Social Libertarianism

[Gloominary]

There's a lot of things I like about both socialism, and libertarianism.
There's some things I like about both capitalism, and conservatism.
But there's nothing I like about both corporatism, and progressivism.

For me, socialism and progressivism aren't the same thing.
Socialism is about economics, about narrowing but not necessarily eliminating the gap between rich and poor, which can be accomplished with (state socialism) or without government intervention (market socialism), whereas progressivism is about identity politics, about racism, religionism, sexism and so on against whites, Christians, men and so forth, as well as globalism, open borders, gun control, compulsory education, healthcare and vaccinations.

While I'm in favor of free (if it's not free or at least cheap, it's not socialism, it's corporatism) public education and healthcare, I think it should be a state/provincial matter, not a federal one, and it should be voluntary, not obligatory.
While free public education, healthcare and vaccines should be available, you shouldn't have to publicly educate or vaccinate your kids or yourself, you should be able to homeschool them, and private education and healthcare should also be available.
I would also like to see a shift towards more holistic public healthcare and education.

Socialism and corporatism aren't the same thing either.
Corporatism is about widening the gap between rich and poor.
For me, all taxes on the working and middle classes is corporatism.
All taxes on and unnecessary regulations of small businesses is corporatism.
All megacorporate welfare, bailouts, tax breaks and loopholes is corporatism.

I describe myself as a social libertarian, I'm a socialist on economic issues but a libertarian on social issues not a progressive.
While there should be more socialism, we need to balance it with capitalism, not micromanage the economy.
All megacorps need to be nationalized and unionized or heavily taxed and regulated to ensure employees are paid fairly and the health and safety of employees and consumers.
However, small businesses should be tax exempt and minimally regulated.
There should only be welfare for small businesses, not big.

In the western world, the system we have today could best be characterized as progressive fascism, because like fascists the deep state are corporatists, imperialists, plutocrats and against privacy, due process and so called recreational drugs.

[Gloominary]

Where do we draw the line?
What should be collectivized and what should be individuated?
As a social libertarian (not to be confused with a libertarian socialist), a term I'm coining to describe my political philosophy, I can think of five things that should be partly collectivized:

1. Government itself (which itself should be governed by the people casting their votes and forming militias to assist, surveil and overthrow government if need be)
2. Big business and the richest 0.1%'s assets.
3. Wilderness
4. Children
5. Livestock and pets

1 of course and 2 should be maximally regulated by government, 3 moderately regulated, and 4 and 5 minimally regulated.

This is what's socialized in social libertarianism.

everything else, small businesses and the poorest 99.9% assets shouldn't be regulated at all, the people's life, liberty and property shouldn't be regulated at all.

This is what's liberalized (in the classical sense of the word) in social libertarianism.

I believe this is about the proper role of government, not to regulate all, or nothing, but to regulate both the most vulnerable on the one hand: children, livestock, pets and wilderness, for the sake of their own welfare, and to regulate the most wealthy and powerful on the other, for the sake of everyone's welfare.
And to leave everyone else alone, just to protect our individual rights and freedoms.

[surreptitious75]

I am socially liberal and economically conservative

Everyone should have the absolute minimum required be able to live within their means in a capitalist society
They can then choose to stay there if they want to or through hard work move up the economic ladder instead

One should where possible find a job that provides psychological as well as financial satisfaction
If one is not in employment then having a goal that gives purpose to ones life would be beneficial

Some services should be funded by tax such as the armed forces and police force and health service and some education services

No one should be paying more in direct taxation than they have left in their pay after that tax has been deducted
Those on minimum wage should be paying zero direct taxation even if they have more than one job that pays this

Time is more important than money so one should work to live rather than live to work unless one absolutely loves their job

All criminals to receive compulsory education because that is the single biggest factor to leaving crime and making an honest living instead
Since an educated man can more easily get a job than an uneducated one who is more likely to turn to crime instead to finance his lifestyle

The abolition of inheritance tax which is a tax on the dead and a denial of property that one should have both a moral and legal right to

I have no perfect solutions because they do not exist but these are things I nevertheless hold to be true

[Gloominary]

I am socially liberal and economically conservative

By socially liberal do you mean socially progressive (gun control, leftwing identity politics, political correctness, carbon taxes, compulsory education, forced inoculations, safe injection sites, globalism, mass immigration, open borders and so on), or socially libertarian?

