Thank you far clarifying the point.
For people to be in charge of their own lives and still live in society requires they take responsibility but it also requires voting, which your post told me you oppose.
Have you heard it said that voting results in everyone's getting what only the majority deserve? Welcome to ambiguity.
I don't oppose voting, I oppose unlimited democracy. There's the old adage about democracy being two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner.
I do see many make a fetish of democracy though. The people voted for it, so it must be right. OR, give the people a vote and they will manage to control corrupt politicians, or keep a state from running rampant, or somehow come up with something satisfactory. OR we must replace system X with a democracy.
Alas I think history has demonstrated the opposite, democracy is not a be-all, end-all, especially when not constrained, but also not even when it is limited. As soon as people figure out how they can use the government to raid other peoples' pocketbooks, the system starts on a downward slide. Or a demagogue will get elected and seize all power. That, in fact is precisely what happened with Hitler.
I don't know whether you realize this or not, but in your post I originally responded to, you spouted Marxist theory quite well (were you aware of where it came from?). Asserting that socialism was basically equivalent to democracy, and that (somehow) if people democratically elected a government and that government controlled the economy, it would work wonderfully. And that a government responsible for the daily workings of the economy would still (somehow) eventually wither away, even though it has a tremendous amount of work to do making all of the economic decisions (billions every day!) in a society.
SteveInCO, with terms like unlimited democracy, fetish, must be right, be-all end-all, work wonderfully, raid other peoples' pocketbooks, you've built an impenetrable wall around your position. Your adage could have been about two sheep and one wolf. I'm sorry that you feel a need for so much protection; you've told readers more about your past than about your present.
When you can accept that death is the only be-all, end-all we descendants of cyanobacteria have, your need for such protection will wither away.
You've basically brought this conversation down to accusing me of disliking your position because I have a psychological problem. Thereby invalidating my concerns rather than addressing them.
If that's the way you chose to "debate" those who disagree with you I see no point in continuing.
SteveInCO, terms like those you used describe defenses no debate can address. Only introspection can penetrate them.
"I oppose unlimited democracy." You oppose what does not exist.
Humans decide what to have for dinner. Wolves and sheep don't.
Democracy and fetish? The magical connotation of "fetish" makes it and a decision-making process an odd pair.
No amount of reason can counter even the above illogic, let alone the rest.
Blaine, you hit a home run.
The most vigorous defenses of competitive free enterprise I've ever heard were made by public employees I've known. Also, two veterans I know stand out from the hundreds of veterans I know. Like most of us, they rely on the VA for at least some of their health care, yet I heard those two attack socialized medicine.
I like to confront Republicans on that score. I often tell them that Democrats once spent money like drunken sailors but that Republicans now spend money like drunken Democrats.
My concern with the American form of capitalism is that it seems the health of the system is dependent upon continual growth. There is constant referrals to GDP and that if we can create MORE jobs we can produce MORE product and then sell MORE stuff to other countries, etc. With the realization that we live on a relatively small rock with finite and actually dwindling resources the idea of MORE cannot be sustained indefinitely into the future. Our civilization has huge problems we are starting to realize, water and environmental pollution being two of them. The use and discard way of life in the USA is not sustainable. Eventually huge changes will become necessary.
The productivity of America's workforce has went way up in the last twenty five years. But look at the wage scale in relation. It remains a flat line on the chart. Capitalism is not compassionate.
Socialism appeals to me in the sense that the lust and greed of capitalism and it's desire for more could be put into check. Living in a society where we meet the individual basic needs of our citizenry, protecting our environment by wisely using it's resources, and controlling population growth. Unfortunately the lust for power and dominion over others and the subsequent killing of innocents is the reality we must face.
Ah, brilliant. I'll have to watch that episode! A Republican nightmare, and my dream come true :)
He did turn out to be insightful in a negotiation with the Romulans; some skills carry over just fine.
I agree completely. People forget (or ignore) the fact that unrestrained capitalism will inevitably lead to waste, and also the depletion of many resources. If we're all moderate and conservative (in the literal sense, not the political), we can preserve our resources and the ecosystems that we affect. I'm just not sure humans can totally override their instinct to procreate and dominate. They feel it's an inherent right to have babies, and as many as they want. I can imagine the outcry if our government made one little people about only allowing each family two children. Wow. They'd go nuts.
Pay people to be voluntarily sterilized. Paying several thousand would be a bargain in the long term.