progressives have been kicking our ass for decades. We have results but lose on public opinion. They win on public opinion but lose on results. Voters have been throwing out BOTH parties for over two decades, but NOTHING changes.

    Most Americans believe the rich don't pay their fair share of taxes. FACT, they subsidize over HALF the entire middle-class income tax Fiscal conservatives say NOTHING because they helped CAUSE it -- competing with liberals to loot the federal treasury to buy middle-class votes. The libertarian establishment Cato, Mercatus, Reason.com) sucks up to conservatives.

    Do YOU know that Medicaid eligibles have a HIGHER uninsured rate than the private market Or WHY?
    Do YOU think Cato's Medicare vouchers are "privatization" to "increase competition" in the WRONG MARKET. Adding insurance companies LOOKS like privatization to GOOBERS, but -- THINK -- they'd add a costly and useless middle man.
    Taxes? STUPIDEST OF ALL! If you don't know the rich pay half YOUR income tax, then you don't know a flat-tax is bat-shit crazy! A Fair tax is CRAZIER -- because the rich consume a tiny portion of their income tax. Do YOU believe a 30% sales tax makes sense ... on top of STATE sales taxes?

    If you swallow any of their shit, you're just another anti-gummint goober. Bellowing.

  • Conchfritters||

    Do YOU know that Medicaid eligibles have a HIGHER uninsured rate than the private market Or WHY?

    Does it have something to do with the FACT that you have to spend down ALL of your assets until you only have like $3,000 or $4,000 BEFORE you get Medicaid? Kind of HARD to afford insurance when your FUCKING flat broke.

  • Libertymike||

    In order to qualify for Medicaid for long term care purposes, the number is $2,000.00. If you are married, your spouse (the "community spouse") can have $123 thousand and change.

    Of course, one need not really be impoverished in order to qualify for Medicaid. Its called Medicaid planning. One can transfer one's two million dollar manse into an irrevocable trust and still qualify for Medicaid provided that one had effected the transfer at least 5 years prior to one's Medicaid application.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Do YOU know that Medicaid eligibles have a HIGHER uninsured rate than the private market Or WHY?

    Does it have something to do with the FACT that you have to spend down ALL of your assets until you only have like $3,000 or $4,000 BEFORE you get Medicaid? Kind of HARD to afford insurance when your FUCKING flat broke.

    That's not a fact. The only asset limits are long-term care (like a nursing hone). Medical coverage is determined solely by income.

    The uninsured rate is caused by Medicaid paying MUCH less than even Medicare -- as little as $17 per visit - thus a much higher percentage of doctors cannot afford to accept it -- especially in the inner-cities. As with Medicare, providers MUST overcharge to offset their losses. The losses are greater from Medicaid, PLUS most inner-cities have too few (or no) privately insured to overcharge.

    That's also why Planned Parenthood is the ONLY Medicaid provider in many inner cities. Money is fungible, so abortions offset their Medicaid losses (pay the overhead)

  • Elias Fakaname||

    You bring up an excellent point. Planned Parenthood indeed thrives on their income as an abortion mill.

    Thanks for pointing that out.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Thanks for agreeing that the Christian Taliban is BAT-SHIT CRAZY that federal funding subsidizes abortions because "money is fungible."

    Now that you've figured THAT out -- you've PROVEN why defunding Planned Parenthood is fucking stupid by those blasphemers.

    1) It won't prevent a single abortion -- will INCREASE abortions (DUH)
    2) Will destroy the sole source of medical care for millions of inner-city women ,.. but they're mostly nigger woman.
    3) Confirm your rejection of the core principle of equal, unalienable and/or God-given rights.

    The Authoritarian Right,
    Right - Left = Zero

  • sarcasmic||

    Most Americans believe the rich don't pay their fair share of taxes.

    Well, duh. Of course the rich don't pay their fair share.

    If they paid their fair share then they wouldn't be rich anymore!

    The fact that rich people exist is proof that they don't pay their fair share.

    Jeez.

  • Michael Hihn||

    I'll assume sarcastic is being ... sarcastic again. I've been tracking this for over 25 years. using the "core middle class" (currently $40,000- 99,999)

    Here are actual IRS data for 2014, the latest year with such detail.

    $40,000-100,000 AGI
    Reported 29% of income.
    Paid only 17% of the tax.
    Requires a 71% tax INCREASE just to pay their own way.

    !,000,000 + AGI
    Reported 15% of income.
    Paid 28% of the tax (nearky TWICE it's share)
    Requires a 45.8% tax CUT, to pay its own share.

    Any questions?

    AGI Income (TOTAL $9102 02billion_)
    429.6 @ $40-50,000
    1116.3 @ $50-75,000
    1091.4 @ $75-100,000
    ------
    2637.3 TOTAL

    Now divide: Share of income = 2637/9102 = 29.0%

    Taxes Paid (TOTAL $1377.8 billion)
    31.6B @ $40-50,000
    95.8B @ $50-75,000
    105.6B @ $75-100,000
    ------
    233.3B TOTAL

    Now divide: Share of taxes = 233/1377 = 16.9%

    Now compare. Reports 29% f income, pays only 16.9% of tax.
    Now divide: Pays of their own share 16.9/29.0 = 58.4% of their own share.

    Thus, the rich SUBSIDIZE 41.6% of the core middle class ACTUAL share of taxes.

    That's only reported income. Consider the majoriry of loophole aand exemptinons are restricted tlo the middle-class, and the rich subsidize over 50% of their ACTUAL total share of the tax.

    Now divide: requires a 71% tax INCREASE. just to pay their own share.

    Why did you learn that here? For the reasons I described.

  • sarcasmic||

    But they're still rich! How can they have paid their fair share and still be rich? How can they have paid their fair share while children starve? Obviously they haven't paid their fair share! If they paid their fair share then they wouldn't be rich and there wouldn't be any starving children! Why do you want children to starve to death?!?!

  • Michael Hihn||

    ... Why do you want children to starve to death?!?!

    I was correct about the sarcasm!
    But why did you learn that here?
    Why is liberty so totally undefended?

  • sarcasmic||

    Here's a hint: If there are exclamation points in my comment, it's probably sarcasm.

  • Michael Hihn||

    I didn't need that!!
    (NOT sarcasm)

  • Michael Hihn||

    If they paid their fair share then they wouldn't be rich and there wouldn't be any starving children! Why do you want children to starve to death?!?!

    I was correct about the sarcasm!
    But why did you learn that here?
    Why is liberty so totally undefended?

  • ||

    Why is liberty so totally undefended?



    Everyone defends his own liberty, it's everyone else's that no one is willing to go to the barricades for.

    And with that glib comment I have ignored the thousands (millions?) who have defended the rights of others at the expense of their own comfort and privilege.

    But I have also recognized the very lack of a universally acceptable objective definition of liberty.

    sarcasmic has demonstrated that in spite of your defense of upper income earners, large numbers of people believe the opposite of what you say. The fact is that there are many people who are heard to say almost exactly what sarcasmic has written without any irony intended at all and furthermore they are answered with "hear, hear" by enthusiastic crowds.

    If I were asked for the Occam's razor answer as to "Why is liberty so totally undefended?" I would reply. "Because the number of people who truly want it is vanishingly small."

  • Michael Hihn||

    Everyone defends his own liberty, it's everyone else's that no one is willing to go to the barricades for.

    Which is why we're getting our ass kicked.

    tBut I have also recognized the very lack of a universally acceptable objective definition of liberty.

    So? That;s intentonal. Individul liberty is a journey, not a destination. Ever expanding for 400 years. Jefferson understood that. So did Ayn Rand.

    sarcasmic has demonstrated that in spite of your defense of upper income earners, large numbers of people believe the opposite of what you say.

    That was my starting point. We lose on EVERY issue, in the court of public opinion.

    The fact is that there are many people who are heard to say almost exactly what sarcasmic has written without a.... "hear, hear" by enthusiastic crowds.

    OUR FAIL. NOBODY says the opposite, ANYWHERE in the libertarian establishment ... OR any clue of what the issue actually is. Not just tax shares. Everything.

    would reply. "Because the number of people who truly want it is vanishingly small."

    How would they know there are ANY options?

    Liberty, both economic and personal; has grown steadily for at least 50 years. Among the people, At least 60% would now SELF-DEFINE as fiscally conservative and socially liberal. NOBODY speaks to them or for them.

    Thanks for your thoughtful comments.

  • ||

    Jefferson understood that. So did Ayn Rand.



    Yeah, and Jefferson is everything to everybody, and justifiably, Bring up anything, from public schooling to distribution of land ownership to single payer healthcare and the left will find something in their favor and when they can't they'll bring up Sally Hemings and all the slaves that got sold down the river when he died as if that totally discredits every idea he ever wrote about.

    As for Ayn Rand, WTF, who takes her seriously after Nathan's and Barb's tell-alls. Sorry, I say that as someone who was heavily influenced by not just "the Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged" but also by her other works*.

  • Michael Hihn||

    That;s intentonal. Individul liberty is a journey, not a destination. Ever expanding for 400 years. Jefferson understood that. So did Ayn Rand.

    DIVERSION
    NON-RESPONSIVE.

  • ||

    People are increasingly "understanding" Jefferson the way I indicated. And they have pretty much always understood Ayn Rand that way.

  • Michael Hihn||

    tBut I have also recognized the very lack of a universally acceptable objective definition of liberty.

    So? That;s intentonal. Individul liberty is a journey, not a destination. Ever expanding for 400 years. Jefferson understood that. So did Ayn Rand.

    People are increasingly "understanding" Jefferson the way I indicated.

    DIVERSION

    And they have pretty much always understood Ayn Rand that way.

    DIVERSION

    Hint: That means you changed the subject (diversion), and irrelevant..
    Or are you really THAT ignorant on the history, nature and evolution of individual liberty?
    Why does the ith Amendement guarantedd rights that are NEVER NAMED that may not be abridged by any level of government? Evoluiton. Journey..

  • Elias Fakaname||

    The best way to protect our liberty is decrease the number of progressives in America. We should try exiling them en masses first.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Ah yes, protect your liberty by seizing the property and citizenship of others. Clearly, you are a paragon of virtue.

    I mean, at least you're not advocating killing them all like you usually do.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Escher Enigma is drooling agan. More sloppily than normal

    Ah yes, protect your liberty by seizing the property and citizenship of others. Clearly, you are a paragon of virtue.

    I mean, at least you're not advocating killing them all like you usually do.

    Psychos be scary.

  • EscherEnigma||

    @Michael Hihn
    Seriously dude?

    I was obviously responding to Elias Fakaname. Ad hominem attacks are bad enough as is, poorly aimed ones are just silly.

  • Michael Hihn||

    The best way to protect our liberty is decrease the number of progressives in America. We should try exiling them en masses first.

    You're actually PROUD to be a fascist.
    Scary

  • sarcasmic||

    If I were asked for the Occam's razor answer as to "Why is liberty so totally undefended?" I would reply. "Because the number of people who truly want it is vanishingly small."

    I'm totally stealing this.

  • Michael Hihn||

    They're at record highs

  • babybird722||

    I love your comment!

  • Brett Bellmore||

    This is terrifying, I find myself largely in agreement.

    The socialists win the PR war because they're the only ones waging it.

  • Michael Hihn||

    And many of you go nuts when I say anti-gummint gooberism has destroyed fiscal conservatism for both conservatives and libertarians. And there is MUCH more failure.

    Cato's Social Security "privatization" is even crazier than their wacky Medicare vouchers.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Framing them as goobers doesn't help. Goobers are a delicious snack treat. Painting the progressives as baby murdering slavers paints a much better picture of their kind.

  • Michael Hihn||

    So you don't know what goobers are EITHER?

    Painting the progressives as baby murdering slavers paints a much better picture of their kind.

    NOW YOU SAY PROGRESSIVES ARE ANTI-GOVERNMENT.

    While YOU shit on unalienable rights!

  • sharmota4zeb||

    They win the PR war, because they are the only voice in many low income areas, because most Capitalists do not want to get their cars repaired every month.

  • Michael Hihn||

    They win the PR war, because they are the only voice in many low income areas

    Or anywhere else. Do you need MORE examples?

  • BYODB||

    Socialists aren't the only ones waging a P.R. war by any stretch of the imagination, but the fact is that Democracy and any Democratic system is inherently flawed and inevitably ends up at a point where people vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. This has been a critique of the system for hundreds of years, so that anyone would be shocked to see the process in action means they have not been paying attention.

    Next on the Tytler Cycle is authoritarianism, and I'm sure you can guess why that might be.

  • BYODB||

    And, to whit, it's one reason why socialism is 'accepted' in that people want to remove some of the middle men between themselves and the treasury as our society accepts the notion of voting themselves largesse more and more.

    In short, it's the natural death cycle of our society and we're nearing the end point. Of course, 'the end point' could be in 100 years and once we reach it we could languish there for 100 more. Thanks, 'Nukes!

  • Iheartskeet||

    hmm, conservatives overuse the word socialism leads to cheapening the term and eventually it's positive association with Obama.

    So, why hasn't the lefts overuse of "Fascist" led to a similar positive revival ?

    My guess is there is a lot more at play. They both should be insults, but we have an education system and media machine that sanctifies one and accurately demonizes the other.

    Long before Bernie Sanders rise, one could go to any college or newsroom and find an avowed and proud socialist, heck maybe even a communist or two.

    Why aren't these belief systems laughed out of the room, or better yet tossed out, like fascists ?

  • JoeBlow123||

    "Why aren't these belief systems laughed out of the room, or better yet tossed out, like fascists ?"

    People still like the fantasy of socialism and communism.

    I actually had a conversation with a dude I work with who likes communism. He thinks it is great if someone who needs something can go to the store and just get some groceries or whatever, go home, and that's it. He like the idea of equality. He likes the idea of everyone adding what they can. He insists no one will be forced to do anything, it will just work. So I asked him what if I want to farm and keep 2 years worth of crops. He says that won't happen. I ask why. He says those people won't be in his system. So then I joke and tell him you just liquidated me like the kulaks were liquidated.

    Conversation ends there. Did not take long to be liquidated for aberrant behavior even in his communist utopia though.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    To someone who is ignorant of history or economics, Socialism does sound good. The problem that it doesn't work in reality is glossed over in schools today. We demonize the despots like Stalin, Mao, and Castro, but we don't teach our youngsters that it's the Socialist system that created them. It's the blind struggle for class equality that these power-hungry men preyed on.

  • JesseAz||

    It's not conservatives calling social programs in Nordic countries "democratic socialism.". That is the left blatantly lying about what socialism is. Denmark's leader even had to come out and call Bernie an idiot for calling them socialist. Then you have Democrats using their true and tried no true socialist phallacy by claiming every failed attempt at socialism isn't really socialism.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Tribal bullshit does not advance liberty. Socialism, historically, means the same as communism - no private property.

    Denmark's leader even had to come out and call Bernie an idiot for calling them socialist.

    (loL) BECAUSE they have private property .. so he also ridiculed you!.

    Then you have Democrats using their true and tried no true socialist phallacy by claiming every failed attempt at socialism isn't really socialism.

    It's not .. which is why I laugh so hard that you cited the head of Denmark ... with no clue what he meant.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Nordic countries ARE socialist. Socialism is still a bad word, so socialists try their hardest to skew how they are viewed and what they are called.

    Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark all have government controlled companies. They also have companies that have partial government control.

    This is literally the definition of socialism: Government controlling the means of production.

    The USA has always skirted socialism until Social security, medicare, ObamaCare, partially nationalizing steel (Truman), and partially nationalizing automakers (Booosh and Obama).

  • ||

    Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark all have government controlled companies.




    Actually, no, or at least not significantly more than the USA has*. IOW, if the Nordic countries are socialist, then so is the USA.

    *most Americans seem to be totally oblivious about the level of government control of the economy, including outright ownership and/or operational control of productive enterprises in the USA. This applies to the federal, state and local level. One example (possibly the most prominent one) is the planning, building and ownership of the World Trade Center by the Port Authority of New York because the Rockefeller business socialists were worried about business moving out of NYC.**

    **interestingly enough, this example of Rockefeller socialism was held up around the world as pure American capitalism. So much so that Osama Bin Laden's followers tried twice (the second time successfully) to destroy it. Thus proving that no all anti-capitalist movements or rhetoric ar socialist.
  • ||

    Oops, HTML fail. The second blockquote contains my comments.

  • BYODB||

    Correct, in that the United States is skewing more socialist. The entire alphabet soup of the FedGov is socialism in practice, if not literal form as they dictate the acceptable parameters of doing business far beyond what they are authorized to do constitutionally and thus we slip further down the slope of socialism-by-regulation.

    After all, if you're not free to make decisions for your business in any real shape or form can one say you truly 'own' that factory in the first place? It's a very grey area, but at a certain point you cross a line into effective federal ownership in practice. The Fed's have a very vested interest in blurring that line as much as possible, too.

  • ||

    The "United States is [not] skewing more socialist" in that this is a recent development. Government owned enterprises go way back to the beginning of the country.

    Examples? How about all the Navy Yards? In these every part of the production of Naval Stores (with huge amounts of those thing produced because of various subsidies, quotas and just plain requirements that if you owned land you had to produce them on it at the risk of losing your property.

    How about the Erie Canal? The Cumberland Road. OK, fine, private contractors built those.

    But that doesn't count the Army arsenals, Springfield, for example, which long before it produced the M1 Garand was producing armaments to order, and under the ownership of Uncle Sam.

    If anything, the United States is skewing less socialist. Ships are now built in private shipyards under contract to the Navy. Springfield Armory is a private business and the Army now contracts with private companies for its supplies.

    Not only is the USA less socialist but so is almost all of the rest of the world.

  • BYODB||

    Well, we're not involved in WW2 anymore so...yeah. Harder to justify outright government takeover. It's moving from 'hard' more obvious socialism of whole ownership to the greyer and more indeterminate form of ownership through regulatory fiat. Crony capitalism of the type where the government picks winners who receive billions in tax isn't really all that much of an improvement, but on paper it sure looks like it is.