By economically conservative do you mean corporatism (corporate welfare, fractional reserve banking and so forth), or capitalism?

I'm a nationalist and socially libertarian, but economically and environmentally I want a mixed government, some socialism, environmentalism and capitalism.
I want to massively regulate, tax or takeover megacorporations and run them primarily in the interests of workers and consumers, but massively deregulate and eliminate taxes on small businesses.
I want to eliminate corporate welfare for private big business, but increase corporate welfare for nationalized and unionized big business and small business.

I'm skeptical of climate change, but want to do more to clean our air, water and soil, protect endangered species, improve conditions for livestock (I'm not a vegan or vegetarian, but we should improve their conditions, not only for their sake but for our health) and expand national parks.
I'm anti 5G, CERN, HAARP, chemtrails, fluoride, GMO, nanotech, forced inoculations and milk pasteurization and concerned about fossil fuels, nuclear power and plastic.

In a nutshell, what it boils down to is: I'm a nationalist, and a libertarian, except when it comes to megacorporations and the environment, they should primarily serve the public good.

I also believe in having strong militias to help keep government in check.

Everyone should have the absolute minimum required be able to live within their means in a capitalist society
They can then choose to stay there if they want to or through hard work move up the economic ladder instead

One should where possible find a job that provides psychological as well as financial satisfaction
If one is not in employment then having a goal that gives purpose to ones life would be beneficial

Some services should be funded by tax such as the armed forces and police force and health service and some education services

No one should be paying more in direct taxation than they have left in their pay after that tax has been deducted
Those on minimum wage should be paying zero direct taxation even if they have more than one job that pays this

Time is more important than money so one should work to live rather than live to work unless one absolutely loves their job

All criminals to receive compulsory education because that is the single biggest factor to leaving crime and making an honest living instead
Since an educated man can more easily get a job than an uneducated one who is more likely to turn to crime instead to finance his lifestyle

The abolition of inheritance tax which is a tax on the dead and a denial of property that one should have both a moral and legal right to

I have no perfect solutions because they do not exist but these are things I nevertheless hold to be true

I see, so not that much different than what we have now, a few minor adjustments.

[Gloominary]

Maybe I'm advocating for too much regulation of big business.
Regarding the economy, the main thing is improving healthcare, nationalizing higher education and either making the minimum wage a living wage or implementing what I call supplementary income paid for by the richest 0.1%.
Small businesses and jobs made unprofitable by increasing the minimum wage would be compensated by the richest 0.1% so they could maintain their profitability.

[obsrvr524]

It seems to me that there are too many words used to distinguish indistinctive details.

Corporatism - a group of people gather in a confidential setting to deliberate how to acquire more money because money is power. They find ways to persuade people to their favor while staying isolated from recusal.

Socialism - a group of people gather in a confidential setting to deliberate how to acquire more authority because authority is power. They find ways to persuade people to their favor while staying isolated from recusal.

Is the difference really worth mention?

[Gloominary]

It seems to me that there are too many words used to distinguish indistinctive details.

Corporatism - a group of people gather in a confidential setting to deliberate how to acquire more money because money is power. They find ways to persuade people to their favor while staying isolated from recusal.

Socialism - a group of people gather in a confidential setting to deliberate how to acquire more authority because authority is power. They find ways to persuade people to their favor while staying isolated from recusal.

Is the difference really worth mention?

Sure there is.
There's a massive difference between taxing the rich to give directly to the working and middle classes, and taxing the working and middle classes or everyone to give to the rich.

