Just What Is It That DJ Trump That Inflames Passions? Who Is Against Him? Why?

[jamil]

I think this is a little off base for some people. While there are fringe people who likely identify as pure socialists, you'll more likely find democratic socialists who want more government intervention, higher tax rates, and expansion of social programs. While I don't want these things now, there was a time when I 100% did want these things. People are often sold the idea, especially in higher education, that the only way to care for and help people is to increase social programs, increase taxes, and allow the government to "take care" of its people. I believe that most people who say they want socialism just want to help people who they consider to be less fortunate, but the way they want to achieve that is not in line with freedom and liberty. I'm sure there are some that will never change their minds. That said, I really believe showing people the benefits of capitalism for working class people is the best way to go about getting rid of widespread support for socialist policies.

This exactly explains some relatives. They’re not socialists, per se. They are collectivist minded though. And they want all the big government stuff, like the $15 minimum wage, healthcare for all, ban guns, enforce social norms, etcetera. None of that is socialism. They have an abundance of regard for things like caring and fairness for the underdog. And I think that drives their thinking on preferred policies. But they have no or little regard for fairness reciprocity (reap what you sow, earn your own way). And I think that’s a big reason why they don’t understand conservatives. They don’t see those things as moral priorities.

 

[Sigblaster]

This exactly explains some relatives. They’re not socialists, per se. They are collectivist minded though. And they want all the big government stuff, like the $15 minimum wage, healthcare for all, ban guns, enforce social norms, etcetera. None of that is socialism. They have an abundance of regard for things like caring and fairness for the underdog. And I think that drives their thinking on preferred policies. But they have no or little regard for fairness reciprocity (reap what you sow, earn your own way). And I think that’s a big reason why they don’t understand conservatives. They don’t see those things as moral priorities.

All of that is socialism or communism. All of it.

 

[Tombs]

All of that is socialism or communism. All of it.

Hate to break it to you, but there is such a thing as being more left economically, and extremely far right, pro gun, pro tradition.

I happen to drop in that spot.

I just happen to think legal entities that are absent all the liability and responsibilities of an individual, shouldn't be treated the same as an individual.

 

[jamil]

All of that is socialism or communism. All of it.

No. It overlaps, sure. Take healthcare for all, for example. The healthcare proposed isn’t government ownership of the means of production. Their proposal is medicare for all. Medicare is a public funded sort of insurance program which pays private providers on behalf of the patient, according to the patient’s needs. If that were true “socialism”, all of the medical facilities would be owned by the government. And all of the providers would be employed directly by the government. The VA hospital system is closer to socialism than Medicare.

Minimum wage isn’t socialism. It’s a law that forces employers to pay a minimum wage. There are still privately owned businesses. You could say that it’s authoritarian. But it’s not socialism.

Gun bans aren’t socialist either. Whether government allows the people to have guns or not has nothing to do with public ownership of the means of production. It’s authoritarian too. But it’s not socialism.

All those things have some overlap with typical socialist regimes. But they’re not themselves “socialism”

 

[Sigblaster]

Hate to break it to you, but there is such a thing as being more left economically, and extremely far right, pro gun, pro tradition.

I happen to drop in that spot.

I just happen to think legal entities that are absent all the liability and responsibilities of an individual, shouldn't be treated the same as an individual.

I have no problem with people believing that, as everyone is free to believe what they do. Just be honest about those beliefs. When it's unwarranted government interference in the free market, it's either socialism or communism. The only difference is in the degree.

 

[jamil]

I have no problem with people believing that, as everyone is free to believe what they do. Just be honest about those beliefs. When it's unwarranted government interference in the free market, it's either socialism or communism. The only difference is in the degree.

Words have meaning. It’s pretty well documented what socialism is and what communism is. You could say the policies are “Left”. And even that they borrow some things from socialism/communism. That doesn't make them socialism or communism. None of that was the point of the thread, or the point of my post. But whatever. INGO is as INGO does.

 

[foszoe]

I don't have a problem with many or some socialist ideals or principles. One can make the argument for Christian Socialists. I just don't want government enforced, dictated, or sanctioned socialism.