  • BigT||

    Things like Obamacare, where the government makes strict rules for private businesses, and favors some over others is called Fascism. In socialism the govt owns the companies, in fascism the govt coerces companies and has favored companies. Look up the NRA:

    "The National Recovery Administration was a prime New Deal agency established by U.S. president Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) in 1933. The goal was to eliminate "cut-throat competition" by bringing industry, labor, and government together to create codes of "fair practices" and set prices. The NRA was created by the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) and allowed industries to get together and write "codes of fair competition." The codes were intended to reduce "destructive competition" and to help workers by setting minimum wages and maximum weekly hours, as well as minimum prices at which products could be sold."

    That's fascism. Yes FDR was a fascist, following the fashion of the day.

  • Atlas Slugged||

    Just to be precise, Finland is NOT a Nordic country.

  • ||

    Finland IS a Nordic country. It is not generally considered a Scandinavian country but sometimes, it is.

    "Scandinavia" refers to Denmark, Norway and Sweden.[6] Some sources argue for the inclusion of the Faroe Islands, Finland and Iceland,[4][7][8][9][10] though that broader region is usually known by the countries concerned as Norden (Finnish: Pohjoismaat, Icelandic: Norðurlöndin, Faroese: Norðurlond), or the Nordic countries

  • swampwiz||

    And the last time I had checked, those Nordic countries were wonderful.

  • Michael Hihn||

    ... which drives the authoritarian right bonkers.
    Oh wait, they've always been bonkers.
    Never mind.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    The truth is Bernie is more fascist than socialist, but no one really pays attention to the labels.

  • Michael Hihn||

    No more so than Trump and the dominant themes of this party.
    Left - Right = Zero

  • Brett Bellmore||

    It goes back to WWII, and Hitler violating the Hitler/Stalin pact.

    As a result of that, Stalin became our ally for most of WWII.

    So the Right had to purge itself of any fascist sympathizers, but the Left didn't have to purge its communists.

    And then the left did what they usually do, and concentrated on subverting the institutions of cultural transmission, the schools and the media. So the very people who would have orchestrated the laughter were communists.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    My dad is left-wing and ran as a socialist in the 60's or 70's. When were socialists on the right?

  • Baron Von Weinermobile||

    In Europe the right is, and always has been, pretty much universally socialist. IOW they support a large welfare state, government control of industry, and collectivist goals. The only difference is that it is a type of socialism that embraces national or ethnic identity.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    The left loved both hitler and stalin until their two favored sons started fighting. Hitler got the bad wrap earlier in no small part because the left hid Stalin's atrocities so well and for so long. And since the disaster the left always leaves behind must be purged from memory, the best way is to ascribe their own failongs to their opponents. (See tony)

    And then after the war the soviets found plenty of useful and willing idiots in the left to fund.

  • EscherEnigma||

    So, why hasn't the lefts overuse of "Fascist" led to a similar positive revival ?


    Eh, you're comparing eight years of the "Socialist" Obama to two years of the "Fascist" Trump. So give it a few more years.

    That said, I don't think it's risky to suggest that Democrats/liberals/whatever liked Obama more then Republicans/conservatives/whatever like Trump. There's a lot more grudging acceptance of Trump then full-throated "he's the man!"

  • Iheartskeet||

    Well, I recall every R president in my adult lifetime getting called a fascist, and rather regularly. So, its more than 2 years...

  • BigT||

    Um, Obama was the fascist, with Obamacare as a prime example of fascism at work.

  • Michael Hihn||

    So, why hasn't the lefts overuse of "Fascist" led to a similar positive revival ?

    Huh? It has. Accelerated by Trump.

    Why aren't these belief systems laughed out of the room, or better yet tossed out, like fascists ?

    Because the libertarian establishment is TOTALLY useless.

    At the beginning we had two factions, pro-liberty and anti-government. Liberty lovers versus government haters. Pro-liberty looks for workable solutions -- depending on your age, you've likely never heard if any. They disappeared in the early 90s! This is the simplest to describe http://libertyissues.com/taxdemoc.htm There were many others,

    Listen closely. Our goobers have NOTHING except "smaller government" Or shrink it

    Progressives aren't so fucking stupid. Have you EVER heard them promoting "big government" (the words)?
    They talk about programs and policies and make them sound appealing to voters. It's just that simple. They "sell the sizzle, not the steak" ... which AMATEUR salesmen have known for decades.

    We USED to do that. Then Ron Paul (mostly)
    We focus on government, not people, and they know it.

  • BYODB||

    I don't know what's so hard to understand, people just want more of your money. Since they want it, by your reckoning, they should have it yes? After all, they are the voting majority.

    How does this path lead to increased liberty, again?

    Ah, Democracy! It fails in the same ways every time, yet some people are always surprised.

  • Michael Hihn||

    I don't know what's so hard to understand,

    I assume you're uneducated or confused. Perhaps both. I MAY have it.

    You confuse Democracy witth consent of the governed..

    True or false.

    1) Our Constitution was crafted with the consent of the governed.
    2) That same Constitution EXPLICITLY refused to create a Democracy.

    Got it? One is elections, the other is structuring a government. Jefferson want a new Constitutional Convention ... each generation. ... to avoid "consent by the dead" (his own words)

    Or .. you deny the people to form a government. That's uhhh, authoritarian,.

  • Nardz||

    Yea, Aristotle only diagnosed this 2400 years ago.
    It's a new concept. Takes time to learn...

  • Elias Fakaname||

    "Why aren't these belief systems laughed out of the room, or better yet tossed out, like fascists ?"

    Decades ago, am American hero, a great man named McCarthy, used his power as a US senator to expose and destroy these people for their Marxist beliefs. McCarthy correctly understanding that there is ultimately no coexistence with such cancerous individuals. Plus their tendency to multiply.

    Those newsroom marxists conspired to destroy this man, and his great works. Now we must bring back McCarthism and d story them while we still can.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Decades ago, am American hero, a great man named McCarthy, used his power as a US senator to expose and destroy these people for their Marxist beliefs.

    McCarthy correctly understanding that there is ultimately no coexistence with such cancerous individuals. Plus their tendency to multiply.

    Those newsroom marxists conspired to destroy this man, and his great works. Now we must bring back McCarthism and d story them while we still can.

    Yes ... THAT crazy

  • Iheartskeet||

    Dude, chill. Was speaking figuratively. The main point is socialism ought to have the same rep as fascism, and all the baggage that goes with it.

  • Michael Hihn||

    It does.

  • Nardz||

    Fascism (a form of progressivism, like socialism and communism) is self-affirmative, directly aggressive, and exclusive.
    Socialism is "egalitarian", passive aggressive, and inclusive.
    Fascism sets high standards for the individual and promotes discipline. Socialism sets low standards for the individual (as a good) and promotes "care".
    Fascism implores people to be greater than themselves, socialism implores people to be "themselves" (that is, no better than any other).
    Fascism values achievement. Socialism values comfort.
    Thus, socialism is more appealing as it sounds more altruistic and is easier for the individual.

  • ||

    The association with social conservatism certainly hurts capitalism's standing among the young, but another important factor is how much older generations have all the wealth. Around 40% of wealth in America is now inherited, and millennials have less wealth than the last two generations did at the same age. Now much of this is due to government policy—such as the Ponzi scheme structure of social security and Medicare, along with policies to keep the value of housing and financial assets high. But some of it is also due to conservative policies (such as lowering the inheritance tax, which means when you take into account step-up basis inheritance a more tax-efficient way to receive money than investing, which is itself more tax-efficient than working). I think this generational issue is the major reason why millennials are losing faith in capitalism. Capitalism will continue to lose much of its moral support if it is not firmly rooted in meritocracy and social mobility.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Your hypothesis is flawed. The fact that 40% of wealth is inherited is not a problem, rather it demonstrates that we now have enough money to pass onto our children. That is a good thing (BTW who is inheriting this wealth? The millennials). Inheritance tax is bullshit and hurts the upper middle income more than the wealthy. It also adversely impacts small business owners, farmers and ranchers. However, the ultra wealthy can afford to dodge it and most often do.

  • sarcasmic||

    I know too many people who expected to inherit the family home only to see it sold to pay for medical and nursing bills. In my opinion that 40% number should be a lot higher.

  • Procyon Mustelid||

    How many millenials are inheriting?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    If old people had to pay for most of their medical bills then there would not be much to pass to family.

    Instead we have this skewed system where old people have young taxpayers pay for their medical bills and the old people pass along wealth to the young people in their family paying high taxes.

    The government being the middleman in this scenario.

  • ||

    Excellent point.

    My mother is a fairly typical New Deal era liberal in her thinking (the one exception is that as a Quaker pacifist she is an anti-interventionist, even to the point of opposing the liberal "humanitarian interventions"). On the other hand she is also very much East Coast "old money" (her grandfather lost most of theirs, and her father was a wastrel so the rest went with him) of the type that believes that families leave "something to the children".

    So, bring up healthcare and she is all "single payer universal" etc, and you'll find she's all for it (the New Deal thinking) and she will bring up several family friends who faced with medical bills had to "spend savings" or "mortgage the family home" thus depriving their children of the legacy that they "deserved".

  • EscherEnigma||

    40% of wealth is being inherited. Not 40% of people are inheriting wealth.

    Something like 80% of Americans will never inherit anything. Of those that do, about half will be in the thousands-to-tens-of-thousands range. About 2% will inherit millions, with the rest being between thousands and a million (weighted heavily towards the low-wide).

    So no, there is no demonstration is not that "we now have enough money to pass onto our children.", we have a demonstration of the calcification of the wealth gap.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    The government has no right to confiscate wealth.

  • Procyon Mustelid||

    The person the wealth belonged to is dead. If they'd given it to someone else before they'd died, that'd be one thing, but if they didn't then there's no "confiscation" involved.

  • SQRLSY One||

    If they'd given it to someone else before they'd died, there would have been taxes on anything over $10 k per year. Now THAT is confiscation!

  • Michael Hihn||

    The association with social conservatism certainly hurts capitalism's standing among the young,

    And everywhere else! Go back to when the GOP still had a libertarian wing.

    Goldwater said the "Moral Majority" was a major threat to his party, and famously said all good Christians should give Jerry Falwell a kick in the ass.

    Reagan was not as nasty, simply ignored them. When he was the deciding factor is defeating the Briggs Initiative to ban gay school teachers, the nationwide anti-gay Anita Bryant Crusade collapsed. It was SUBTLE how he ridiculed the anti-gay goobers. Said homosexual teachers are no threat to our children because it's not communicable ... like measles. KAPOW

    Reagan and Goldwater were both defending gays in the 70s, before it became fashionable on the left, 20 years before Clinton shamefully signed DOMA and DADT, and nearly four decades before Obama "evolved."

    Just another example of libertarianism's death.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Or to put it another way...

    Republicans are not the "Party of Lincoln", the "Party of Goldwater", the "Party of Reagan" or even "the Party of Bush". It is now firmly the "Party of Trump".

  • Michael Hihn||

    Thus dead.

  • ||

    Reagan and Goldwater were both defending gays in the 70s




    And yet the left is largely silent about Bill Moyers dirty tricks to "expose" Homosexuals in the Goldwater campaign in the service of LBJ.

    In fairness, Saint Bill has since expressed appropriate contrition over the "Barry loves homos" thing and he said rather nice things about the LP and Ed Clark's 1980 Presidential run. Still and all, Bill Moyers is one of the smarmiest most self-righteous and dishonest political operatives ever.

  • Michael Hihn||

    And yet the left is largely silent about Bill Moyers dirty tricks to "expose" Homosexuals in the Goldwater campaign in the service of LBJ.

    Stereotypes. I once spent maybe a week researching Reagan's impact on defeating the ban on gay teachers. I found gay websites who had to FIGHT to credit Reagan. Gays don't believe it. Liz Taylor set him up as the keynote speaker at the foundation for AIDS research .His speech was awesome. To THAT audience, he RIDICULED a church for its treatment of gays. Announced that he and Nancy created a foundation to fund AIDS research

    Still and all, Bill Moyers is one of the smarmiest most self-righteous and dishonest political operatives ever.

    Indeed! I appreciated your story and suspect you MAY be ALMOST as old as me. (LOL) Barry was my first Presidential vote.

  • ||

    I turned seventeen years old in October of 1964.So, yeah, you got a few years on me you old bastard. :)

  • Michael Hihn||

    I was 23. Voting age still 21..

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    More politics of envy. The forbes 400 has the highest percentage of self-made rich in history. If you want to get rid of cronyism and strengthen meritocracy, then abolish the modern guilds like the ivy league which exist purely to signal that you have the correct bloodline. The inheritance tax is pure evil.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Why Young Americans Are Drawn to Socialism?

    Because they are lazy fuckers and want some free shit?

    Because they want to be perceived as more compassionate than the next hipster, so that all of the hipsters will "take a number" to be the next one to sleep with them?

    Because they think that Venezuela is paradise?

  • ||

    Millennials work more hours than previous generations:
    https://bit.ly/2GBuSA4. 25-34 year olds work 24% more hours than in 1950 but 55-64 year olds work only 2% more. Industries like academia used to offer cushy jobs, but every industry today is a rat race. And smartphones these days mean new white collar workers are expected to be available 24/7. Millennials can be faulted for many things, but laziness isn't one of them. They've lost support for capitalism because even with working harder they have less financial security than the last two generations. If you want them to support capitalism, you have to stop the upward redistribution of wealth to older generations, stop propping up the value of housing and other assets, and tax inherited wealth more so you can cut taxes on earned income.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    Those french presses aren't going to clean themselves.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Academia still offers cushy jobs. See U of M's diversity department budget.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Lowest entrepreneurial rate of any cohort. And an em_ratio significantly below their predecessor cohorts. The notion that millenials are exceptionally hardworkers is laughable.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Because they are lazy fuckers and want some free shit?

    That is a harsh but accurate description of the indolent heirs of inherited wealth who prefer their unearned income to be taxed at a rate lower than are earnings for effort and skill.

    Watching people wonder why America continues to reject the preferences of authoritarian, backward social conservatives and simplistic anti-government cranks is illuminating -- and heartening, because it inclines hope that American progress will continue against right-wing wishes.

  • SQRLSY One||

    "...indolent heirs of inherited wealth who prefer their unearned income to be taxed at a rate lower than are earnings for effort and skill."

    Ha! Under steep inheritance taxes, you can work your butt off on the family farm or the family business, paying all sorts of taxes along the way, and when your parents kick the bucket at 80 or so, and you're 60 or so, then you're going to have to sell the farm or the business, to pay MORE taxes on what you've been taxed on, all along! I know that there are lazy sons and daughters of billionaires, but what of the small businesses? There are NOT enough billionaires to pay for Government Almighty, you have GOT to hit the little guy! And the little guy farmer or small business quasi-owner (when mom and pop kick the bucket at 80) resent the HELL out of greedy inheritance taxes, and rightly so! Socialism sucks!!!

  • Procyon Mustelid||

    Nobody should live into their 80s, let alone own property. And why should you expect to someday own the business (when you should also be knocking on death's door) just because you worked for daddy or grandpa? Work for any other employer until you're 60, you don't magically get to take ownership of it.

    And what sort of sorry helpless moocher wants to or has to work for their family anyway? Not the sort who deserves to be rewarded with wealth somebody else earned.

    There's a word for jobs at the family business: sinecure. Look it up.

  • Procyon Mustelid||

    Err, nobody should be able to own property if they somehow live too long. Obviously people at appropriate ages forbeing alive should be able to own property.

  • SteeeveTheSteve||

    There's no reason the government needs to make money off the dead, period.

  • commentator||

  • SQRLSY One||

    Those are FEDERAL inheritance taxes... Your local STATE pigs at the trough STILL feel entirely free to rape, plunder, and pillage your farm or business at will! Been there, done that!

  • SteeeveTheSteve||

    If you plan for it, you can avoid the taxes. Like if you put your farm into a trust. Still, government doesn't need to make money off the dead.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    College is often the tax free transfer of wealth from parent to child. Many people with degees get paid well doing easy work that a high school graduate could do.

  • Paradigm||

    > indolent heirs of inherited wealth

    Reverend, it's clear to everyone who doesn't stick their fingers in their ears and shout, "lalalalala!" that you have less than favorable earning potential. Guys like you are always angry because guys like me write your annual evaluation.

    Now, let 'er rip with the accusations of racism, bigotry, blah, blah, blah...

  • Michael Hihn||

    Why Young Americans Are Drawn to Socialism?
    Because they are lazy fuckers and want some free shit?

    Consider that it's the obsolete left/right divide.
    The associate capitalism with the bigots and intolerance of extreme social conservatives, and libertarians are no longer correcting the error. Same reason church attendance and religious commitment are declining.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    What is that quote, once people realize they can vote themselves free cash and prizes, democracy is doomed? Kind of like marriage/divorce, but on a bigger scale.

  • Michael Hihn||

    The quote is nonsense .. an excuse to fail .. which libs have now adopted.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    I hate hipsters. A few years ago, I was waiting to board my flight out of Vegas, and overheard some twenty something hipster nearby bragging to this girl that he 'ran three nonprofits'. Using this to try and pick up on her. From the content of his statements I divined that none of these organizations really did anything except try to soak up government money.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Was that sarcasm, or are you really so bigoted?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Was that sarcasm, or are you really so bigoted?

  • MikeP2||

    what utter drivel

    "Why Young Americans Are Drawn to Socialism"

    Well, because they do not have the personal experience or knowledge of history to understand that socialism has never delivered on its promises and has consistently been proven to be unworkable.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Plus the democrats have succeeded in dumbing down primary education so as to produce a compliant populace. As referenced in the leaked emails that caused Hillary to murder Seth Rich.

  • Conchfritters||

    When Senator Paul Wellstone (D-MN) died in a plane crash, Norm Coleman, a Republican, won the election for his seat. Norm is from Brooklyn originally, and used to be a part of the young democrats in New York with Rudy Gulliani. Not a big fan of either of them, but I remember someone interviewing Rudy about it and they were shocked he and Norm were Democrats. Rudy very matter of fact said: "Why yes we were democrats - when youre young, if you aren't liberal, you don't have a heart." But then he said "when you grow up, if you're not conservative you don't have a brain."