[obsrvr524]

One take your money from you. The other takes your authority from you.

[Gloominary]

Social Libertarianism, as I've defined it, takes money and authority from the richest 0.1% and gives it back to the poorest 99%, progressive fascism, which's what we've had for decades, continues taking money and authority from the poorest 99% and giving it to the richest 0.1%.

[Gloominary]

Here's something like what I think should be done to help the economy:

eliminate immigration, so the working class doesn't have to compete with immigrants for housing, jobs and social services.
In the 21st century, we no longer need economic or population growth, we need economic justice and sustainability.
While the offspring of skilled immigrants might, immigrants themselves don't create housing, jobs and social services, they just compete for them.

eliminate offshoring.

Nationalize the central banks.

eliminate corporate welfare.

eliminate the war on drugs, the war on terror and bring all our troops home.

eliminate foreign aid.

Maximally deregulate small businesses while maximally regulating big business.

eliminate the carbon, sales and all taxes except the income tax and the unnecessary bureaucracy that goes along with them, eliminate the income tax on the poorest 99% and maximally increase the income tax on the richest 0.1%.

Nationalize postsecondary education and improve healthcare and public transportation.

Implement what I call universal supplementary income (USI, similar to but not the same as UBI): government gives at least 10 grand annually (or whatever we can afford) to everyone with a legitimate source of income (everyone with an aboveboard job or on income assistance).

And like I said, on social issues I'm libertarian, not progressive, I don't want us to take anyone's free speech, guns, due process, privacy, engage in identity politics...

I think I already outlined what I want us to do to protect the environment, I'm skeptical of climate alarmism, but I'm equally skeptical of 5G, CERN, HAARP, genetic and geoengineering...

[promethean75]

you damn skippy. if you ever decide to run for office, you got my vote, G. you been laying some shit down in this thread, yo. i been watching. all of this stuff is very reasonable and workable. now if only you had a small army you could turn this useless forum chat into some real potatoes.

gloominary for office.

MANAJFO (make america not a joke for once)

[obsrvr524]

Social Libertarianism, as I've defined it, takes money and authority from the richest 0.1% and gives it back to the poorest 99%, progressive fascism, which's what we've had for decades, continues taking money and authority from the poorest 99% and giving it to the richest 0.1%.

"Social Libertarianism", like "Democratic Socialism", is an oxymoron. Such inherently contradictory terms exist only to fool the masses.

There is "Liberatarianism". That is the political platform of promoting as much freedom to individuals as possible without destroying the government that makes it possible. Liberalism has no concern or regard for what makes itself possible.

The idea of the wealthy being taxed so as to give to the poor is, in fact, liberal, not libertarian, because it proposes to destroy the ability to enforce its own priority. It is merely Socialism in disguise - "give us everything and we promise to give you everything free" - complete childish nonsense, yet preached throughout US universities as being the hallmark of ethics.

What naturally follows from taking all of the money from the rich? First, those governing get rich. Second, there stops being any rich. Why would anyone bother striving to get rich if the socialist powerful were just going to take it away for themselves?

The "poor" NEVER benefit - NEVER. Socialists, even "Social Libertarian" socialists are nothing but thieves and con artists who depend upon the poor staying poor so that they can be forever led by a carrot on a stick.

The entire socialist scheme depends entirely on there being a poor mass being led by a protectionist scheme. In the exact same way every corporation depends on the masses needing their services and thus being led by lust and depravity.

They are both the exact same effort to gain the willing confidence of the masses in handing over all power to them. The distinction being merely money manipulating law versus media manipulating law.

Your contrived subservient obedience is the same.

[Gloominary]

you damn skippy. if you ever decide to run for office, you got my vote, G. you been laying some shit down in this thread, yo. i been watching. all of this stuff is very reasonable and workable. now if only you had a small army you could turn this useless forum chat into some real potatoes.

gloominary for office.