 

[Tombs]

I have no problem with people believing that, as everyone is free to believe what they do. Just be honest about those beliefs. When it's unwarranted government interference in the free market, it's either socialism or communism. The only difference is in the degree.

That's not how it works.
Communism is kind of an untenable thing that really requires anarchy that is also organized, to fit the mold.
Socialism is where the means of production isn't privately owned. It can be state owned, or collectively owned, though the latter really isn't something that exists except in fairy tales.

Words like this shouldn't be used as some sort of ad hominem. They have a meaning, and since we speak the same language, we should be able to agree on a source for that meaning.

Either way, there's miles of room between capitalism and socialism to fall. I don't see a significant difference between a 100% free market with no regulation, and 1984. It's just being controlled from another direction. You can achieve a state of greater freedom with some degree of regulation to keep corporations from becoming the new state. You're getting a nice glimpse of this with facebook, twitter, and google. This is what happens when you neglect to protect the people's freedoms from corporations that feel they have become the new gods.

 

[Sigblaster]

No. It overlaps, sure. Take healthcare for all, for example. The healthcare proposed isn’t government ownership of the means of production. Their proposal is medicare for all. Medicare is a public funded sort of insurance program which pays private providers on behalf of the patient, according to the patient’s needs. If that were true “socialism”, all of the medical facilities would be owned by the government. And all of the providers would be employed directly by the government. The VA hospital system is closer to socialism than Medicare.

Minimum wage isn’t socialism. It’s a law that forces employers to pay a minimum wage. There are still privately owned businesses. You could say that it’s authoritarian. But it’s not socialism.

Gun bans aren’t socialist either. Whether government allows the people to have guns or not has nothing to do with public ownership of the means of production. It’s authoritarian too. But it’s not socialism.

All those things have some overlap with typical socialist regimes. But they’re not themselves “socialism”

Wow, this is a lot to try to respond to when you believe that communist/socialist ideals aren't actually communist/socialist ideals.

Everyone in a free society should have access to healthcare. That doesn't mean that they should actually receive health care. People should be free to contract with insurers, wherever they may be located in these United States, to provide services at rates they are willing to contract for. Do you see the difference? If they can't afford the health care they need, well that's a different issue from whether or not the health care is available to them. This notion that health care should be tied to an employer, or to the government, fails the test of what should occur in a truly free society. To the contrary, government interference in the health care and health insurance industry has created the problems we face right now.

And minimum wage, if not total control of industry, is overt control over industry. Shouldn't skills versus demand for those skills set the rate? That's capitalism. Don't posit the "living wage" concept, because that is just more socialist/communist propaganda. People should be paid for the value they provide. Nothing more, nothing less, and that should be a negotiation between the employer and the employee, and no one else.

Your last point, "Gun bans aren't socialist either", is either laughable or tragic. The best way to begin the transition to a socialist/communist rule is to disarm the people. There is no other valid reason to do so in a free society. A government cannot exert control over a populace that has the means to resist them physically. It's rule number one in any authoritarian takeover, and it's always done under the guise of providing "safety" and "security" to the people, when really it provides safety and security to the oppressive regime. I'm actually saddened that I have to explain this to someone on a Second Amendment centric forum, when so many historical and recent examples are extant.

 

[Sigblaster]

Communism is kind of an untenable thing that really requires anarchy that is also organized, to fit the mold.
Socialism is where the means of production isn't privately owned. It can be state owned, or collectively owned, though the latter really isn't something that exists except in fairy tales.

Words like this shouldn't be used as some sort of ad hominem. They have a meaning, and since we speak the same language, we should be able to agree on a source for that meaning.

Either way, there's miles of room between capitalism and socialism to fall. I don't see a significant difference between a 100% free market with no regulation, and 1984. It's just being controlled from another direction. You can achieve a state of greater freedom with some degree of regulation to keep corporations from becoming the new state. You're getting a nice glimpse of this with facebook, twitter, and google. This is what happens when you neglect to protect the people's freedoms from corporations that feel they have become the new gods.