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Its why there are Republicans (who are conservative from an early age) and RINOs (who were liberals/progressives that "switched" to the GOP).

    You rarely have conservatives who switch to become lefties.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    They are ignorant. You're welcome.

  • Bubba Jones||

    How is this different from prior generations when they were young?

  • Tom Bombadil||

    Ezzatly. This has been a trait of youth for 100+ years.

  • Dadlobby||

    Much of this move towards socialism is fueled by radical feminists who are nothing but marxists by another name. Using gynocentrism and the victimized woman, they have duped people into believing that we need government to get "equality". I expect the 22% of Republicans (RINO's actually) are the chivalrous white knight who buy into we need government to protect "women and children".

  • Libertymike||

    RINOS = Cucks

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

  • Michael Hihn||

    Like your own school failed to educate on the Middle East?
    You're not alone.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    My 9th grade social studies teacher mocked the idea that the Torah proves the Jews have history in the Middle East. That is as irrational as disbelieving the Greek connection to the Agean Sea just because you don't believe in Zeus.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Oh.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Hey Michael, what govermnent controlled Jerusalem until it lost WWI?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Wrong historical point.

    How did the Jews first obtain that land? How long did they rule it? ow did they lose it?
    What was the FIRST Holocaust? When and where?
    We know Jews were among those expelled from Jerusalem during the Crusades. How did they get back in?

    England lost WWI?.

  • Nardz||

    Damn, I knew you were a Nazi apologist but I didn't realize you hate the Jews as much as an actual Nazi did.
    Learn new things every day I guess

  • Michael Hihn||

    Damn, I knew you were a Nazi apologist but I didn't realize you hate the Jews as much as an actual Nazi did.

    You're an even bigger asshole than I thought. I hate nobody, And you keep proving yours.
    The fascist is YOU, considering all I did was ask historical questions.

    PLUS, you don't know the answers, so you punish me for humiliating you.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I see three big contributing factors.

    1) The lack of sufficiently comparable, authoritarian counter examples.

    It was easy to be against communism when the Russians were throwing people in gulags by the millions and the East Germans were shooting anyone who tried to flee.

    For whatever reason, Venezuela and North Korea don't elicit the same parallels--probably because they aren't expansionist like the USSR. Is anyone afraid that the Venezuelan or North Korean governments will try to expand and take over western Europe or the United States?

    2) The naivete of youth is susceptible to grand schemes to fix everything in our lifetimes.

    Capitalism and individualism doesn't even promise that. Capitalism and individualism promises to give you the tools to solve your own problems as you see fit. Solving your own damn problems takes work. Wouldn't it be easier if the government solved our problems for us?

    3) Advances in technology have made wide scale observations possible like never before (see things like climate, etc.), and that lends itself to utilitarian wide scale schemes that are a natural application for socialism.

    Socialist "solutions" scale to infinity.

  • Libertymike||

    Don't forget that some youngsters see the paradox in the nostrums of their elders:

    Socialism is bad except for national defense.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Socialism is government ownership of the means of production and the redistribution of wealth from those according to their ability to those according to their need.

    Socialism isn't a term for whatever you don't like.

    Defending our rights from foreign threats is not by itself an inherently socialist activity.

  • sarcasmic||

    As far as I'm concerned, someone who wants the government to provide free shit for everyone is a socialist. Regardless of ownership.

    Don't get hung up on semantics.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Free shit for everyone is the redistribution of wealth, right?

    Government ownership of the means of production is the means to free shit for everyone, as well.

    Having a police force to protect our rights from criminals is not socialism.

    Having a court system to protect our rights from the police is not socialism.

    Having a military to protect our rights from foreign threats is not socialism.

    These things can be provided for by way of socialist taxes, etc., but they are not inherently socialist things.

  • sarcasmic||

    Free shit for everyone is the redistribution of wealth, right?

    Yes. But that can happen without government ownership of the means of production. Wouldn't that still be socialism?

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""Having a police force to protect our rights from criminals is not socialism.

    Having a court system to protect our rights from the police is not socialism.

    Having a military to protect our rights from foreign threats is not socialism."""

    None of that occurs in socialism. It's more like the police protect the state, the courts protect the state, the military protects the state.

  • Libertymike||

    How do you think the police force is paid? Is such a payment the result of a free and voluntary exchange?

    Of course, the police and the military are socialist schemes.

  • sarcasmic||

    Of course, the police and the military are socialist schemes.

    I disagree. Police and military are the people who use violence so that civilized society doesn't have to. That isn't socialism.

    Socialism is free shit. Free schools. Free health care. Free food. Free housing. Of course none of that is really free. It's paid for by everyone else.

    Yes taxes aren't a result of free and voluntary exchange. But that doesn't make everything funded by them socialist.

    You might benefit from some Bastiat. I'd recommend starting with The Law.

  • Libertymike||

    I disagree with your conception of socialism being limited to free shit.

    However, even cabining the discussion of socialism to mean "free shit," by your definition, military and police expenditures are still socialist schemes. I could give dozens of examples to prove the point:

    1. How about qualified immunity for cops? That is a freebie, the cost of which is socialized. If Cop A violates your liberty, he is qualifiedly immune from civil liability. Given the reality of the jurisprudential landscape, that means, for practical purposes, he will face no liability. His defense costs are socialized. If, in the rare case he is adjudicated to have been at fault, the plaintiff's payout is socialized.

    The means of production are snatched in order to pay for qualified immunity. Tony's income and property are forcibly confiscated so that Cop A can enjoy qualified immunity. And it is just not Cop A, it is all cops. Therefore, you have a collectivist regime in which the means of production of all is confiscated in order to provide the free shit for the cops.

    2. How about the US' NATO and other foreign expenditures? Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, and Korea all get free shit, courtesy of Americans who have their property confiscated in order to provide the free shit.

    I could give you dozens of examples of your own definition of socialism applying to police and military expenditures.

  • sarcasmic||

    You can provide dozens of examples of how police and military have been abused. That doesn't make my statement false.

    I hate cops. Mainly because they are total dicks who enforce unjust laws while laughing at victims of actual crimes.

    That doesn't mean that there should be no laws and no law enforcement. Rather it means we need fewer unjust laws as well as consequences for bad cops.

    If I were king I'd return all troops to the homeland, disband most of the military, and return it to its core function of protecting the country from violent threats.

    Yes the police and military have evolved into socialist schemes. But they don't have to be.

  • Michael Hihn||

    How do you think the police force is paid? Is such a payment the result of a free and voluntary exchange?

    The vast majority of it.
    Not many goobers believe all taxation is theft -- rejecting both Jefferson and Ayn Rand.

  • Libertymike||

    No, it is not.

    A cop' salary is not paid by means of a free and voluntary exchange. His salary is paid through coercion. Do you have the right to reject the "services" offered by the local constabulary? Is there a competitor who might offer better services at a lower price?

    What part of that don't you get?

  • Michael Hihn||

    "rejecting both Jefferson and Ayn Rand."

    What part of that don't you get?

    I know why all it is nonsense.
    And I'm in good company, Jefferson and Rand ,... plus four centuries of Natural Law.

    I even know why you're an authoritarian.

    If you think the vast majority of people pay taxes through coercion ... take a poll and educate yourself. That's why libertarianism is now rejected by 91% of LIBERTARIANS (Cato survey)

  • sarcasmic||

    Is there a competitor who might offer better services at a lower price?

    When violence is the service, competitors have a habit of killing each other in order to establish dominance. It's called war.

    Even if it was possible, what if person A pays organization X and person B pays organization Y. How do they resolve their differences other than X and Y duking it out? In the end one of those organizations will cease to exist.

    I just don't see how competition can apply to organized violence.

  • Libertymike||

    Do you think that having a monopoly on violence has fared very well in the last 160 years?

    Do you think that having competition might have produced better results than the hundreds of millions battered, beaten, bombed, expatriated, killed, maimed, murdered, and raped?

  • sarcasmic||

    Do you think that having a monopoly on violence has fared very well in the last 160 years?

    Do you think that having competition might have produced better results than the hundreds of millions battered, beaten, bombed, expatriated, killed, maimed, murdered, and raped?

    I'm just accepting things the way they are. I really don't think that competition for the last word in violence can exist. At least not for very long. Someone will have the last word by killing the competition.

    I never said I like it.

  • Libertymike||

    Above, you did express the view that military and police expenditures are not socialism in your 10:58 AM post.

    Your words: I disagree. Police and military are the people who use violence so that civilized society doesn't have to. That isn't socialism.

    At any rate, you would have to admit that giving one group / entity / nation state a monopoly on the use of violence has been an unmitigated disaster.

    The record: hundreds of millions battered, beaten, bombed, expatriated, killed, maimed, murdered, raped, and robbed.

  • sarcasmic||

    Your words: I disagree. Police and military are the people who use violence so that civilized society doesn't have to. That isn't socialism.

    I draw a distinction between government paying employees like police and soldiers, and free shit to non-employees like welfare and health care.

    At any rate, you would have to admit that giving one group / entity / nation state a monopoly on the use of violence has been an unmitigated disaster.

    I'm not disagreeing with that. I just don't see any realistic alternative. That monopoly is not given. It is taken. Replacing it would simply mean a new group of assholes kills the old assholes. Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

  • sarcasmic||

    Madison and others recognized this. That's why they wrote the Constitution. To restrain government. To restrain the inevitable assholes who will use violence to get their way and you can't do anything about it because they have more friends than you.
    It was an attempt at defined powers. Government (the assholes who do what they want because they have more friends than you) may only do certain defined things.

    It has failed for the most part (Congress can do what is necessary and proper to regulate commerce and promote the general welfare. In other words, unlimited power). But it was a good try. Best one yet in recorded history.

  • sarcasmic||

    Funny thing is, as soon as the Founders got a taste of power, they completely forgot the lessons of being on the receiving end.

  • Libertymike||

    They were better off with the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation. It was the power hungry who were so desirous of the great centralizing potential of the constitution.

    If they were so intent on restraining power, they sure did not do so with the means they employed in drafting the constitution. The Articles of Confederation did not authorize a secret constitutional convention the objective of which was to destroy the principles of limited and decentralized government.

  • sarcasmic||

    They were better off with the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation. It was the power hungry who were so desirous of the great centralizing potential of the constitution.

    Counterfactual. I won't say anything either way.

  • sarcasmic||

    Maybe Bree Sharp can help.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3WWqCXFs7A

  • Libertymike||

    Thank you for the link.

    She's cute.

  • sarcasmic||

    She's cute.

    And her music isn't terrible.

    Seriously.

    Solo or Beautiful Small Machines.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    I was disappointed that Nneither Pornhub, or Xvideos had any videos of her.

  • sarcasmic||

    I was disappointed that Nneither Pornhub, or Xvideos had any videos of her.

    She has talent, not "talent".

  • sarcasmic||

    As it is said in that Nicholas Cage movie National Treasure, the United States was plural until the late 1860s. After that it became singular.

  • Michael Hihn||

    They were better off with the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation

    Disgusting authortarian.

    We have a authotitarian conservative defending what Jefferson called "government by consent of the dead,"

    And a libertartian -- Jefferson -- wanting a new Constitutional Convention ... every generation.
    "I set out on this ground which I suppose to be self evident, "that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living;"

    So we have a libertarian, Jefferson and an authoritarian Libertymike

  • Michael Hihn||

    Somebody with an actual MIND. knew that you've described one of the very last steps on the road to a free society.

  • Libertymike||

    Yes, Ken, the monopolization of any endeavor, by force, is, by definition, socialism.

    As Mises wrote, "The essential mark of socialism is one will acts.... The main thing is that the employment of factors is directed by one agency only." Mises stressed that socialists have always employed a dual strategy of (1) nationalizing as much property as possible and (2) destruction of as much of the private property / free enterprise society as possible through redistribution, taxation, progressive income taxation, regulations, inflation, and common, nationalist expenditures. He did not exclude war and war making.

    As Hayek wrote in the introduction to the 1976 edition to The Road to Serfdom, socialism also meant government enforcement of nationalization of any endeavor and he did not exclude defense spending.

    It is telling that you would choose a collectivist bromide, "[d]efending OUR RIGHTS..." in your post.

    Again, you miss the mark. Military and war making expenditures are not immune from the ambit of that which constitutes socialism.

  • Iheartskeet||

    Perhaps technically correct in a strict sense, but your line of reasoning is simply a bit of libertarian utopianism. It has no practical use, other than a "gotcha" that, by golly, those who are against socialism aren't pure either ! And if they aren't pure, boooo !

    I await your argument for a privatized nuclear missile defense.

  • Libertymike||

    Your post is pure emotion.

    My post expressed the fact that the ambit of socialism is not limited to what Ken's socialist teahcers taught him.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Your post is pure emotion.

    He nailed your ass. BULLSEYE.
    Like your bizarre comment about how police are paid.

    (Technically, though, ihearskeet FALSELY labeled your stuff as libertarian "utopianism". It's libertarian wackiness.)

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Mike, it sounds like you're saying any government at all is automatically socialist.

  • Michael Hihn||

    He's a Misean. They'te all wacky like that.

  • Libertymike||

    How dare you go ad hominem Hihn!

  • Libertymike||

    Not all governance is socialist.

    However, any entity that has a de facto monopoly on the furnishing of protection is, indeed, socialist.

  • sarcasmic||

    Government is by definition the people who use violence without consequence.

    So you contradict yourself.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Not all governance is socialist.YOUR government -- the Articles of Confederation -- is EXPLICITLY authotitarian.

    Socialism is not the only bad.

  • sarcasmic||

    If you are going to define any and all government functions as socialism then you might as well be an anarchist.

    I'm not an anarchist only because I accept the reality that there will always be a gang of men with the last word in violence who will use that power to steal. I might wish that wasn't the case, but that's how it is.

    Like Ben Franklin said, two things are certain in life: death and taxes.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Even anarchists aren't that stupid. Only the paleos, like Rothbard.

  • sarcasmic||

    Even anarchists aren't that stupid.

    I dunno. I've debated people who honestly believe that police and courts could function competitively like any other service. I've tried to tell them that there is a word for that: war. But they won't listen.

  • Libertymike||

    Perhaps you are the one who will not listen.

    I disagree with your conception of socialism being limited to free shit. So does Rothbard.

    However, even confining socialism to free shit, both military and police expenditures apply. There is a ton of free shit given to cops, military personnel, the MIC, and crony capitalists in connection with military and police expenditures.

    You want examples?

    1. Qualified immunity for cops.

    2. Absolute immunity for prosecutors.

    3. Absolut immunity for judges.

    4. Airplane rides for Scott Pruitt.

    5. Airplane rides for Steve Mnuchin

    6. NATO and other foreign military expenditures which inure to the benefit of Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan and South Korea.

    7. Can't forget all the cash going to Israel.

  • sarcasmic||

    1. Qualified immunity for cops.

    2. Absolute immunity for prosecutors.

    3. Absolut immunity for judges.

    4. Airplane rides for Scott Pruitt.

    5. Airplane rides for Steve Mnuchin

    6. NATO and other foreign military expenditures which inure to the benefit of Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan and South Korea.

    7. Can't forget all the cash going to Israel.

    I'm not sure if that's a red herring or a non sequitur.

  • Libertymike||

    To what are you referring as being a red herring or a non sequitur?

  • sarcasmic||

    Everything I quoted.

  • Libertymike||

    No red herrings or non sequiturs posted.

    What was posted were examples of free shit being part of military and police expenditures.

  • sarcasmic||

    What was posted were examples of free shit being part of military and police expenditures.

    Right. Abuse. But that doesn't mean all police and military expenditures are abuse.

  • Libertymike||

    Which leads us back to.....military and police expenditures in the USSofA are socialist schemes.

  • sarcasmic||

    Which leads us back to.....military and police expenditures in the USSofA are socialist schemes.

    Which has absolutely nothing to do with the distinction I originally put forth.

  • sarcasmic||

    Pretty much anything can be abused. Eat too much food and you get fat, which creates health problems. Does that mean food is bad? By your logic the answer would be yes.

  • Michael Hihn||

    I'm not sure if that's a red herring or a non sequitur.

    It's technically both. He responded to what you never said (the non sequitur) and the response was a LIKEY red herring (as it's most often used)

  • Michael Hihn||

    Perhaps you are the one who will not listen.

    Umm, you "responded" to what he never said, and ignored what he did say.

    I disagree with your conception of socialism being limited to free shit.

    That's not what he said!

    And your examples are the OPPOSITE of what you challenged -- that he didn't say anyhow

    You want examples?

    OF WHAT?

  • Michael Hihn||

    I dunno. I've debated people who honestly believe that police and courts could function competitively like any other service. I

    My bad. I meant the bullshit that all government functions are socialism. -- which is mostly Rothbardians (typically labeled "an-caps")

  • Libertymike||

    Hihn + love of government =

  • Libertymike||

    Hihn + love of government =

  • Michael Hihn||

    Make an ass of yourself because I called out your bullshit, Snowflake.

    Hihn + love of government

    PROOF that you're just another name-calling infantile

  • sarcasmic||

    I'm in total agreement with Hihn.

    I need my head checked.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Have it checked to abandon tribalism and judgmental ism.
    /sarc

  • sarcasmic||

    I have been rejected by every tribe I came into contact with. No tribalism here.

  • Michael Hihn||

    I meant tribalizing me .. and added judgmentalism to clarify.
    Tribalism can include group stereotypes.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Yes, Ken, the monopolization of any endeavor, by force, is, by definition, socialism.

    Not in the English language.

    As Mises wrote,

    I thought you might be one of those, The flavor of your authoritarianism.

    Your Hayek and von Mises cites contradict your "ddefinition."

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Well ... Some neighborhoods believe in the privatization of defense. If you tell someone that it is bad for his health to enter a neighborhood, and he still enters that neighborhood, you call your cousins to take care of him. John Locke explained that we give the goverment a monopoly on the use of force to avoid thid problem.