MANAJFO (make america not a joke for once)

Right on

[Gloominary]

Social Libertarianism, as I've defined it, takes money and authority from the richest 0.1% and gives it back to the poorest 99%, progressive fascism, which's what we've had for decades, continues taking money and authority from the poorest 99% and giving it to the richest 0.1%.

"Social Libertarianism", like "Democratic Socialism", is an oxymoron. Such inherently contradictory terms exist only to fool the masses.

Democracy is political equality.
Socialism is economic equality.
Political equality is more compatible with economic equality than economic inequality.
But is libertarianism more compatible with socialism than with capitalism?
Actually, I think libertarianism is more compatible with capitalism, because they're both forms of minimal government intervention.
Conservativism or rightwing identity politics is probably more compatible with socialism, upholding the values, norms and interests of the majority or the dominant demographic.

There is "Liberatarianism". That is the political platform of promoting as much freedom to individuals as possible without destroying the government that makes it possible. Liberalism has no concern or regard for what makes itself possible.

Pretty hard to have democracy and rule of law when a tiny minority controls the majority of wealth and can bribe, blackmail and assassinate when need be.
Pretty hard to have a functioning society that forgets its backbone: the workers.

The idea of the wealthy being taxed so as to give to the poor is, in fact, liberal, not libertarian,

For me, liberal and libertarian are synonymous.
For me, socialism, like capitalism, refers to exclusively to economics, whereas libertarianism, like conservatism and progressivism, refers strictly to the social sphere.

because it proposes to destroy the ability to enforce its own priority. It is merely Socialism in disguise - "give us everything and we promise to give you everything free" - complete childish nonsense, yet preached throughout US universities as being the hallmark of ethics.

You can have government intervention in some areas but not others, that is why I'm combining socialism with libertarianism, to signal that I want more socialism in the economic sphere, and more libertarianism in the social sphere.

What naturally follows from taking all of the money from the rich? First, those governing get rich. Second, there stops being any rich. Why would anyone bother striving to get rich if the socialist powerful were just going to take it away for themselves?

The rich will still make a lot more than the working and middle classes, just not as much as they do now.

The "poor" NEVER benefit - NEVER. Socialists, even "Social Libertarian" socialists are nothing but thieves and con artists who depend upon the poor staying poor so that they can be forever led by a carrot on a stick.

Well the corporatists sure have benefitted by stealing from the working and middle classes; see fractional reserve banking, banker bailouts, corporate welfare, taxes on the working and middle classes, unnecessary regulations on small businesses, the fact that so many billionaires like Donald Trump and Jeff Bezos admittedly pay little-no tax and circumvent necessary regs, hiring illegals, offshoring and list goes on and on, so I don't see why the poor can't benefit.

I mean are you seriously saying the poor have never benefitted from a tax on the rich?
That disabled people or people who can't find work haven't benefitted from being given enough money to clothe, feed and house themselves and their families?
That seems rather preposterous doesn't it?
I mean we can argue over how much the people benefit from socialism in general, but to say they never benefit is glaringly an exercise in hyperbole.

The entire socialist scheme depends entirely on there being a poor mass being led by a protectionist scheme. In the exact same way every corporation depends on the masses needing their services and thus being led by lust and depravity.

Here it sounds like you're making a case against both socialism and capitalism.

They are both the exact same effort to gain the willing confidence of the masses in handing over all power to them. The distinction being merely money manipulating law versus media manipulating law.

Socialist parties make promises and may or may not deliver or do the opposite, likewise the capitalist parties make promises and may or may not deliver and do the opposite.
We have to keep voting the crony socialists and capitalists out until we finally get real ones in.
A socialist isn't anymore likely to scam us and give us the opposite of what was promised, than a capitalist, they could both give us corporate fascism instead of their promise.

Your contrived subservient obedience is the same.