It's curious that you said my opinions were "ad hominem", when I didn't personally attack the poster, but only their concepts. That is actually the opposite of "ad hominem".

I never said there should be NO government regulation. Of course I want to know that when I go to the supermarket to buy beef, I'm actually buying beef and not horsemeat. When I go to the pharmacy, I want to know that the drugs I'm paying for are the drugs that I actually receive. I also want to know that the pharmacist is being paid for his or her skillset, and not handing me the wrong pills in the right bottle, because he or she is interchangeable with someone who is being paid a government-mandated wage.

 

[Sigblaster]

Words have meaning. It’s pretty well documented what socialism is and what communism is. You could say the policies are “Left”. And even that they borrow some things from socialism/communism. That doesn't make them socialism or communism. None of that was the point of the thread, or the point of my post. But whatever. INGO is as INGO does.

But it does exactly point back to the original post of the thread, doesn't it? The insidious natures of socialism and communism are that people don't realize that they've been indoctrinated into it, and have let their emotions overwhelm their logic. Well, at least they don't realize it until it's too late to turn back.

Look at what happened somewhat recently in Venezuela, and what the Venezuelans are still suffering through, and look at what's happening in our country now. Emotionally-driven events that cancel out logic.

That's why the anger at President Trump. He is a target for some people's emotions, because they have no logic left with which to view the state of our country, and it's future.

 

[Tombs]

It's curious that you said my opinions were "ad hominem", when I didn't personally attack the poster, but only their concepts. That is actually the opposite of "ad hominem".

I never said there should be NO government regulation. Of course I want to know that when I go to the supermarket to buy beef, I'm actually buying beef and not horsemeat. When I go to the pharmacy, I want to know that the drugs I'm paying for are the drugs that I actually receive. I also want to know that the pharmacist is being paid for his or her skillset, and not handing me the wrong pills in the right bottle, because he or she is interchangeable with someone who is being paid a government-mandated wage.

And you realize, die hard free market people would shout "Socialist!" at you?

It's all a matter of deciding who you'd rather rule over you. People you can vote in or out of office, or people who have limitless financial resources.
You want to make sure things remain in check, and that ideology doesn't get in the way of fixing a problem when it appears.

 

[churchmouse]

 

[NKBJ]

Artificial intelligence is supposed to resolve the difficulties previously experienced with centralized planning.

Yippie, yappie, yahooie!

 

[NKBJ]

To stay with the spirit or at least the topic of the thread, is President Trump against centralized control?

 

[Tombs]

Artificial intelligence is supposed to resolve the difficulties previously experienced with centralized planning.

Yippie, yappie, yahooie!

I can't wait for my Google™ residential premium plan, that shortens my drive to the Google™ suicide proof factory with bronze level benefits. If I get lucky I might get a Google™ intersectionality quiz to increase my wages by 0.2 Google™ star dollars per week!

 

[Ingomike]

So can we get back to the question, who is against the presidential candidates? Is there something wrong on my list? We can learn a lot if we create the list...

 

[jamil]

But it does exactly point back to the original post of the thread, doesn't it? The insidious natures of socialism and communism are that people don't realize that they've been indoctrinated into it, and have let their emotions overwhelm their logic. Well, at least they don't realize it until it's too late to turn back.

Look at what happened somewhat recently in Venezuela, and what the Venezuelans are still suffering through, and look at what's happening in our country now. Emotionally-driven events that cancel out logic.

That's why the anger at President Trump. He is a target for some people's emotions, because they have no logic left with which to view the state of our country, and it's future.

I’m not saying that medicare for all or mandating minimum wage, or gun bans are good. They’re just not exclusive to socialism or communism.

 

[Ingomike]

So can we get back to the question, who is against the presidential candidates? Is there something wrong on my list? We can learn a lot if we create the list...

No...

 

[jamil]

To stay with the spirit or at least the topic of the thread, is President Trump against centralized control?

Be behaves like he favors centralized control as long as he’s the one controlling things.