  • Iheartskeet||

    These make sense...On #1, I don't think its the lack of expansionism...the media are always quick to demonize fascist-styled Chile, even though it had no expansionist aims.

    On #1, I think its much more the "all purpose deodorant" the media uses with failed socialist states that, you know, it wasn't REAL socialism. Its never REAL socialism, or X external factors doomed the experiment.

    I always have to chuckle...socialism seems to require absolute ideal conditions and perfected humans to work, and still never does, meanwhile capitalism works pretty well even with half-assed, corrupt and sloppy implementations. Its resiliency ought to garner admiration, but many, as you note, like grand, neat schemes.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    The Chinese are currently throwing people in gulags, by at least the hundreds of thousands, maybe millions. But the media aren't big on reporting it.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    There is a reason Democrats did not want to be in Vietnam, even though that land was part of the French Empire when WWII started. They think White and Black Lives Matter, but Brown people are targets for their coin tossing.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    They're not "drawn" to socialism, they're "herded" to socialism. The left actively views promoting socialism as the most important thing they can do. They deliberately seek out positions where they can do it, actively purge those institutions of people who'd resist them.

    And because there's no comparable organized effort on the other side to promote capitalism, and fight against socialism, the left gradually wins. They take over schools. They take over schools that teach teachers. They take over publishers, media outlets. They do this deliberately.

    Everybody else in an institution is just making a living, trying to advance the purposes of the institution. The left are trying to take over the institution. So they take the boring jobs in HR and management that other people don't want, and then use them to hire their fellow leftists, and push out everybody else.

    It's like a cancer: Most of the cells in your body are working to keep the body alive. The cancer cells are working exclusively to make more cancer cells. So eventually they take over, and your body dies.

    The left is a cancer, and we're not treating it.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The left is a cancer, and we're not treating it.

    The left has been generating progress for decades by relying on the right stuff -- education, tolerance, science, fairness, reason, modernity, inclusivity, and the like.

    Conservatives remain wedded to everything that has lost the culture war and seem surprised (after at least a half-century of steady failure) that they continue to be deemed unpersuasive, especially among modern, accomplished audiences.

  • sarcasmic||

    That has what to do with capitalism vs socialism?

  • JesseAz||

    Most of what you listed as progress was furthered by competition and capitalism. Continue to show your ignorance Arthur.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I'm a capitalist.

    But not an anti-social, anti-government crank.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Anti-social is in the eye of the beholder.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Would you prefer disaffected? Fringe-dwelling? Socially inept? Marginalized? Alienated?

  • Sevo||

    Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland|5.21.18 @ 11:42AM|#
    "I'm a capitalist."
    You're a lying sack of shit.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""The left has been generating progress for decades by relying on the right stuff -- education, tolerance, science, fairness, reason, modernity, inclusivity, and the like.""

    I don't think so. Education is not about the piece of paper you get from college. Education requires the free expression of ideas and the challenging of those ideas. Science is about the challenging of theories and application of the scientific method. All of that requires the tolerance of individuals that challenge peoples beliefs. I've seen none of that from the left, and mostly the opposite

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Think about Dead Poet's Society - 20 years ago it was novel to be teaching young men to think for themselves rather than being indoctrinated by the educators. I think things have done a full 180 in higher academia.

  • Eric||

    One problem is that the horribly flawed corporatist system we have in the US is called capitalism. Libertarians should know this.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    All systems are corruptible. I'll take corrupted capitalism over corrupted socialism any day. Socialism requires empowering the state to take property at will. You have far less freedom in corrupt socialism than you do corrupt capitalism.

    I prefer the most freedom.

  • Eric||

    And pure capitalism can result in Grandma eating dog food or babies starving to death.

    Don't get me wrong, i agree with you on the free market, warts and all. However, my point is that libertarians should be the first to identify that what we have in the US is not a free market...and it would be wise to keep that in mind before automatically touting he US as a paragon.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Socialism has *always* resulted in Grandma eating dog food...

  • Eric||

    Depends. The word socialism is thrown around like poo by conservatives. The deliberate conflating of social democracies such as found in Scandinavia with command economies like Stalinist Russia or Mao's China dont help recruit people to the cause.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Nordic countries control the means of production by owning some government companies and being partners in other companies.

    Regulation by itself is not socialism if the goal is to set ground rules for all parties to abide by.

    Regulation as a means to control the means of production is socialism as it is an alternative for socialists to control the means of production without owning companies.

  • Kurt Edwards||

    These poor kids have had every single issue "solved" for them by the adults.
    Their friends have been chosen since birth (playdates).
    Most are turned over to institutions on a daily basis so their parents can both work.
    The institutions take an active role in mediating any conflict, no matter how trivial, in the interest of physical and emotional "safety".
    In the rare occasion that an institution actually does attempt to hold them accountable for not behaving appropriately, a helicopter parent flies in to "save" them.

    Is it really any wonder that they see the incompetence of the state as a viable (and welcome) alternative to the unfamiliar and uncertain notion that they may actually have to take care of themselves?

  • Cy||

    +1

    The vast majority of these children have never been left alone for more than 20 mins until they were teenagers.

    They've gone to public schools, ran by teachers that have only ever known public schools and universities as their 'life experience.'

    Their parents are most likely to both work full time, odds are, at least one for a government body.

    Almost every single day, they stand in a line to observe some government ritual until they reach 'adulthood.' Even then, they will be obligated to go stand in more government lines for any licensing or major life event.

    Their family was most likely to be on some form of government assistance or welfare program, social security, medicare, medicaid, food stamps, section 8, farm subsidies, military brats... etc.

    Their college tuition? Paid for by bankruptcy exempt loans from the government.

    Work ethic? They weren't allowed to perform any work legally until the age of 16 and in most cases they can't until they're 18.

    Driver's license? If they get it at 16, they're heavily restricted until they're at least 18 years of age.

    Regulations? they've grown up in a world where you have to ask the government permission to pretty much do anything and usually when you ask the government, they don't really know either.

  • Widhalm19||

    Why is socialism popular amongst Millennials? Simple .... they are the most spoiled, entitled, disconnected from reality generation in American History. The hyper-abundance they enjoy was created before they were born by endless hard-work, saving and investing. Millennials can go f*ck themselves.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Wait, who is entitled? It's the Baby-Boomer politicians and Gen-X voters who has skyrocketed public debt. Nothing says entitlement more than borrowing from your progeny to give yourself free stuff and political power now.

    For all the flack that we give Millennials, maybe it's time for the previous generations to look in the mirror and wonder how they've gotten this way.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    "" maybe it's time for the previous generations to look in the mirror and wonder how they've gotten this way.""

    Retrospect isn't bad, but what do you think this will achieve other than a blame game? Many millenials think the gov is not spending enough money and have fantasies that tax on the wealth will pay for everything. How can retrospect of our situation help right the ship when retrospect of current day socialism is to be ignored?

    Looking only at the problems of where you were, and ignoring the problems of your plan for the future will not make a better future.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    I'm not defending the stereotypical Millennial, just pointing at the fallacy in saying that THEY are the most spoiled, entitled, etc. It's the Millennials who will likely be forced to deal with the debt and dollar devaluation thrust upon them by the previous 2 generations.

    In terms of responsibility when it comes to entitlements, Millennials seem to be entitled only because their previous generations weren't very good role models. They've been lucky in that their accumulated debt hasn't yet led to utter collapse. That's the path we're marching down though, and it won't be only the Millennials who should bear the blame.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Realize also that for every generation, most of the government creep/largesse comes from a few individuals in power and a misinformed voter base.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""In terms of responsibility when it comes to entitlements, Millennials seem to be entitled only because their previous generations weren't very good role models."'

    You may be right about that. The Millennials I know that are good eggs, seem to come from parents that not only set a good example, but expected it of their kids, and taught their kids how opposed to leaving that up to teachers at school.

    But many are the biggest me, me, me I've ever seen. My job has a hard time recruiting because they want all of the benefits up front, want to take days off as soon as they start, have little commitment to a team, is more concerned about what a job can do for them opposed to how they can be an asset to the job.

  • EscherEnigma||

    [Millenials] want all of the benefits up front, want to take days off as soon as they start, have little commitment to a team, is more concerned about what a job can do for them opposed to how they can be an asset to the job.


    ... why would you expect a loyal and invested employee when employers are uninterested in being loyal to and investing in their employees?

    That is to say, Baby Boomers and Gen X killed the employer/employee relationship where loyalty and mutual growth was part of the bargain. Millenials are just dealing with the job market y'all created.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Which is why millrnials are making all of these special workplace. They are the most spoiled generation since their boomer forebeares.

  • Star1988||

    "...more concerned about what a job can do for them opposed to how they can be an asset to the job."

    Sounds like they are good capitalists.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    The fiction of the SS trust fund officially runs out by the time gen x gets there, so where are you getting this nonsense that they are the cause? And given that the millenials love them some bern, then they are definitely at least as much of the problem as their predecessors. They sure as hell aren't going to pay for the entitlement crisis.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Current predictions are that the SS Trust will run out in 2028, at which point incoming funds will only be enough for 70% of pay-outs.

    In 2028...
    Boomers: 64+
    Gen X: 48-63
    Millennials: 32-47
    Gen Z: ??-31†

    So at 2028, all Boomers are eligible for retirement, though some may have put off till they reach 70 (full retirement age). Gen X will be entering retirement age and every year will have them leaving the work force in increasing numbers. Millennials and Gen Z (or whatever) are the ones that are going to bear the brunt of whatever Gen X and Boomer politicians decide to do to "fix" Social Security.

    Even if the inevitable tax increases hit everyone equally, Millennials and Gen Z are going to have decades more work then Gen X and Boomers.

    So yeah, we're going to have to pay for your mistakes.
    ________
    †Using Pew's definitions.
    Gen X is 65-80
    Millennials are 81-96
    Gen z is 97-??

  • EscherEnigma||

    [...] but what do you think this will achieve other than a blame game?


    Seeing as "the blame game" is the entire point of this article...

  • Eric||

    ah yes. The "Git offf mah lawn!!!!!" argument. An ageless and successful method of debate.

  • sarcasmic||

    Socialism feels true. It's really easy to feel that everything would be better if government made us all equal.

    Support of capitalism requires thought, logic, and reason. Those things are hard.

  • Mickey Rat||

    For "socialism" there is also the attractive idea that there is an identifiable "someone" in charge who is theoretically beholden to working for the good of the people. The attractiveness remains despite the known banality, ignorance and corruption of popoliticians.

  • sarcasmic||

    The attractiveness remains despite the known banality, ignorance and corruption of popoliticians.

    It's the other politicians who are like that. Our representatives are different. At least that's what people must be thinking if they keep voting for the same people.

  • No Longer Amused||

    You were doing good until you trotted out the whole "global warming" scam.

  • creech||

    Why not stop concentrating on "capitalism works" while conceding that socialism may be a fine moral ideal but, given man's nature, will never work? All that might be true, but we need to promote, too, the idea that "capitalism is morally right."

  • Brett Bellmore||

    But that would require not mocking Ayn Rand, and that's just not possible for most of the right.

  • MyCroftxXx||

    Moral arguements for individualism. Guilt Free, independant and productive population. NO WAY i want more "Me too" socialism

  • Shirley Knott||

    We need to drop Marx's word "capitalism" and go for 'freedom'.
    There is no form of socialism that does not require that some be enslaved by others.
    "Capitalism" has come to mean "crony capitalism" — we should oppose it as such.

  • sarcasmic||

    Except that the word 'freedom' has been perverted to mean free to have everything provided to you by the government.

  • Michael Hihn||

    There is no form of socialism that does not require that some be enslaved by others

    The Israeli kibbutz, the Oneidans and several other religious-bases communals. Even Ayn Rand defended them. How sad that you don't know that, or why she did,

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Socialism, Bernie's socialism, needs to be called by it's true name, fascism.
    https://mises.org/library/economics-bernie-sanders

  • Michael Hihn||

    Your source is terrible for a definiton ... fails to even address what I said (the opposite actually) ...and doesn't say what you seem to think it does

    But you earned a cookie for attacking Bernie!

  • ||

    The Israeli kibbutz, the Oneidans and several other religious-bases communals



    And they all ended up falling apart, along with Joe Smith's "United Order" of Mormons* and countless other Utopian communities. Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" community of "Starnesville had it right. Utopian Socialist communities fall apart eventually, even if it's only because the Shakers not have sex leads to "ZPG".

    *the Mormons in Utah voted solidly Democrat until 1952. It is also worth noting that it was the later prophet David O Mckay who in the 1920s closed down the LDS school system in favor of turning it over to the state, a decision many Mormons I know now feel was totally and completely wrong.

  • ||

    I might add, the Mormons did not adopt their own welfare system until it was apparent that state welfare systems had failed. (actually, this mostly wasn't necessary since in the state of Utah the Church and the State were essentially identical).

    The Church leadership encouraged the membership to use state and federal programs for assistance until well into the 1940's.

    Today, as many of you might know, the Mormon church welfare system not only provides aid to its own members but is at the forefront on relief efforts for disasters around the world.

  • ||

    I should note, that while the Israeli kibbutz was a foundational element of the Israeli state, its importance has become less significant over the years.

    It probably took less time for this particular form of socialism to decline due to the particular cohesiveness of the Zionist social enterprise and the common interest of Jews in it.

  • Michael Hihn||

    And they all ended up falling apart,

    Which does not detract frim him being dead wring.

    Not the kibbutz. In this country, the most common communal activity is a small business. Showtime covered one several years back. They were a video production busienss -- made corporate videos -- the business and home were both communal (like an aparftment building IIRC). it was comical that they insisted -- twice -- there was no group sex.

    Niobiody is enslaved. As human life eviolves, it can be difficult to keep up -- especially if one is a bigot with little knowldge to start with

  • ||

    If your comments contained a little more explanatory, conciliatory talk like that you might get a less hostile reception.

  • Michael Hihn||

    I did explain it. He is wrong, a supported argument
    And I even added current-day examples.

    And you DARE to say I was nor explanatorey enough?
    This is a regular tactic of yours. Snowfakes be snowflakes.

  • Mock-star||

    Im not Isaac, but I think he meant that in a general sense...

    In other words, if you posted all the time like you did here in this thread , you wouldn't alienate and repulse so many people.

  • Mock-star||

    Or to be more blunt, he seems to be giving you kudos (Again, I dont want to speak for him) and I am as well, for not being a dick in this subthread.

  • ||

    Probably a dead thread by this time, but thank you for understanding. That is exactly what I meant.

  • Michael Hihn||

    And they all ended up falling apart,

    They didn't enslave anyone, which is the topic.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    What if we scream "hypocrit" at any socialists who buy or consume black market items, like pot, so we can effectively no-platform them?

  • Michael Hihn||

    "We" would likely be ridiculed for that. Justifiably.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Young minds are susceptible to all kinds of bullshit, and socialism is as asinine as it gets.

    -jcr

  • croaker||

  • ||

    i need my ex back contact DR.UNITY at; Unityspelltemple@gmail.com is the best spell caster online and his result is 100% guarantee.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    Online magic? I love this new world!

  • Shirley Knott||

    It's a perverse side-effect of prosperity.
    Surrounded by abundance, it's easy to not learn or realize that resources are scarce.
    It's easier to ask the stupid question "what causes poverty?" than to ask the question "what causes wealth?"

  • sarcasmic||

    It's easier to ask the stupid question "what causes poverty?" than to ask the question "what causes wealth?"

    +1 Don Boudreaux

  • Jerryskids||

    I was thinking it was Thomas Sowell who had the essay on how looking around and seeing the problems in the world and asking why we have these problems is looking at it backwards - poverty, warfare, disease and deprivation is the natural order of things. Ask instead why some few people for some small portion of human history have managed to escape poverty, warfare, disease and deprivation.

    It's not that hard - get an education, get a job, get married, have kids. But you have to do it in that order. And understand that this is not the way to get rich, it's just the way to not be poor. The middle-class, middle-America white bread life is aspirational for most people, don't knock it.

  • sarcasmic||

    +1 economics phd

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Socialism is attractive to some young people (and some old folks as well) in the same way Trumpism is attractive to Trumpistas: both Socialism and Trumpism, or Fascism, offer an easy excuse to get you off the personal responsibility hook. Both offer comfort to those who sincerely believe that freedom is slavery, that the Matrix is good, that the steak is juicier and more delicious inside the Matrix, even when reality within a Socialist or a Trumpista society is not like in the Matrix but more like Venezuela.

  • Nardz||

    You are a very, very stupid person

  • Set Us Up The Chipper||

    WTF??

    The refusal of most conservatives to recognize the human role in global warming alienates those who will have to live with the environmental damage their elders did.

    How did that get into the article? Just what is the human role? Tell me what you think doubling sensitivity is? Do GCM's model clouds correctly? How about deep ocean circulation? Show me that tropospheric hotspot? How about polar amplification?

    Almost none of the secondary predictions of CAGW have come to pass. Sheesh, when the author shit posts on his own article, no wonder millenials are so fucking confused.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""Just what is the human role?""

    Something only top men can understand. TOP MEN!!

  • Mickey Rat||

    Chapman may be right in how Millennials perceive global warming issues. He is wrong in not acknowledging how far the warmists have overstated and outright falsified their case.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Anthropogenic Global Warming is the new evolution. Belief in it is a way to signal one's loyalty to Progressive thought. If you want to have fun with someone on the ctrl-left, ask him if he believes in Darwin's theory of evolution as presented in "The Origin of Species". When he is done ranting at you for being stupid enough to ask that question, ask him how old he was when he read that book.

  • No Yards Penalty||

    Tell us how SkyDaddy made the Universe, creationist nutter.
    What are you doing on Reason, anyway?
    Is the Federalist closed for the weekend?

  • Nardz||

    There has never been a more massive socialist scheme than the climate change/global warming movement.
    Global Socialism

  • Cy||

    The vast majority of these children have never been left alone for more than 20 mins until they were teenagers.