I want to increase the working and middle classes wealth, power, rights and freedoms while taking them from the richest of the rich.
This is emancipation of our classes, you're spinning it as subservience, when it's just the reverse.
It's the 0.1%'s wealth and resources I want to take while eliminating taxes on working and middle classes and getting government out of the social realm.
Yes, you can have your cake and eat it, we just need to stop listening to politicians insisting we can't, insisting in order to rid ourselves of one sort of a tyranny, where capitalists rule us, we have to accept another, where government rules us, the two forms of tyranny usually go together and we can reject them both.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Democracy equals political equality.
Socialism equals economic equality.

There are a bunch of socialisms, but I guess I would quibble here and say that socialism certainly evens out wealth, but need not lead to equality. It generally tries to remove poverty completely and then makes it very hard to be superrich, but there is a range in the middle is some or even most versions of socialism I see. Some professions get more money for example in many models.

[obsrvr524]

First, I'm certain that you have your classifications confused. Democracy means distributed authority. It doesn't have anything to do with equality. Socialism means that the State controls the money and who gets to be rich. It has nothing at all to do with equality except to guarantee there is no equality concerning anything, Socialism requires class distinction and the existence of an enemy to fight against, often merely the poor. Socialists, in order to gain more votes in an existing democracy, promise to tax the rich and give the money to the poor. That is merely a promise and is virtually never true. And "liberal" is certainly not "libertarian", but amidst the conflated concerns, I guess it won't matter.

My original point was that you seem to be wrapped up in concerns that have very little bottom-line distinction in your life - wrapped up in the propaganda, ignoring the real issues.

The way that I see it is that what matters to every individual when it comes to government is only two things:
1) Who it is with authority over them: a) someone far away who knows nothing about them b) someone near by who knows far more of their real situation and
2) What can be done to change out bad decision makers.

Which names and other distinctions drawn seem irrelevant and serve only to keep people enslaved by their own confused gladiator arena division.

[promethean75]

I need you to go ahead and subsidize the pharmaceutical industry too, gloom. These assholes want me to pay $800 for some fuckin eye drops. Niggas done lost they fuckin minds. Ain't about to charge the kid no eight hundred dollars. you can believe that.

[Gloominary]

Democracy equals political equality.
Socialism equals economic equality.

There are a bunch of socialisms, but I guess I would quibble here and say that socialism certainly evens out wealth, but need not lead to equality. It generally tries to remove poverty completely and then makes it very hard to be superrich, but there is a range in the middle is some or even most versions of socialism I see. Some professions get more money for example in many models.

Socialism equals economic equality (downward redistribution of wealth from the upperclass to the working and middle classes), capitalism equals economic freedom and corporatism equals economic inequality (upward redistribution of wealth from the working and middle classes to the upper class).
You can have a little economic equality and/or economic freedom or a lot, it's a spectrum.
There's different ways to downwardly redistribute wealth, from market socialism, social anarchism to democratic socialism, and different subsets within each of them.
I'm for more economic equality and economic freedom for the lower classes and less economic freedom for the upper class.
Taking money from someone or group and giving it to a profession isn't socialism, if it isn't a downward redistribution of wealth from the upperclass to the working and middle.
State intervention in the economy isn't necessarily socialism, could be corporatism, meritocracy, nationalism, environmentalism or meddling, could be lots of things.

[Gloominary]

First, I'm certain that you have your classifications confused. Democracy means distributed authority. It doesn't have anything to do with equality.

One man one vote is a form of political equality.
That being said, it does leave much to be desired.
Democracy would be more equal if it was more direct.

Socialism means that the State controls the money and who gets to be rich.

1stly, there's different forms of socialism: market socialism, social anarchism, democratic socialism, the state isn't necessary.
2ndly, state socialism isn't, just the state controlling the money, the state controlling the money could be socialism or corporatism, meritocracy, nationalism, environmentalism, could be lots of things.
3rdly, insofar as the state is representing the people, it'll do right by them, whether the people want socialism or capitalism, a professed socialist isn't more likely to be corrupt than a professed capitalist.
Lastly, socialism isn't about deciding who gets to be rich, unless deciding who gets to be rich helps lift the poor out of poverty.