    They've gone to public schools, ran by teachers that have only ever known public schools and universities as their 'life experience.'

    Their parents are most likely to both work full time, odds are, at least one for a government body.

    Almost every single day, they stand in a line to observe some government ritual until they reach 'adulthood.' Even then, they will be obligated to go stand in more government lines for any licensing or major life event.

    Their family was most likely to be on some form of government assistance or welfare program, social security, medicare, medicaid, food stamps, section 8, farm subsidies, military brats... etc.

    Their college tuition? Paid for by bankruptcy exempt loans from the government.

    Work ethic? They weren't allowed to perform any work legally until the age of 16 and in most cases they can't until they're 18.

    Driver's license? If they get it at 16, they're heavily restricted until they're at least 18 years of age.

    Regulations? they've grown up in a world where you have to ask the government permission to pretty much do anything and usually when you ask the government, they don't really know either.

  • Cy||

    Self defense and rights? They've been raised their entire lives to 'not rock the boat.' There is no right or wrong, just don't rock the boat. Getting beat down? Take it and then go tell an authority figure. Raped? Take it and go tell an authority figure. Just don't fight for yourself.

  • Nardz||

    Decadence leads to socialist fantasy.
    God is dead.
    .gov takes the place

  • Jay Bee||

    Vale of something earned or the instant gratification of being given something. Which would an average teenager choose?

  • cynicalretiree||

    My impression of North European countries was how there are still many little shops and small stores compared to coast to coast franchises in USA. these countries socialize transportation, public utilities, schools and health care. less crime, safer streets, almost everybody speaks 2 or 3 languages. never been to Venezuela, but Scandanavia and West Europe social democracies do not have violent military dictatorships like Venezuelan Chavez who "shared'"Venezuela's oil with other Latin countries.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    What do you call a person that speaks three languages?
    Trilingual.

    What do you call a person that speaks two languages?
    Bilingual.

    What do you call a person that speaks one language?
    An American.

  • Delius||

    I think it's amusing that "speaks multiple languages" is considered a benchmark of success, when the reason people outside America speak multiple languages is typically because one of them is English -- which they learn because America has been so successful at exporting our way of life.

    Of course the citizens of the dominant country don't learn other languages. They already speak the dominant language.

  • Cy||

    You can find the same 'paradise' like places in the US. Comparing a small pocket of a place to the entire United States is either naive or intentionally misleading. That's without getting into the whole US Military protection blanket that a lot of those countries have enjoyed.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    I am in Bucharest now, and it feels like Portland. The local park has statues celebrating Shakespeare and Victor Hugo, there is coke, KFC, and McDonald's, there is an IKEA store, the music festival has a mix of modern songs with English lyrics and traditional European songs, there are a handful of people with black or brown skin, and the cleaning lady at the hotel is an Eastern European woman who does not speak English. The franchized global culture can pop up anywhere if the city is big enough.

    While in Paris, my ex-wife and I noticed an exhibit of Islamic art at the Louvre on lone fron the met. While in London earlier this year, I saw restaurants and stores I recognized. London's homicide rate recently supased NYC's.

  • Rich||

    45 percent have a positive view of socialism

    and 5 percent can define socialism.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

  • Mickey Rat||

    FDR and Obama were popular for "doing something" in the midst of an economic downturn. But their popularity was inversely proportional to their effectiveness. Their intrusive, ill thought out and arbitrary "somethings" increased economic uncertainty and therefore lengthened their depression and recession. Their supporters are attracted to highly visible policies which are obscured objective failures.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Why Young Americans Are Drawn to Socialism:

    Because they are raised in goverment run schools by government employees.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    —and most regard him as "dishonest," "racist," and "mentally unfit."

    1) If you disagree with the teacher, you are stupid or dishonest, because the teacher is always right.

    2) Remember all those lessons about the racism in past cultural products? They were practice runs.

    3) The students with bad grades have a learning disability that is listed in the DSM. Past the pills.

    Democrats dream of high school lasting forever.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    So was I. That's too simplistic a characterization.

  • commentator||

    Of course, because public schooling was invented in 1990. No previous generation has ever had that nefarious brainwashing.

  • NoVaNick||

    What these young folks don't realize is that paying more in taxes to governments will not benefit them with a high-paying dream job and free education/healthcare. It will however:

    1.Increase the number of high-paid bureaucrats who will be hired to "study" a problem and recommend byzantine policies, that will require the hiring of more bureaucrats.

    2. Limit their options and raise the costs of things they like. I remember the days when there were only three major TV networks, airlines, and automakers, and only one communications provider (AT&T).

    So-if 1970s regulations still applied today:

    -There would very likely be no such thing as social media, as AT&T could charge whatever it wanted for internet access (assuming the internet, as we know it now, would even exist). Does anyone remember metered phone service?

    -There would certainly be no such thing as Netflix-the big three networks would not tolerate any competition.

    -Most 18-34 year-olds would not be able to afford to fly from NYC to SF for the weekend to go to their friend's party.

    -Let's assume that the $15 minimum wage becomes law everywhere-this will be the death knell for many of the trendy hipster restaurants I bet many of these "socialists" love so much.
    -

  • Gracchus||

    Limit their options and raise the costs of things they like. I remember the days when there were only three major TV networks, airlines, and automakers, and only one communications provider (AT&T).

    To be fair, going from only three major airlines to four ain't much of an improvement.

    Most 18-34 year-olds would not be able to afford to fly from NYC to SF for the weekend to go to their friend's party.

    I doubt most 18-34 year olds can afford to fly from NYC to SF right now anyways, at least not for a friend's party.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    For eight years, as the economy steadily improved

    Not to sound like a cranky Bernie Sanders supporter, but it definitely improved for some people and some parts of the country, and hasn't done anything elsewhere. There are major swathes of this country that really never quite recovered fully from the downturn.

  • NoVaNick||

    There are major swathes of this country that really never quite recovered fully from the downturn.

    Yes-and these are the areas that (generally) went for Trump. The coasts and big cities did quite well under Obama because they received most of the largesse he doled out.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I'm willing to entertain a complex scenario-- that the economy is pivoting hard to a tech-oriented service economy. That's going to leave a certain number of pipe fitters, welders and sewer line diggers with shrinking opportunity. Unfortunately, we have such a comprehensive disability and welfare system that they're able to not work, pretty much forever, which saps populations of their incentive and desire to either retrain or find work elsewhere*.

    We see this in the homeless crisis in the blue cities. People are coming from all over the country to be homeless in these places-- and the problem is blamed on 'affordable housing', and then billions are spent on the populations in ways that are explicitly designed to not address the problem.

    *It's been discussed, and I agree, that a coal miner, pipe fitter or sewer line digger isn't going to be retrained at 42 years of age to be a hot-shot coder building apps for Facebook and Amazon.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    We have an over supply of construction workers, too many homeless people, and migration from sparsely populated areas far from the coast that don't get many handouts to densely populated areas next to the ocean that help the homeless thanks to the federal dollars that go to blue cities ... But a fear of causing the oceans to rise prevents us from building new cities in upstate New York, like this one.

  • ScooterB||

    As a young liberal who was raised with libertarian leanings: 1) Progressive reasoning often centers around the 'empathy' of fairness, equality, and liberty - a function that all of our animal brains have. There are historical examples of 'injustices' that are universally condemned that the 'free market' did not address, which calls for a certain degree of social influence. At one point, the Constitution was a restriction on the 'free market' (read: natural world). That being said, there are still certain 'injustices' that have not been addressed which many people react to (poverty). This is what leads to democratic action and socialism. 2) It is disingenuous to not see how the 'free market' has not been ideal in many circumstances. It is likewise disingenuous to disregard empathy as a legitimate force because, albeit subjective, it is biologically embedded and has serious evolutionary merit. Social programs have made lives better and people happier in many instances, and most human brains react to that with more interaction and experimentation.

  • ScooterB||

    3) The Constitution gave us wonderful social tools in order for a society to strike the necessary balance between individual prosperity and overall social 'justice'. It is a gradual, subjective process and no serious liberal is insisting that we jump into full-out communism without first appealing to the people. That being said: I do believe that there is a version of "communism" that has not been explored before, which encapsulates democracy, equality, and freedom in a way not previously carried out, and which is really the ideal society that everyone wants in the end. I think we are currently on the way to that point.

  • Sevo||

    "That being said: I do believe that there is a version of "communism" that has not been explored before, which encapsulates democracy, equality, and freedom in a way not previously carried out,..."
    Yeah, every commie swears it just hasn't been done right.

    "...and which is really the ideal society that everyone wants in the end."
    Speak for yourself.

  • ScooterB||

    Yeah, I do believe that everyone generally wants the same things, so that could have been a better starting point. Also, you are dull and against innovation

  • HGW xx/7||

    Also, you are dull and against innovation Wow, such "empathy". Amazing how quickly the goodthink progs change their tune when the provincials tell them to "get bent".

    So, your worldly view boils down to "teh feelz". If that's not innovation, I don't know what is. Have you ever considered that forming a system of governance based on how people feel the world should be as opposed to what actually works in the real world is how we get authoritarians and millions of deaths? Have you at all realized that how millions of Americans 'felt' was how Trump got elected? I'm sure, then, that you're totally copacetic with him running the country, no? Oh wait, he's not your TOP. MEN. so it doesn't count; you lefties will do it the right way.

    And as for your concept of innovation, why don't you take that up with East Germany? They were know for their forward thinking, as evidenced by creating one single model of vehicle - the glorious Trabant - that they never changed in the entirety of its 30+ year existence. Shit, they were on the cutting-edge.

    Oh, and get bent, slaver.

  • Sevo||

    "Yeah, I do believe that everyone generally wants the same things, so that could have been a better starting point."
    So you're full of shit.

  • ScooterB||

    lololol

  • ScooterB||

    Good job persuading me to your side guys! Good luck in the next election (just kidding I know that you won't get anywhere with this attitude)!

  • ScooterB||

    Like, I'm not sure what was more persuasive, the "you're being mean, so empathy isn't real!" line or the "I'm too afraid to try new things because bad things have happened" one.

  • HGW xx/7||

    Yeah, I'm outta line about trying new things. It's not like we have this thing called history which shows socialism's countless failures and millions of deaths. You gotta dream big, and damn the wreckers and kulaks!

    No one's trying to persuade you. You came on here with your backhanded kumbaya bullshit. That's fine if we're sitting around a campfire, not if it's the lives of individuals you want to destroy. Empathy's real, brah; it just has no place in dictating the economy and peoples' rights.

    It is pretty funny, though, how worldly you think you are. I'll admit that leftism sells: people love free shit, and being responsible and an actual individual is like sooo hard. It doesn't mean you're any less of a moron for supporting it, or your ideology any less inhumane.

    So, come on back and corpse-fuck this thread again! Show everyone how down with Broseph Stalin you are!

  • Sevo||

    ScooterB|5.21.18 @ 9:40PM|#
    "Good job persuading me to your side guys! Good luck in the next election (just kidding I know that you won't get anywhere with this attitude)!"
    Here's the 'persuasion' you deserve:
    Fuck you with a rusty farm implement.

  • Nardz||

    I want competition - violence and war, mostly metaphorically speaking.
    I want conquest.
    Can you empathisize with that?
    .
    .
    .
    .
    The answer, though like all socialists you'll not admit it to yourself, is yes - because you want the same. It's life. But you're too weak to survive and attain these things directly and individually, so you'll preach empathy and altruism - both to preserve your fragile self and to share in the conquest of collectivism.
    Passive aggression is still aggressive. It's a winning strategy among tamed, domesticated beings because when your target fights back you cry foul, and use the sympathy of the victim to gain victory. Of course, as an individual youre desyroyed - but youve already decided that giving yourself to the collective is acceptable.
    All that's left is for individualism to be extinguished, for individuals are a threat.

  • ScooterB||

    Yes, I can! But lets not pretend like your desire for war and conquest is anything but an animal impulse and not an objective truth (as libertarians often do). You can vote however you want, and I can understand that your life has led you to your subjective beliefs as they have mine, that's the great thing about democracy. Libertarianism is based as much on emotion and subjective beliefs as any other political affiliation. And lets not forget that there's an evolutionary reason we band together and have empathy. Remember that the slaves defeat the masters if numbers allow (as they do today).

  • Sevo||

    ScooterB|5.21.18 @ 11:27PM|#
    "Yes, I can! But lets not pretend like your desire for war and conquest is anything but an animal impulse and not an objective truth (as libertarians often do). You can vote however you want, and I can understand that your life has led you to your subjective beliefs as they have mine, that's the great thing about democracy.
    Slaver sees all as subjective.

    "Libertarianism is based as much on emotion and subjective beliefs as any other political affiliation. And lets not forget that there's an evolutionary reason we band together and have empathy. Remember that the slaves defeat the masters if numbers allow (as they do today)."
    Bullshit.

  • Ariki||

    Beautifully put Nardz.

  • Ariki||

    I want to be free to be a good person.
    You want me to be what YOU THINK is a "good" person.

    Can you see the difference?
    Can you see why your system will ALWAYS end in starvation, slavery, and murder.
    Have you truly thought through the implications of your ideology when applied to true human nature?

    No? Well, no surprise there, your ideology never looks at the results of your ideas.... you know like following the scientific method that you claim to understand.
    Collectivism is a failed experiment. A repeatable failure.
    When will you pull your head out of the sand and see the data in front of you?

  • ScooterB||

    Wrong, Ariki: I want EVERYONE to be what MOST people think is a 'good' person. That is why democracy and the Constitution is effective, because in the absence of an objective answer (what is 'good'), the majority rules, leading to the path of least resistance. You just want to do what you want, and don't like it when the Constitution doesn't work that way! Proof that socialism isn't effective, you say? I'm sure it very concretely says "all socialism is bad" (lol). Whatever the matter, the rest of us are going to continue voting the way we want because we have certain feelings (just like you), and I will put you in the pessimist category.

  • Sevo||

    ScooterB|5.22.18 @ 12:05AM|#
    "Wrong, Ariki: I want EVERYONE to be what MOST people think is a 'good' person."

    Wrong, Scooter: You have no idea what that means. Fuck off.

  • Social Justice is neither||

    So enlighten us, just what is the version of communism that hasn't been explored?

    How exactly are you going to get there without the usual dose of intentional miseducation, abuse and outright mass murder?

    What would be the incentives to work once you've solved all the "social injustice" and are providing everything free to everyone regardless of ability or desire to pay or contribute? At base, this is the promise of all current "social justice" that everyone will be perfectly taken care of in body and spirit from any and all inconveniences or irritants.

  • Ariki||

    Yep, yet at the same time they cry in fear over the coming robot revolution and want to stop it.
    How the fuck do they get to Utopian bliss without robots to do all the work they are too lazy to do?
    It is retarded.

    Its hard to eat when everyone's to lazy to grow food. But i guess that's when the gun comes out.
    Its easy to eat when you have a shitload of slaves.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    There is nothing in the Constitution at all about "social justice".

  • ScooterB||

    Why was the Constitution created if not to alleviate some sort of 'social injustice'? Haven't we had to change it to address certain issues in the past? I'm not sure what this 'new communism' will look like just like I don't know how the universe started, but I'm sure that it is possible and I don't believe in God. 'New Communism' will encapsulate certain market attributes while encouraging democracy, while the means of production will be owned by the people. I believe that you are still referring to historical examples of communism and are lacking creativity. AI, automation, and medical advances will make many contemporary issues moot in the future (this is an assumption), and so I believe your critiques are premature. The rejection that it is even POSSIBLE is the libertarian fallacy, and the glorification of the Constitution in addition to the rejection of social-policy advances is hypocritical.

  • Nardz||

    "I'm sure that it is possible and I don't believe in God"

    But you've found something to fill God's place, and therein devoted your faith.
    It is no less, and perhaps even more, abstract.

  • Nardz||

    And most importantly: monotheistic

  • HGW xx/7||

    Say it ain't so! But I'm sure he Fuckin-Luvz-Science!1!! No way he could be a tool of an all-knowing, all-providing entity that one must slavishly bow towards and give eternal reverence to!

  • ScooterB||

    Well don't pretend like you don't rely on faith as much as me. Optimist v Pessimist, Master v Slave, etc. These are very familiar and subjective arguments. Libertarians should acknowledge that when we vote, there is often no concrete answer. Government and politics are largely based on morals and faith, and no one should act otherwise.

  • HGW xx/7||

    It's a different kind of faith, one where I believe in myself and those I love. One where I believe that if I put in the time, I'll see a reward. One where I believe in the individual. If you call that faith, so be it, but there's a pretty big gap between that and believing that someone's going to give me stuff and I'll be complete and it's everyone's job to make sure I feel good. That kind of faith is deathly coercive; I'll still with mine, thanks.

  • Sevo||

    ScooterB|5.21.18 @ 11:21PM|#
    "Well don't pretend like you don't rely on faith as much as me."
    I don't depend on faith at all; the sun 'comes up' in the east, regardless of my opinion.

    "Optimist v Pessimist, Master v Slave, etc. These are very familiar and subjective arguments."
    Bullshit.

    "Libertarians should acknowledge that when we vote, there is often no concrete answer."
    You bet! Vote for free shit always, you slimy piece of shit.

    "Government and politics are largely based on morals and faith, and no one should act otherwise."
    You're an imbecile and not very amusing, either.

  • ScooterB||

    I think Sevo ran out of brain power

  • Sevo||

    ScooterB|5.21.18 @ 11:37PM|#
    "I think Sevo ran out of brain power"
    Fucking slaver here never had any.

  • ScooterB||

    "It's a different kind of faith, one where I have faith in the ones I love" -- If that's not "teh feelz", then I don't know what is! But I do largely agree that it's faith (emotion) that runs us. I happen to have faith in many of the same things you do, but I also have faith that my tax dollars may go to some good. Our faith is of the same kind but just on opposite ends of the spectrum.

  • HGW xx/7||

    Typical leftist a-hole: can't differentiate between "feels" for those I love and share a personal connection with, and ruling with a "benevolent" fist through emotion. Yup, totally the same.

    Admit it: you wanna a daddy to rule everyone's life and punish those mean kids down the block, doncha?

  • ScooterB||

    I would say that the 'feels' that you have for your family are similar to the 'feels' that I have for the homeless people in my community, and I won't hesitate to tax you to help them (homeless as a generic taxation argument). But I'm glad that we can agree that Libertarianism is based on "feels" and emotion, just like progressivism.

  • Sevo||

    ScooterB|5.21.18 @ 11:58PM|#
    "I would say that the 'feels' that you have for your family are similar to the 'feels' that I have for the homeless people in my community,"

    That;'s because you're really stooopid.

  • HGW xx/7||

    ...and I won't hesitate to tax you...

    Easy sailor, that's how all the bloodthirsty dictators start. It's a gateway drug, I suppose. Why the foreplay? We all know how far friendly neighborhood Marxists will go to achieve the ends. Just get to the end of the story!

    It was so cute how you introduced yourself as a liberal and look how quick the mask slipped off.

    Like Sevo said: fuck off, slaver.

  • ScooterB||

    LOL "all taxation leads to autocracy". You don't actually believe that, do you? Or are you just mad that your beloved "Constitution" agrees with me and the rest?

  • HGW xx/7||

    Actually, never said that, jester. It's more your personality; I see a Big Brother hidden within your twelve-year-old frame. You show promise!

    See? I can read your mind, too!

    * throws nickel at your clown shoes * Again! MOAR ENTERTAINMENT!1!

  • ScooterB||

    I'll see you later! Enjoy the next election :)

  • HGW xx/7||

    Enjoy getting your pubes! :)

  • Ariki||

    " means of production will be owned by the people"
    I hate this fucken statement.
    The means of production IS ALREADY OWNED BY THE PEOPLE because the people own their own DAM LABOUR. Or are you saying the the ignorant masses just willingly walk into slavery to the fat cat capitalists?

    If the evil capitalists need labour to facilitate their evil ways then don't work for them. Work for someone who treats you will, work for yourself, or don't work and just wander the country like a hobo.
    Saying the the people don't own the means of production yet production requires the people is just another bullshit perpetual victim, "I don't want to take responsibility for my life", safe space, bullshit.

    The funny thing is how all these fools think that if the "people" owned the means of production the system will end up any different. You idiots can never answer the question of who will do the hard jobs?
    Boxer always dies while the pigs eat.

    "New Communism"..... Fuck off slaver.

  • ScooterB||

    "Owned by the people" means, "owned by ALL of the people", as in, it's a government function. All business as we know it will owned by a single company which is managed by democratic rule (I think this is possible, shown by current examples and assumed technological advances). Because I'm granted voting power by the Constitution, I'm going to go ahead and vote for what I want while working just as you say. I would just call you a pessimist I guess

  • Sevo||

    ScooterB|5.21.18 @ 11:35PM|#
    "All business as we know it will owned by a single company which is managed by democratic rule (I think this is possible, shown by current examples and assumed technological advances). Because I'm granted voting power by the Constitution, I'm going to go ahead and vote for what I want while working just as you say. I would just call you a pessimist I guess."

    It's a shame you are ever allowed a vote, slaver. I would call you a lefty ignoramus, I guess.

  • Ariki||

    Lol I'm no pessimist. I just understand the world on a much deeper level than you. I understand suffering, I understand glory. I know what I am capable of in terms of extreme enlightenment and extreme evil. Do you know your inner "angel"? Your inner monster?
    Do you know how easy you could become a gas chamber guard? Smiling as the children walk past?

    You are a child hoping for a utopia that will never exist, because the human animal required for its existence will never exist. How can all people be equal when the natural instinct of humanity is to be free? Those two things are incompatible.

    So who does the hard jobs? Who shovels the shit out of the blocked sewer pipe? Who works 12 hours a day in the fields? Who risks their lives in the mines when they receive exactly the same benefits as the chick in an air conditioned reception filing her nails?

    Can you see the problem yet? Do you see why your ideology always ends the way it does? Why it breeds laziness, tyranny & death. Do you have the capacity to question your own thoughts to see if you understand them? If they are even yours?

  • ScooterB||

    You seem to like to speak in categorical certainties. That is why you are wrong. You have left reason behind at this point.

  • Sevo||

    ScooterB|5.22.18 @ 12:11AM|#
    "You seem to like to speak in categorical certainties. That is why you are wrong. You have left reason behind at this point."

    You, so far, have not once dealt with the concept of "reason", slaver.

  • ScooterB||

    I think you are a perfect example of how people are not driven by reason, but by emotion. I mean, if you really were afraid of your way of life and us taking it from you, wouldn't you be better served actually doing your best to persuade us, and not just berate us while complaining all the while of the 'evils of the slavers'? I mean, I'm just telling you what I believe and all I hear is fear.

  • Sevo||

    ScooterB|5.22.18 @ 12:18AM|#
    "I think you are a perfect example of how people are not driven by reason, but by emotion."
    That's because you're not real bright.

    "I mean, if you really were afraid of your way of life and us taking it from you, wouldn't you be better served actually doing your best to persuade us, and not just berate us while complaining all the while of the 'evils of the slavers'? I mean, I'm just telling you what I believe and all I hear is fear."
    Sorry, negotiating with extortionists is what dimbulb lefties do.

  • ScooterB||

    Hey, I am not the one complaining about progressives here! I saw that you all had a problem (many) understanding why people do what they do, and I chimed in. I'm perfectly content on the direction the world is heading, unlike many "THE END IS NEAR" libertarians who are constantly upset with their government.

  • Sevo||

    ScooterB|5.22.18 @ 12:29AM|#
    "Hey, I am not the one complaining about progressives here!"
    Bullshit

    "I saw that you all had a problem (many) understanding why people do what they do, and I chimed in. I'm perfectly content on the direction the world is heading, unlike many "THE END IS NEAR" libertarians who are constantly upset with their government."
    More bullshit.
    Fuck off.

  • HGW xx/7||

    You're a regular Dr. Phil. Can I have my reading next?

    No, what your hearing is honesty from those very much opposed to your SimCity-ing of the world for your masturbatory pleasure. Coming from someone as passive aggressive as you, I imagine it feels strange.

    There's no convincing you, pal. Based on my reasoning skills, I knew that from your first post. So, this is all just for shits and giggles...you, of course, being the shit and us giggling.

  • ScooterB||

    I don't need convincing, I believe the world is headed there anyway. I'm an optimist, remember? I'll keep voting just like you, except I won't be constantly butthurt.

  • HGW xx/7||

    Oh yes, I'm soooo upset. How can I go on?!? Your insight has change my world view! I'm so happy now! Why...I think I could kill millions and not once would I lose my optimism!

    * throws another nickel * MOAR!

  • Sevo||

    ScooterB|5.22.18 @ 12:31AM|#
    "I don't need convincing, I believe the world is headed there anyway. I'm an optimist, remember? I'll keep voting just like you, except I won't be constantly butthurt."

    Yep, see 1989, asshole.

  • ScooterB||

    LOL "THE END IS NEAR!!!" right???

  • Sevo||

    ScooterB|5.22.18 @ 12:40AM|#
    "LOL "THE END IS NEAR!!!" right???"
    No, shitbag, the end happened and assholes like you are too stupid to understand.

  • Sevo||

    ScooterB|5.21.18 @ 10:00PM|#
    "...I'm not sure what this 'new communism' will look like just like I don't know how the universe started,.."
    Yeah, well, 'how the universe started' has nothing to do with pointing a gun at me and taking my wealth. I'm willing to grant that you are a juvenile, silly enough to post crap like that, but that means you really ought to STFU.

  • ScooterB||

    Wow, you really did just give up! Hey, if you have problem with taxation of me voting for it, you should take it up with the Constitution! I would also call you a pessimist.

  • HGW xx/7||

    A pessimist versus a sinister POS who doesn't give a flaming shit about the millions murdered by ideology he fellates? Yeah, I'll take the former label.

  • Sevo||

    ScooterB|5.21.18 @ 11:39PM|#
    "Wow, you really did just give up!"
    Wow, you really did just bullshit again!

    Hey, if you have problem with taxation of me voting for it, you should take it up with the Constitution! I would also call you a pessimist."
    Hey, I'm sorry slavers like you can and do vote, I would call you an ignoramus.

  • ScooterB||

    HGW: Another who rejects the possibility because they lack creativity.You have so much faith in your side, don't you! Well, I'm an optimist, and I think we can do it without murdering anybody. I guess I'm just a dummy for having faith in MY side.

  • Sevo||

    ScooterB|5.21.18 @ 11:53PM|#
    "HGW: Another who rejects the possibility because they lack creativity."

    Aww, look here! We have the new (imbecilic) Top Man telling us we're missing all the really smart stuff the slaver has thought of! But for some reason the slaver can't quite tell us what that is.
    Isn't it amazing how we have ignoramuses like this who show up, claiming that in all the accumulated thought here, we've missed the one path to true utopia!
    Isn't it equally amazing that not one of of the fucking imbeciles has managed to suggest what that is.
    Scooter, stuff it up your ass. We've heard it, read it, and by now know full well it's some juvenile fantasy.
    Go ride your unicorn, asshole.

  • Ariki||

    That fact that you choose a "side" means that murder is guaranteed.
    Welcome to the ideological reality.

  • HGW xx/7||

    I prefer the term "realist", but since you really have no handle on logic, I'm not going to be too hurt by whatever you want to call me. Not even sure it's worth the characters, but I'm somewhat bored and court jesters are hard to come by.

  • ScooterB||

    Hey, as long as we can all agree that politics is about philosophy (realism) and uncertainties and not "concrete proof" or objective truths, then I'm okay with that. Me wanting to vote for more taxation is just a philosophy of faith just like yours.

  • Sevo||

    ScooterB|5.22.18 @ 12:13AM|#
    "Hey, as long as we can all agree that politics is about philosophy (realism) and uncertainties and not "concrete proof" or objective truths, then I'm okay with that. Me wanting to vote for more taxation is just a philosophy of faith just like yours."

    'Hey, so long as we can agree that taking your money at gun point is kinda, sorta like not doing so...'
    How stooopid are you?

  • Atlas Slugged||

    Your optimism is misplaced Scooter. You seem to believe that people in government are noble & pure while people in business are the opposite. I can promise that not everyone in the government is noble and everyone in business is evil. Freedom allows each person to pursue their dreams. If you wish to design robots to help the homeless and give away all of your income to the government, so be it. Forcing others at gunpoint to do likewise will only bring about ruin.

  • Atlas Slugged||

    Damn typo. everyone in business is NOT evil.

  • ScooterB||

    I believe that people are the same everywhere, shitty or not, and that we do a very poor job running many things. I also believe in democracy, and that if a majority votes for more taxation against the rest, then it will likely not lead to ruin. Optimism that democracy will not lead to revolt is also a part of this, I suppose. But regardless, the ultimate result appears the same to me: some version of collective rule.

  • Sevo||

    ScooterB|5.22.18 @ 12:35AM|#
    "I believe that people are the same everywhere, shitty or not, and that we do a very poor job running many things."
    There is a totally meaningless comment; exactly what I'd expect of a lefty ignoramus.

    "I also believe in democracy, and that if a majority votes for more taxation against the rest, then it will likely not lead to ruin."
    Assholes like you are the reason we have a republic, not a democracy

    "Optimism that democracy will not lead to revolt is also a part of this, I suppose. But regardless, the ultimate result appears the same to me: some version of collective rule."
    I guess someone could make sense of that, but you're have to be in your teens to do so.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Since Ayn Rand would have said you're ... confused, consider a different handle. Please.

  • Atlas Slugged||

    Owning the means of production is already possible, its called buying stock.

  • ScooterB||

    That is a very interesting idea of incorporating the stock market into this! Perhaps this future government will consist of equally distributed stocks that change as each citizen votes on market regulation and exercises their market power?

  • Atlas Slugged||

    Have you purchased stock before? How will the government allot stocks to each citizen? How do you prevent corruption and cronyism?

  • Michael Hihn||

    How will the government allot stocks to each citizen?

    Why would they have to?

    The concept is crazy ... but your reply is crazier.

    Until recently, Canada placed their surpluses into government banks, for the sole purpose of financing home mortgages. They had no need to allocate nothing to nobody.

    (Anything else would wildly distort the stock and/or bond market, goobers)

  • Sevo||

    "Until recently, Canada placed their surpluses into government banks, for the sole purpose of financing home mortgages. They had no need to allocate nothing to nobody."

    And to a fucking ignoramus like Mike, this won't drive housing prices up! Nope! No WAY!
    Mike, buy a brain cell.

  • Sevo||

    ScooterB|5.22.18 @ 12:21AM|#
    "That is a very interesting idea of incorporating the stock market into this! Perhaps this future government will consist of equally distributed stocks that change as each citizen votes on market regulation and exercises their market power?"

    Perhaps if you had a room-temperature IQ, you'd know that is a fail.
    Let's make it clear: There are many people here who, at one time, were as imbecilic as you, promoting utopia.
    Since then, we have watched the results of that stupidity fail EVERY DAMN TIME. And now we have one more ignoramus showing up tonight, telling us we just haven't thought about it! While offering nothing other than arm-waving.
    OK, fuck-face, here's the deal: Tell us, in detail, how the New Soviet System is going to work, or admit you're a lefty troll with a seat in Mom's basement.

  • ScooterB||

    *Sevo, as he desperately grasps for some sort of personal fulfillment while grappling with the fact that he's been pursuing an internet comments section for years*

  • Sevo||

    ScooterB|5.22.18 @ 12:39AM|#
    "*Sevo, as he desperately grasps for some sort of personal fulfillment while grappling with the fact that he's been pursuing an internet comments section for years*"

    Personal fulfillment I've got in spades, loser; I'd buy and sell you if your slimy ass was worth it.
    But I see you, as a fucking ignoramus, can't seem to answer the question.
    Try again:
    "OK, fuck-face, here's the deal: Tell us, in detail, how the New Soviet System is going to work, or admit you're a lefty troll with a seat in Mom's basement."
    Now, ANSWER the QUESTION. Does being a lefty mean you can't read, asshole?

  • Bob Straub||

    Most people have a model of the economy in their heads as a big machine with lots of buttons, wheels, levers, and gauges. All that is needed to make it work is for the right people to read the right gauges, push the right buttons and levers, and turn the right wheels. That model is broken, or at least wrong. A better model might be like the one we have for evolution, where everyone participates, new things get tried out every day, prices and expenditures are the gauges and controls, and the things that don't work get left at wayside.

  • Michael Hihn||

    That's an idealistic version of both Jefferson and Ayn Rand, You can't evolve even a single step toward a free society if the people aren't both ready and willing.

  • Eidde||

    "with just 35 percent saying "the free market can handle these problems without government being involved.""

    What percentage of University of Chicago's free-market economists would agree with such a stark and, dare I say it, simplistic statement?

    The government, even in a minimal state, is involved to the extent of enforcing contracts, punishing those freelance socialists who commit unauthorized redistribution of income (aka thieves and robbers), maybe even building roadz.

  • susancol||

    "Young people" are drawn to socialism, imo, because we as a society keep them "young" (i.e., extended adolescence without adult responsibility (e.g., full-time job, financial independence [even if you can't live as "rich" as your parents], starting a family, etc.). These older norms have been replaced by extended schooling to "find your joy", extended dating/hooking up without commitment, delayed or absent marriage and child-rearing with a dedicated partner. Okay, the older norms had downsides and the new norms are more pleasant (in the moment). But, the new norms involve someone else providing things/gratification to the adolescent, practically by magic.

    When the world is perceived as a strong parent (government) *giving* to the young person what the young person wants and making the young person feel safe from evil guns down to evil words, from GMOs to pesticides to vaccines, why *WOULDN'T* the youth believe that they have to have dear old Mary Poppins Government to make things run right and ensure that they (the youth) get just as much Stuff as everybody else has, or maybe a bit more because they've been a good little boy or girl or _________?

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "But they will never forget the pain and uncertainty caused by the brutal recession of 2007-09, which has taken years to overcome."

    Which was caused by government economic meddling and not free market capitalism but they are evidently too stupid to know that.

  • BeBraveUSA||

    Not just too stupid to realize it but also programmed by the media to believe capitalism was the cause. Few even know what cronies capitalism means.

  • TxJack 112||

    They are drawn to socialism because they have nothing of value and most are still living off their parents. Kids can stay on their parents insurance until they are 26, so the expense of healthcare is not an issue. If they are in school, it is likely mom and dad are paying all their bills and any money they make is to spend. However, the number one reason they swallow the socialism lie is public schools. From kindergarten they are told everything should be fair, equal and every should win. There are no winners or losers because everyone gets a trophy just for participating. The problem is in a capitalist system, there are only winners and losers. Winners take risks and losers learn from their mistakes and go on to become winners. Socialism negates the risk of failure by having the government decide who wins and who loses which for kids indoctrinated to fear failure, that is very comforting.

  • BeBraveUSA||

    Exactly TxJack. The left wants all competition taken out of society. Along with participation trophies are scoreless games and aggression triggers. This shit triggers me. All part of the pussification of America. In this world you gotta be tough to make it. We can help take care of the rest but only as long as they at least try.

  • taraomar||

    Hiv disease for the last 3 years and had pain hard to eat and cough are nightmares,especially the first year At this stage, the immune system is severely weakened, and the risk of contracting opportunistic infections is much greater. However, not everyone with HIV will go on to develop AIDS. The earlier you receive treatment, the better your outcome will be.I started taking ARV to avoid early death but I had faith in God that i would be healed someday.As a Hiv patent we are advise to be taking antiretroviral treatments to reduce our chance of transmitting the virus to others , few weeks ago i came on search on the internet if i could get any information on Hiv treatment with herbal medicine, on my search i saw a testimony of someone who has been healed from Hiv her name was Achima Abelard and other Herpes Virus patent Tasha Moore also giving testimony about this same man,Called Dr Itua Herbal Center.I was moved by the testimony and i contacted him by his Email.drituaherbalcenter@gmail.com We chatted and he send me a bottle of herbal medicine I drank it as he instructed me to.After drinking it he ask me to go for a test that how i ended my suffering life of Hiv patent,I'm cured and free of Arv Pills.I'm forever grateful to him Drituaherbalcenter.Here his contact Number +2348149277967...He assure me he can cure the following disease..Hiv,Cancer,Herpes Virus,Epilepsy,Hepatitis,Parkinson disease.Diabetes,Fibroid...