It has nothing at all to do with equality except to guarantee there is no equality concerning anything,

Taking money from the likes of Donald Trump and Jeff Bezos (who don't pay their taxes and hire illegals while we pay ours mind you) and giving it to the poor has everything to do with equality, letting them keep it is inequality.
Taking money from wall street (who got bailed out with trillions of our tax dollars) has everything to do with equality.
It's a rigged system, the billionaires are above the law, the working and middle classes standard of living has been declining for decades while the rich get richer.
The economy and efficiency grow, but we got nothing to show for it except some smart phones and tablets, meanwhile food and housing is costlier than ever in living memory.

Socialism requires class distinction and the existence of an enemy to fight against, often merely the poor.

You're conflating socialism with plutocracy.

Socialists, in order to gain more votes in an existing democracy, promise to tax the rich and give the money to the poor. That is merely a promise and is virtually never true.

You could say that about professed capitalists, what they often wind up doing is cutting taxes more for the rich than the poor, even tho the rich usually find ways around and can afford to pay them a hell of a lot more than we can anyway, we're just scraping by.
They make it easier for the rich to circumvent taxes and hire illegals, bail out big business, overregulate and tax small businesses, expand government bureaucracy, NASA, the phoney wars on drugs and terror while claiming to have no money for social services.

The trouble with your thinking is when professed socialists are corrupt, you take that as evidence socialism is inherently corrupt, but when professed capitalists are corrupt, you say that isn't capitalism, that's socialism masquerading as capitalism.
I don't think like that, that every time a professed capitalist does something contrary to his supposed principles, is proof capitalism is bad, that's what polarized people do, I take it as proof that individual is bad.

Capitalism has pros and cons and so does socialism, I can listen to capitalists all day long and agree with a lot of what they have to say, same with socialists.
The problem isn't ideology so much as the parties (and the men and women they comprise) we vote for are bought and paid for by the deep state.

Practically everything they do runs counter to their professed ideology.
They want to keep things on the ideological level, so we don't notice they're really just sociopaths who don't give two shits about the unwashed masses.
And of course there's only 2 ideologies, not 3, 4 or 4 hundred, and of course the two party dictatorship claims monopoly on them.
No they're just social constructs, we make them up, which's not to say the practical ones won't have some basis in human nature and nature, but still.

These people have bad intentions, they're liars and thieves, by and large it's not bad luck or a consequence of their ideology, it's by design.

And "liberal" is certainly not "libertarian", but amidst the conflated concerns, I guess it won't matter.

Classical liberal is libertarian, but I'm also changing the definition a bit.
I'm making liberalism/libertarianism more about the social sphere and less about the economic, so it can be conceptually and linguistically combined with socialism.

The way that I see it is that what matters to every individual when it comes to government is only two things:
1) Who it is with authority over them: a) someone far away who knows nothing about them b) someone near by who knows far more of their real situation and
2) What can be done to change out bad decision makers.

Which names and other distinctions drawn seem irrelevant and serve only to keep people enslaved by their own confused gladiator arena division.

The federal government is far removed from me, my family and community, I'll give you that.
But local governments aren't as far removed and I'm in favor of giving local governments more power.
However when it comes to multinational corporations, the federal government is necessary.
Multinationals are also far removed from me and mine, ran by a bunch of billionaires and operating offshore, corrupting governments, engaging in all sorts of sordid practices.
Buying out small businesses so they don't have to compete with them, putting regulations in place small businesses can't possibly afford to adhere to, blackmail, bribery, employing mafia and on and on it goes.
I want to get government out of our private lives as much as anyone, but at the same time, I have no trouble with local governments and the fed going after multinationals if it demonstrably benefits us, just as I have no trouble with market socialism, collective bargaining, cooperatives, unions and so forth.

[Ecmandu]

For me, it's very basic, and I know people don't like to hear this:

The will of the people is being suppressed by the elites.