  • taraomar||

    Hiv disease for the last 3 years and had pain hard to eat and cough are nightmares,especially the first year At this stage, the immune system is severely weakened, and the risk of contracting opportunistic infections is much greater. However, not everyone with HIV will go on to develop AIDS. The earlier you receive treatment, the better your outcome will be.I started taking ARV to avoid early death but I had faith in God that i would be healed someday.As a Hiv patent we are advise to be taking antiretroviral treatments to reduce our chance of transmitting the virus to others , few weeks ago i came on search on the internet if i could get any information on Hiv treatment with herbal medicine, on my search i saw a testimony of someone who has been healed from Hiv her name was Achima Abelard and other Herpes Virus patent Tasha Moore also giving testimony about this same man,Called Dr Itua Herbal Center.I was moved by the testimony and i contacted him by his Email.drituaherbalcenter@gmail.com We chatted and he send me a bottle of herbal medicine I drank it as he instructed me to.After drinking it he ask me to go for a test that how i ended my suffering life of Hiv patent,I'm cured and free of Arv Pills.I'm forever grateful to him Drituaherbalcenter.Here his contact Number +2348149277967...He assure me he can cure the following disease..Hiv,Cancer,Herpes Virus,Epilepsy,Hepatitis,Parkinson disease.Diabetes,Fibroid...

  • HGW xx/7||

    The bots are expanding their vocabulary, I see.

  • Heather Czerniak||

    Trust me, America, you're much better off socialist. Capitalism may have stood the test of time, but there is plenty wrong with it and few who want to fix it. Either fix capitalism so that workers and consumers are protected or face the inevitable consequences.

  • HGW xx/7||

    Well, I don't trust you, which really sort of calls the rest of your mind-blowing comment into question.

  • Sevo||

    "Either fix capitalism so that workers and consumers are protected or face the inevitable consequences."

    Either fix socialism so that workers and consumers are protected or face the inevitable consequences:
    "It was once the richest country in Latin America. Now it's falling apart"
    http://time.com/venezuela-brink/
    Up yours, slaver.

  • Gene Poole||

    @ sevo
    Now, now. Let's remain civil. Would you like to see a list of Socialist-tending governments the US Permanent State has worked to overthrow (up to and including by assassinating leaders) in order to prove how unworkable Socialism is? To the point where one begins to wonder why the Free Market needs so much help if it's really so free...

  • Michael Hihn||

    Socialism alone -- like capitalism alone -- works fine for the people who choose to live in … either

    The REAL problem is AUTHORITARIANS … in BOTH sides … REJECTING our choice,

    What's the libertarian alternative to BOTH authoritarians, right and left?

    Historically, governments have existed for only two reasons (overall)
    a) To defend individual liberty
    b) To impose one set of values by government force.

    Where would "a" lead?

    Imagine two large communities, side by side, one total anarchy. The other absolute capitalism. Both populated voluntarily.

    Whose rights are being violated?

    A more illustrative hypothetical

    Galt's Gulch right next to a Marxist commune … lesbians up the street from a community of Christian Fundies …. retired Catholic priests across the field from Wiccans. Each community would be voluntarily, some quite small. In many town squares, a statue of Voltaire, inscribed: "I disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."

    Ignore the hucksters,, scammers and messiahs who say THEY can create … what they know NOTHING about.
    Free societies cannot be "created" - they can only evolve -- over time.
    Only the people can do that.

    Liberty is a mutual benefit society.
    Not a members only Country Club.

    Fuck off slavers … ALL of you .... left, right and "modern" (sic) libertarian

    Copyright 1996-2018 by Michael J Hihn. All rights reserved and defended

  • Sevo||

    "Copyright 1996-2018 by Michael J Hihn. All rights reserved and defended"

    Hey, Mike? Get help.

  • John's broseph||

    You're over thinking it, my generation just wants something for nothing. They've been given passing grades without mastering the material, they somehow had spending money in highschool and college without a job, and they always received some sort of trophy just for showing up.

    Not surprising that they expect these trends to continue.

  • Michael Hihn||

    You're over thinking it, my generation just wants something for nothing.

    What's the alternative? And why have libertarians FAILED to provide one?

    No memorized slogans and soundbites ..."git gummint out" ain't gonna elect a government, or draft a new Constitution. And NOBODY in today's political climate has a credible, electable alternative.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Electable is not necessary. Spoiler votes suffice to change all laws all the way up to the Constitution itself. See Prohibition Party and 18th Amendment, Farmer-Labor communists and 16th Amendment. The LP's first ticket got Roe v. Wade decided with one electoral and 4000 popular votes. Suddenly women became individuals.

  • Michael Hihn||

    We knew Hank is crazy, but FUCKING CRAZY?

  • Ghatanathoah||

    So basically, conservatives done to "socialist" what progressives have done to "fascist" and "racist." They've used the word to tar anyone who even slightly disagrees with them until it has lost all meaning.

    This actually makes a lot of sense.

  • Ghatanathoah||

    So basically, conservatives done to "socialist" what progressives have done to "fascist" and "racist." They've used the word to tar anyone who even slightly disagrees with them until it has lost all meaning.

    This actually makes a lot of sense.

  • JeremyR||

    Well, given that almost the entire media, from comics to video games to TV to music extols the virtues of socialism, and there's hardly any opposing voices, it's hardly a surprise.

  • Gene Poole||

    ROTFLMAO! Brilliant! And hilarious! Now tell us who controls almost the entire media...

  • Michael Hihn||

    Donald Trump's masturbatory fantasies ... and the loony right who are so eager to swallow what he says spurts.

  • Sevo||

    Gene Poole|5.22.18 @ 7:12AM|#
    "ROTFLMAO! Brilliant! And hilarious! Now tell us who controls almost the entire media..."

    Mostly limo-lefties, you fucking ignoramus.

  • Raoul Duke||

    Why is the average suburban stay-at-home mom concerned about the ingredients in her kid's MMR vaccine? Because she doesn't have a damn clue how vaccines work or how bad a case of the measles can be.

    Why? Because nobody has the measles, that's why.

  • BeBraveUSA||

    The refusal of most conservatives to recognize the human role in global warming alienates those who will have to live with the environmental damage their elders did. In many minds, free markets have been discredited by their association with intolerance, rejection of science, and disregard for the poor.

    So we must capitulate with the left's ideology and fake science in order not to "alienate" the little snowflakes? I reject your science until you can prove it IS science and not a political wealth redistribution scheme.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Capitalism is great.

    There is an article in the latest edition of "Forbes" that states the top 25 hedge fund managers collectively made $16.8 billion in 2017.

    Almost half of that total was made by the top 5 managers with the number one guy making $2 billion.

    Nothing like that could ever be achieved in a socialist state.

  • Sevo||

    Gilbert Martin|5.21.18 @ 5:14PM|#
    "Capitalism is great.
    There is an article in the latest edition of "Forbes" that states the top 25 hedge fund managers collectively made $16.8 billion in 2017.
    Almost half of that total was made by the top 5 managers with the number one guy making $2 billion.
    Nothing like that could ever be achieved in a socialist state."

    Is Gilbert stupid or dishonest?
    "Forbes Magazine, perhaps the news outlet best-known for tracking the net worth of wealthy individuals, made international waves in 2006 when it listed Castro among the richest world leaders. Despite being the leader of a communist country, the magazine pegged Castro's wealth at $900 million a decade ago. A large portion of that staggering wealth reportedly came from the Cuban leader wielding control over state-backed interests, including a convention center, a pharmaceuticals company and a retail chain."
    http://www.ibtimes.com/fidel-castro-net
    -worth-2016-how-cuban-leader-built-
    wealth-after-1959-revolution-2451623

    And:
    "Kim Jong-un net worth:
    $5 Billion"
    https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest
    -politicians/presidents/kim-jong-un-net-worth/

    Hey, Gilbert! Please tell us: Ignoramus or liar? We really want to know so the next time you post here we can express sympathy or laugh at you.
    Fucking lefty...

  • Gilbert Martin||

    I'm not a lefty.

    I was expressing admiration for the achievement of those hedge fund managers who made it on their own exercising freedom of contract in a market system.

    That's what capitalism enables and it's great.

    It is not at all comparable to leaders of statist countries using government force to extract wealth from others for their own benefit.

  • Sevo||

    "I was expressing admiration for the achievement of those hedge fund managers who made it on their own exercising freedom of contract in a market system."

    I apologize. Sorry to have misunderstood your post.

  • Nuwanda||

    They are sympathetic to the big state because they've been indoctrinated to be sympathetic to it.

    Public education, funded at gunpoint, students enrolled at gunpoint, attendance at gunpoint, captured by Marxist unions, pandered to by Marxist politicians, is responsible for it all.

    Ask yourself this: without public provision of education, how far would Leftist culture have got in America? If not via that, then how?

  • Gene Poole||

    We're also reducing the overpopulation of our schools... at gunpoint. Is that the fault of Socialists too? Last time I looked, the NRA was a lobby for Capital...

  • Nuwanda||

    Yes, it is their fault.

    Compare crime stats including school shootings to a time when the state was smaller, less intrusive, less concerned with dictating thought, when gun laws were almost non-existent, and you'll find they are ridiculously low by comparison.

  • Sevo||

    Gene Poole|5.22.18 @ 7:15AM|#
    "We're also reducing the overpopulation of our schools... at gunpoint. Is that the fault of Socialists too?"

    Yes it is you fucking ignoramus.

  • Rossami||

    Is there a generational difference in attitudes about socialism vs capitalism? Yes. Does this article explain it? No. A much simpler and more likely explanation is encapsulated in the quote "If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain."

    For those interested, that variations of that quote have been around since at least 1875 and have been variously attributed to many authors including Edmund Burke, Anselme Batbie, Victor Hugo, King Oscar II of Sweden, George Bernard Shaw, François Guizot, Georges Clemenceau, Benjamin Disraeli and Winston Churchill.

    In other words, this generational difference is neither new nor unique.

  • WV Jack||

    Hey Steve - don't get me wrong, I agree with the premise, and generally your conclusions. But why are you comparing Millenials with their grandparents? I'm a Gen-Xer, and I'm the parent of millenials. I grew up in the '80's, and the older I get, the more cynical I become, and the more I realize government (more often than not) just FUBAR's the whole thing.

    I think also, it's a young people thing. Young people are more often idealistic. They still think they know everything, and they see something that's painful for someone, and they want to help. They just don't yet understand the law of unintended consequences...

  • DRees||

    The term "socialism" can mean anything from Norway to North Korea. It's such a broad and vague term that I sometimes question whether it has any utility at all, or whether it should be completely abandoned. Capitalism doesn't necessarily mean complete laissez-faire. The economy of nearly every first world country (including the U.S.) is a complex mixture of private enterprise and government intervention. In practical terms, the question isn't whether to have government intervention, but rather how much of it to put into the mix.

  • Hank Phillips||

    You left out National Socialist Germany...

  • Socialmisfit||

    "What explains this generational divergence? The first factor is that young adults may take for granted the bounty capitalism has bestowed, from cellphones to inexpensive air travel to an endless array of food and beverage options. They can't remember the time when those things didn't exist."

    Completely agree here. A recent article in the Economist reported on the Chinese college students rejecting American capitalism over their home country's totalitarian system. Here is what I recommend as a game for these rattled brained youngsters. Add up all the private sector inventions that capitalism generated and subtract them all from their lives and then come back to tell us what they think. Especially for the Chinese... however in that case China would need to pay for all the US private industry intellectual capital it stole... only then allowing it to grow to a facade of a superpower.

    "But they will never forget the pain and uncertainty caused by the brutal recession of 2007-09, which has taken years to overcome. Financial catastrophe is bound to foster disenchantment with the economic order."

    Well thank the Democrats and the dishonest media for that... replaying the meme that it was greedy corporations that caused the collapse and not CRA, Fannie, Freddie and boneheaded Fed policies.

  • zombietimeshare||

    Why? Envy, greed, laziness... the list is rather endless.

  • Rockabilly||

    mummy and daddy paid for everything until I left home so since government is now my mummy and daddy it's only fair that government should not pay for all my needs.

  • mjerryfuerst||

    The polls on which this is based are meaningless. Each individual has a personal view what capitalism and socialism embraces.

  • UltraModerate||

    It's not that hard to understand why people are drawn to socialism when socialism's biggest opponents go out of their way to make it look attractive. Here's a hint: When one man makes 3000 times another man's salary without doing 3000 times worth the work, you make a strong case for why socialism might be a better system.

    It won't be a better system, but you make a strong case for it nonetheless.

  • Sevo||

    UltraModerate|5.21.18 @ 6:32PM|#
    "It's not that hard to understand why people are drawn to socialism when socialism's biggest opponents go out of their way to make it look attractive. Here's a hint: When one man makes 3000 times another man's salary without doing 3000 times worth the work, you make a strong case for why socialism might be a better system."

    Aw, slaver is jealous!
    Fuck off.

  • UltraModerate||

    @Sevo So I see you're perfectly content with setting the stage for socialism to continue gaining favor with the general populace. Good to know.

  • Sevo||

    UltraModerate|5.22.18 @ 6:37PM|#
    "@Sevo So I see you're perfectly content with setting the stage for socialism to continue gaining favor with the general populace. Good to know."

    I see you're shoveling bullshit. Good to know, slaver.
    Oh, and fuck off.

  • Myk||

    They may not be offered the bounty because of capitalist greed. Since they've never experienced the greed plus power of socialism the grass is greener.

    Medicare inflates the DEMAND for healthcare? I don't get chemo for the fun of it.
    It's that kind of clueless BS that makes capitalism seem worse than communism, of course socialism seems like a good compromise.
    Hey everyone who paid into this system of health insurance that will take care of you when you're old, just die if you're not rich. We're pocketing all that you paid in for ourselves.
    Healthcare's demand is driven by the healthcare needs of the people. Medicare/Medicaid drives up cost by negotiating prices without regard to local economies and by not paying its bills.
    Stop calling for Drs to let people die according to their ability to pay for healthcare and maybe you wouldn't have so many young people against a free market every where else.

    If you're sick you're not working, if you're not working you can't pay. Free markets have never and will never apply to healthcare. The person who could afford to pay their town Dr a chicken paid a chicken, the person who could afford a pig paid a pig, the person who could pay an ounce of gold paid the gold. They all got together and made sure their town Dr was taken care of so they could keep him. The same went for the guild Drs. There wasn't all this whining about who got more but paid less.

  • Sevo||

    "Medicare inflates the DEMAND for healthcare? I don't get chemo for the fun of it.
    It's that kind of clueless BS that makes capitalism seem worse than communism, of course socialism seems like a good compromise."

    Did you post this to prove how stupid people can be, or was that just a side benefit?
    Fuck off, slaver

  • Myk||

    Denying healthcare based on the ability to pay for healthcare has no affect on demand. The demand is there whether or not the healthcare is available. If you're the last person on earth and break your arms you have a demand for healthcare even though there is no supply available.

    Your inability to grasp the difference between supply and demand is about as accurate as your assessment of who the slaver is.
    I have yet to see any check from you or anyone else paying me to be a guinea pig to advance medical science, slaver.

  • Sevo||

    Myk|5.22.18 @ 5:53PM|#
    "Denying healthcare based on the ability to pay for healthcare has no affect on demand."
    Oh, what a clever pile of sophistry.
    Supplying it regardless of ability to pay certainly does have an effect on demand.

    "I have yet to see any check from you or anyone else paying me to be a guinea pig to advance medical science, slaver."
    You bet I'm not paying for YOUR care, slaver. Fuck off.

  • Myk||

    No, you owe for the research done on people to invent your care, even if you go back to having leeches drain your excess blood you owe someone for having that done. Of course you refuse to pay because it is you who are the slaver. I already figured that out. That's how it always is. Your hand dipping into other people's pockets is OK. People getting paid for a service is socialism.

  • Barry Gold||

    Very cogent argument. Chapman not only points out the problems that the extreme Right causes for capitalism, but also the areas where traditional capitalism fails: externalities.

    If A and B engage in a voluntary transaction, both end up better off (usually). But that transaction may have side-effects that harm other people. If I buy a car, I can get from place to place faster, more conveniently, than most other options. But my car spews poisons into the air, which everybody else has to breathe. We need a system that taxes those emissions and uses them -- not for some program that politicians think will get them votes, but to directly compensate those affected. Perhaps simply a direct payment to everybody within a hundred miles or so.

    Same with those who mine coal and pollute the water used by those downstream. Or burn carbon in some way, contributing to the global warming that is going to drastically affect coastal cities.

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    So you are explaining to all that you are a simpleton....nicely done.

  • Sevo||

    Yep, too many words for:
    "I'm a statest"
    Oh, and Barry? Fuck off, slaver.

  • Gene Poole||

    If you mother's cunt had been her asshole, the world would be better off.

  • Sevo||

    Gene Poole|5.22.18 @ 7:23AM|#
    "If you mother's cunt had been her asshole, the world would be better off."

    'Nother lefty loser heard from.
    Fuck off, slaver.

  • Barry Gold||

    And yes, government interference makes things worse in many ways. Rent control benefits those currently living in a given area, at the expense of those who are looking for apartments. People have an incentive to stay put in rent-controlled apartments, which means fewer apartments on the market, which means higher rents for new arrivals, or even those who have to move to a different part of the city because they lost one job and found a new one on the other side of town.

    Zoning laws, and especially discretionary zoning(*) also help create a shortage of housing and drive up prices.

    (*) Situations where, even if your property is zoned for, say a 10-story apartment building, you can't get permission to build without getting the okay of the city council or other political body. Sometimes a "campaign contribution" will grease the wheels. Sometimes it's just cheaper to find somewhere else to build, somewhere more friendly to new housing.

  • CapitalistRoader||

    The refusal of most conservatives to recognize the human role in global warming alienates those who will have to live with the environmental damage their elders did.

    To quote Tony Heller over at the Deplorable Climate Science Blog:

    During the summer of 1936, Indiana had 100 degree temperatures from June 15 to September 16, with a peak temperature of 114 degrees on July 14. If this happened now, climate scientists would be 100% certain it was due to man-made CO2 and demand immediate world communism.

    Just because these poor kids have had this apocalyptic nonsense pounded into their head at school doesn't mean we should make a hard left turn to statism to accommodate their idiotic beliefs.

  • High Clouds||

    It has to do with age, idealism, lack of life experience, etc.
    As the saying goes: "If at 18 you're not a socialist, you have no heart. If at 35 you're still a socialist, you have no brain."
    True.

  • Henry Baker||

    Omaggot wasn't and isn't a socialist; he's a full-blown communist who comes from a long line of hardcore card-carrying communists. The only reason that halfbreed bastard didn't go full commie during his regime is because he knew he couldn't get away with it. He was hoping to resow the seeds of communism and they'd blossom later during another demorat administration, maybe Hillary's.

  • swampwiz||

    PART 1

    The bottom line is that Capitalism, at whatever degree, must make the case that it is the best system for the Working Class. From World War II to 1970's, it was undeniably the best system. From the 1970's up to the Great Recession, it was most good, but with some downside (and very up & down). However, since the Great Recession, for folks whose job situation has been unstable (and all it takes is having one's employer have a big layoff to have that happen).

    It is a no-brainer that the quasi-Capitalist health care system has become a disaster in terms of value-to-price; unfortunately, it is so screwed up that using free-market reforms will not work for most folks, which is why we have ObamaRomneyHeritageCare and soon to get MediSomething-For-All Who-Don't-Get-Coverage-At-Work. Similarly, the College Industrial Complex system is a disaster, requiring the young to pay an exorbitant price (even at State U) to get the ever-inflating credentials that are the minimum qualifications to chase the American Dream. The only other major expense that folks have is housing in places that have a lot of jobs.

  • swampwiz||

    PART 2

    But at the core of it, it is simply the lack of jobs due to economic efficiency that Karl Marx had predicted would be the endgame of capitalism. Donald Trump & Bernie Sanders are the inevitable volcanoes that form to release the pent-up energy of Working Class angst. To me, the most efficient system is simply Guaranteed Income with a side of rationing of income-production - i.e., once someone's income goes north of some amount, his marginal tax rate should be raised to a very high level so as to incentivize him to work less, thereby opening up *good* jobs for others. The answer is not to implement tariffs, which is a tax on American consumers for the benefit of the rentier blue-collar folks in "Blue Wall" country.

  • TSTB||

    Why are they drawn to Socialism? Seriously? It's what they have been taught every day of their lives in school. Who doesn't know this? Jeez. Pay attention.

  • Gene Poole||

    Fuck you, asshole.

  • TSTB||

    Whoa...are you the Austrian Oak?

  • IndependentTexan||

    Anyone who has a high opinion of socialism should spend a semester abroad ... in Caracas. That ought to cure them.

  • Hank Phillips||

    True dat. But former Reason writer and boardmember Petr Beckmann published "What Attracts Intellectuals to Socialism?" Those Different Drummer pamphlets are still available from Cork Hayden at theenergyadvocate.com
    Beckmann was raised in Czechoslovakia and helped Arthur C. Clark use radar to guide British bombers to a landing in WWII.

  • NicholasStix||

    Here's my question about the millennials who say they support socialism over capitalism: Were they Christians? And if so, what denomination? Baptist? Catholic? Seventh Day Adventist?

    Those may sound like ridiculous questions. But so is Steve Chapman's interest in the race and ethnicity of millennials who support socialism.

    There are good reasons not to identify the millennial socialists by race or ethnicity. It's a sound general policy not to mention race or ethnicity in a story, unless it has some clear relevance to the topic.

    If a reporter goes out and interviews people about the weather, would it make sense for the story to say, "Joe Smith, who is black, is hoping for a cool front"?

    Why do you care so much about respondents' race and ethnicity? If you fear or dislike blacks or Hispanics, I suppose it would confirm your prejudice. But otherwise, it tells you nothing useful.

  • Sevo||

    ScooterB|5.22.18 @ 12:43AM|#
    "I'll see you later! Enjoy the next election :)"

    Yep, a hag loser.

  • Star1988||

    A big part of the 'problem' is that the definition of socialism has become vague among the young. If you ask them if they think that the state should control all the means of production, and should assign everybody life tasks/roles for the 'greater good' of society, I'm confident that there wouldn't be 44% support.

    But young people in the US are smart enough to know that the rest of the developed world have universal healthcare systems that deliver better, and much much cheaper healthcare than what they find in the US ... and they are told that these systems are socialist. Hence the support. I think that support for 'socialism' really just comes down to a desire for much cheaper, more accessible healthcare.

    The problem with healthcare in the US is that it is a bastard child of state funding, and insurance company crony capitalism. The worst of all worlds. Healthcare markets in the developing world, free of both government intervention and insurance schemes, often work remarkably well.

  • ||

    "A big part of the 'problem' is that the definition of socialism has become vague..."

    The whole problem is definitions and the cognitive ability of the average person. As products of a govt. indoctrination system that discourages intellectual pursuits into philosophy and politics, in particular, their understanding is severely impaired and their political beliefs so distorted that social control is easy. That was the goal of govt. schooling. After a century and a half, it has produced the obedient dependent citizen.

    "...young people...are smart enough..."? No. They are "propagandized enough" to be confused by MSM. They go into debt without thought. They have no respect for savings or frugality. They don't trust politicians in general, but they do trust being governed by force, and they call it protection, security. Their feeling safe trumps reality and therefore they don't seek to know the truth, in fact, they are afraid of it. Knowing would place responsibility on them. They avoid that like the plague.

  • NicholasStix||

    Part II: Chapman: "Those may sound like ridiculous questions. But so is the question raised by many Tribune readers about our coverage: Why aren't we mentioning that the culprits are black?

    "There are good reasons not to identify the attackers by race. It's the newspaper's sound general policy not to mention race in a story, whether about crime or anything else, unless it has some clear relevance to the topic.

    "If a reporter goes out and interviews people about the weather, would it make sense for the story to say, 'Joe Smith, who is black, is hoping for a cool front'? If a pedestrian gets run over by a bicyclist, should the story mention that the rider was white?

  • NicholasStix||

    Part III: Chapman: "In the attack coverage, what difference does race make, unless police are putting out descriptions or sketches in hopes of getting tips from witnesses? Getting beat up for your iPad, I suspect, feels about the same regardless of the color of the thieves. Police don't seem to think victims were targeted because of their race.

    "And what good would it do to trumpet the skin color of the thugs? So pedestrians on Michigan Avenue can run away when they see two or more African-Americans? Lots of black adolescents and young adults can be found on the Magnificent Mile on any given day. I'd guess at least 95 percent of them are harmless.

    "My question to readers accusing us of political correctness is: Why do you care so much about the attackers' race? If you fear or dislike blacks, I suppose it would confirm your prejudice. But otherwise, it tells you nothing useful."

    N.S.: If I were a socialist or communist, based on Steve Chapman's May 21 column, I would not fear a return of capitalism.

  • Richard Stallman||

    Most young Americans reject today's capitalism because they see it is
    driving most Americans into poverty. To make capitalism acceptable,
    we need socialist systems to spread the wealth and support those who
    lose capitalism's competition.

  • GamerFromJump||

    So, utter mistrust of millenials is justified, seems to be the takeaway.

  • Gene Poole||

    "Capitalism has been the most dynamic force for economic progress in history." That IS a joke, isn't it? If it's not, this piece has to be paid for by one of those Institutes "free-market" capitalism seems unable not to keep creating and funding in order to persuade us that the "free market" really is free (of course, it is a way to avoid paying your fair share of taxes, I suppose...).

    "'the free market can handle these problems without government being involved.'" Wait a minute! Government IS a free market. Whoever can bid highest can get elected officials to do whatever they want. That's why the constant condemnation of "government" on sites like this rings so hollow.

    So come on - tell me it's a joke. Or is this really a paid defense of the Free Market being seconded by dozens of paid shills? All out of pure conviction, of course...

  • Longtobefree||

    People support 'socialism' because they think it will get them more for less.
    They all have their own definition of 'socialism', but it boils down to "someone else will pay for the stuff I want, and I will not have to work so hard".

  • Michael Hihn||

    People support 'socialism' because they think it will get them more for less.

    They support it because -- like most of mankind -- they simply want fairness .. plus (for them) and that nobody will be left behind. Those who SHOULD know better, do not caused mostly by the same fallacy I quoted at the top.

  • marshaul||

    I, too, thought socialism was appealing, when I was 10 years old. The only difference is that today many young adults are still mentally about 10 even into their 30s, thanks to helicopter parenting, safe spaces, increasing safety in all aspects of life (this at least being otherwise a good thing), and the general infantilizing nature of schooling. We really need to get rid of one-size-fits-all schooling at the level of high school and beyond and replace it with specialized education. Nobody except autodidacts is a Jeffersonian generalist anymore anyway.

  • wearingit||

    "Medicare inflates demand for health care."

    Hmm, and here I thought it was just that people got sick. Has jack shit to do with Medicare.

    Millenials prefer socialism because crony capitalism has left them out in the cold. Business has never cared for anyone but profits (by design) and it's clear that the current crop of politicians aren't looking to ensure that capitalism functions without monopolies, without lobbying from the biggest players to crush the weakest, etc.

    You're right that they take iphones, etc. for granted but it's not hard, especially in the internet/information age to look across the pond and see safeguards and guarantees from European socialist democratic governments and want some of what they have. If current advocates of capitalism as it is could explain why the US life is better than the European life then maybe they'd listen.

  • Myk||

    I love it when fake libertarians call for free markets and capitalism but fail to address the crony capitalism that keeps the markets from being free or capitalist. They love their corporatocracy. Their embrace of the corporatocracy absolutely scares even libertarians away from libertarian candidates.

  • Sevo||

    Myk|5.22.18 @ 6:02PM|#
    "I love it when fake libertarians call for free markets and capitalism but fail to address the crony capitalism that keeps the markets from being free or capitalist. They love their corporatocracy. Their embrace of the corporatocracy absolutely scares even libertarians away from libertarian candidates."

    I love it when lefty assholes invent all sorts of reasons to be lefty assholes.

  • Sevo||

    wearingit|5.22.18 @ 4:12PM|#
    "Medicare inflates demand for health care."
    Hmm, and here I thought it was just that people got sick.

    Are you posting this to show you are clueless?

  • ||

    "...crony capitalism..." is an oxymoron. It was dubbed "corporatism" in the '30s in socialist Italy. In Nazi Germany, another democratic socialist republic, it was called fascism. The socialists split into two groups, communists, and fascists. The communists were against private property, the fascists claimed to protect property but they lied. In practice, both control all property by violence.
    Do not accept the fascist United Socialist States of America lies that this is a capitalist country. Capitalism is unknown, unpracticed by any nation. The less communist, less economically restrictive political jurisdictions, e.g., Hong Kong, Macau, Singapore, and Shanghai, are more prosperous and peaceful. And they are not capitalist in principle, just less socialistic in practice.
    Does this mean capitalism would work? Would economic freedom, like other freedoms, work? Or is commerce an exceptional area of interaction that needs compulsion to function? That unproven claim is used to justify violence by "authorities" against anyone in commerce. They don't prove it, but when does force use reason? Fraud is the tool of statists.

  • Michael Hihn||

    "...crony capitalism..." is an oxymoron. It was dubbed "corporatism" in the '30s in socialist Italy. In Nazi Germany,

    Crony is a partner or associate.
    Crony capitalism is special treatment for favored corporations and/or industries, in taxes and/or regulations.
    IOW, politicians favoring their cronies.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Chapman seriously needs to read Chicago Tribune articles published when Herbert Hoover was enforcing felony charges for light beer. The market turned when Willebrandt published her "Inside of Prohibition" series in the NYT, explaining how the communist income tax became the tool enforcing religious conservative prohibition (with states buying into it). The Crash came when yeast and glucose factories banks were caught funding dope and alcohol, and when asset forfeiture was added to the sumptuary enforcement arsenal (with help from state-level looters) the banking panics finished off the wreckage. Reagan and Holy War Bush did the exact same thing in 1987, and G. Waffen Bush repeated the economy-wrecking tactics with faith-based asset forfeiture in 2005-8 (with states buying into it). Young people need to understand how good-faith prohibitionist looters drive money out of banks and collapse the economy again and again.

  • John Jacob Jingle Rhymer||

    Reason's leftist bent is exposed when it writes that not 'believing' in global warming hurts the GOP. In fact, the scientific proof of global warming is far from being a settled science and many governments use the global-warming scam to restrict freedom.

    This also is analogous to environmentalists, witness the oppressive police power of the EPA.

  • Duelles||

    A bit of socialism exists in the Constitution. In that, there are 18 specific areas of Federal government control. Beyond these there is nothing the FEDs can do. Hooray for the 10th amendment and boo to the Supreme Court and idiocy.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Another consttutional "expert" totally ignorant of how the Ninth Amendment severely limits the 10th ... also ignorant of the balance of power, and how three EQUAL branches, provides a system of checks and balances.

    It's not perfect, Duelles' KKK got away with way too much, no shrunken to Ron Paul's cult.

  • Duelles||

    The bigger the government the more opportunity for lobbyists of special interests to control the agenda. The more control by lobbyists the more the call for Government intervention to stop lobbyists. And so on and so on. Socialism is shit.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Doesn't know what socialism is either.

    Left - Right = Zero

  • TimK||

    Yes, if we can remove the fictional "jesus" from capitalism, it will be much easier to sell.

  • bernard b carman||

    Liberty would be an easier sell if its salesmen would cease from embracing the false "left/liberal" vs "right/conservative" political paradigm.
    www.NaturalRightsCoalition.com (visit the Philosophy page — full link apparently not permitted here)

  • Michael Hihn||

    Libertarians have been doing that for 50 years. We invented it, The "Nolan Chart" was invented by David Nolan in 1969. He later founded the Libertarian Party. There is a chart on the page you send us to, That's HIS chart, the Nolan Chart.

  • ||

    David died watching his education campaign fail. I used his chart to recruit libertarians into the LP in the '70s, a waste of my time. I woke up and quit the LP and voting in 1980. I went back to being an anarchist, abet a more enlightened one for my experience. I finally realized that no freedom can come by accepting the present worldwide political paradigm, i.e., might make right, i.e., violence trumps reason.

    The answer to the failed paradigm is a new one based on voluntary public politics just as in the private sector where violence is not accepted as moral or acceptable in any way.

  • Michael Hihn||

    The party failed for the same reason your pwn failure is even bigger. It was anarchist values which doomed the party. specifically, Rothbard's crazy rule that even seeking public office is a lust for force and power. That made him a co-conspirator with statists. He had no clue -- nor do you -- on how to create a free society.

    That's how we get the LOSER notion that elections are for the spreading of "libertarian ideas," Losing intentionally.

    Minarchists failed because they had no defense of WHY people have the right to form governments. and how liberty evolves slowly, as people accept ever-expanding right to be defended. To say otherwise is to reveal one's total ignorance of human history, and surrender to the statists.

    Even Ayn Rand knew that, but discovered it too late to save libertarianism,
    Or save you,

  • ||

    "Capitalism has always had to overcome its critics." Not really. The direct frontal attack on it was ineffective when the market economy was less controlled by socialists. Socialists saw that and adopted a sneak attack. First, they offered a "free education" for children, enforced at the point of a gun. After all, children can't speak for themselves so someone has to be their saviors, right? And who better than "our protectors", our elected representatives? Why shouldn't they "protect" our children as well as us? Aren't all of us better off under the protection of a strong govt.? If some object, they can get their grievances adjudicated (due process?) by "their" govt. If they still object, they are free to go live in a country that doesn't protect them, doesn't govern them, whether they want it or not. Where is that? What country leaves the individual free to chose, free to "live & let live"? "There's the rub."

    So, with nowhere less enslaved, people stayed. And their children were slowly "educated" by authoritarians, for authoritarians, i.e., statists. Since capitalism is economic freedom, and statists abhor any kind of freedom, capitalism was presented as a dangerous threat to society that had to be watched and restrained. How are people free to engage in commerce if they are watched and restrained, suspected of possible dangerous activity? How is prior restraint, "presumed guilt by commerce" freedom? It's not.

  • Michael Hihn||

    First, they offered a "free education" for children, enforced at the point of a gun.

    Insanity like that is why we lose, why progressives have been kicking our ass for decades, and will continue to do so.

    How will you and your 2% achieve anything? Ever?

  • Eman||

    At least "nazi" hasn't gotten similarly overused into meaninglessness. Nobody would be tasteless enough to do that.

  • Jerry Moore||

    Thanks to you Standard Herbs Home for the herbal remedy you sent to me it really helped me to cure my son's Hepatitis b. I promise to share your good herbal remedy to everyone keep doing the good work to the people in need. God bless.

  • mooo||

    To get them back, all that's needed is further liberalization of capitalism...

    "Alan Greenspan has proclaimed himself 'shocked' that 'the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders equity' proved to be an illusion... The Reagan-Thatcher model, which favored finance over domestic manufacturing, has collapsed. ... The mutually reinforcing rise of financialization and globalization broke the bond between American capitalism and America's interests. ...we should take a cue from Scandinavia's social capitalism, which is less manufacturing-centered than the German model. The Scandinavians have upgraded the skills and wages of their workers in the retail and service sectors -- the sectors that employ the majority of our own workforce. In consequence, fully employed impoverished workers, of which there are millions in the United States, do not exist in Scandinavia." - Harold Meyerson, "Building a Better Capitalism", The Washington Post, March 12, 2009.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online