The republic is a failed experiment.

I'll make my presidential campaign speech very simple:

I want to be the last president and turn this over to direct democracy.

It's better to go out the most beautiful flower the world has ever seen, and make all of our conquerors envy us for all time, than to be a putrid bloom... and who knows, we may actually make it!!

[obsrvr524]

First, I'm certain that you have your classifications confused. Democracy means distributed authority. It doesn't have anything to do with equality.

One man one vote is a form of political equality.
That being said, it does leave much to be desired.
Democracy would be more equal if it was more direct.

Socialism means that the State controls the money and who gets to be rich.

1stly, there's different forms of socialism: market socialism, social anarchism, democratic socialism, the state isn't necessary.
2ndly, state socialism isn't, just the state controlling the money, the state controlling the money could be socialism or corporatism, meritocracy, nationalism, environmentalism, could be lots of things.
3rdly, insofar as the state is representing the people, it'll do right by them, whether the people want socialism or capitalism, a professed socialist isn't more likely to be corrupt than a professed capitalist.
Lastly, socialism isn't about deciding who gets to be rich, unless deciding who gets to be rich helps lift the poor out of poverty.

It seems that you are saying that everyone should vote for socialism because they promised a lot of free stuff. And after they take the money from the rich, line their pockets, devastate the economy, and move into their distant palaces, we can all proudly proclaim that they were not "real socialists".

Of course by that time, they won't care. The economy will be destroyed, there will be no means to rebel, and voting will be Soviet style. Realize that along with economic control comes media control (if those weren't already the same people). And with media control, all electable candidates and voting shall be as prescribed or not at all. Actual democracy doesn't exist in socialist countries.

The US DNC is already a socialist party and already doing all of those very things. So try not to think about it too hard. Of course you are still free to say that they aren't the right kind of socialists. They won't mind, as long as you gain them votes.

Socialism is a cult methodology, forbidding truth to be known. They demand that everyone only speak State approved thoughts and recoil violently against any signs of divergence. Socialism seeks to protect itself above all else and thus freely seeks to program people into obedience, same as with Communism (displayed by China).

As I originally said, you are obviously very lost in the murky deep waters within your propaganda bubble of belief. If you were to actually use dictionaries and encyclopedias to discover the real meanings of things, I fear that the bright sun of reality would cause within you horrific insecurity, anxiety, fear, anger, hostility, and possibly extreme violence, as your bubble burst. It is a common occurrence these days.

I realize that you believe that socialists are all good Samaritans and exceedingly humane, but what happens if one of those deplorable bad people accidentally sneak into power? Think about how you would get any of your rights back once you fall under socialist control?

The Right believes that the Left has bad ideas.
The Left believes that the Right are bad people, so their ideas are not to be heard.

Look to Los Angeles, New York City, Venezuela. You can see what your socialist promotion brings. And they viciously seek to control the entire world the same way - extreme poverty for the unworthy, extreme wealth for the elite.

I know that you can't accept any of that even if your mind would let you see it so I'm not going to pressure you as so many others would.

[promethean75]

Sounds more like the synopsis of a dystopian horror movie than a good critique of socialism.

I think it's time for you to ask a Rosa, 524.

[Gloominary]

This guy didn't listen to a word I said, he's talking to a stereotype, not to me.

His thinking is too binary to have a conversation with.

Not very, observant.

[Gloominary]

I'm not even a socialist, in some ways I prefer the US economy and society, in some ways I prefer the Scandinavian economy and society (which's still predominantly capitalist), and in others I prefer the Visegrad Group (which's again still predominantly capitalist), I have tried to synthesize them in my thinking.

[Gloominary]

I need you to go ahead and subsidize the pharmaceutical industry too, gloom. These assholes want me to pay $800 for some fuckin eye drops. Niggas done lost they fuckin minds. Ain't about to charge the kid no eight hundred dollars. you can believe that.

That really sux man, should be free.