Socialism - those that live under that rule are desperately trying to escape it

[SebastianHolt]

You were asked to back up your claims and you've pivoted to abuse.

Not a great look

my points are common sense, which you lack. can't help that nor you

 

[Quimpossibility]

my points are common sense, which you lack. can't help that nor you

Common sense isn't an argument. Whether or not I lack it is irrelevant. You remain incapable of defending your own claims while shouting and insulting anyone that doens't agree with you. You're a cult member.

 

[SebastianHolt]

because if you can't see the truth in what I say, then you are fucking stupid and not worth my time

do I need a source to say 2+2=4

 

[PaxNurgle]

Again, when people say "Socialism" they mean the authoritarian, single ruler with an iron fist, brand of socialism that is now in place in North Korea or other similar countries. Nobody wants that.

Nobody wants an autocratic, iron-fisted rule, ultra-nationalist capitalist state either though; that's what people are missing here. In both cases, people suffer from lack of personal freedom and general lack of prosperity.

A model like that of some of the Scandanavian countries is workable; there, the government owns many industries and buisnesses, and private industry is more tightly regulated than in the United States, but free enterprise and capitalism does exist alongside of it, and more importantly, the people still have the same (if not actually MORE) personal liberty than in the United States (especially right now.)

 

[Wilson23]

Again, when people say "Socialism" they mean the authoritarian, single ruler with an iron fist, brand of socialism that is now in place in North Korea or other similar countries. Nobody wants that.

Nobody wants an autocratic, iron-fisted rule, ultra-nationalist capitalist state either though; that's what people are missing here. In both cases, people suffer from lack of personal freedom and general lack of prosperity.

A model like that of some of the Scandanavian countries is workable; there, the government owns many industries and buisnesses, and private industry is more tightly regulated than in the United States, but free enterprise and capitalism does exist alongside of it, and more importantly, the people still have the same (if not actually MORE) personal liberty than in the United States (especially right now.)

Possibly because more widespread prosperity means less crime, therefore less incarceration.
https://forum.literotica.com/thread...-worse-problem-in-america-than-crime.1652228/

 

[JohnEngelman]

100% TRUTHView attachment 2606773

They are not escaping Scandinavian Social Democracy.

 

[subdudeme13]

Are sewage systems socialist or water plants? They are government run and serve all the people, rich and poor. What about highways and streets. Airports? Police departments, they are socialist. Oh! Social Security is definitly socialist.

 

[PaxNurgle]

I find it sad and ironic that some of the same people who rail against "Socialism" are also passionate about the government taking over all news media, and censoring or even arresting journalists that don't tow the party line, or serve as a propaganda mouthpiece for the government. Rightguide, Dan O'Keefe/Hisarpy/PersonalFavors/etc, Busybody, and Ann Tagonist are by far the worst offenders in this respect. Well guess what folks; when the government controls all news media, that's socialism. And of course, these people are perfectly fine with it in this case.

In my own state, the government owns and controlls all liquor stores. By definition, Government control of commerce= socialism. I point this out to my elected representatives and they will simply answer "Yeah but blah-de-blah-de-blah, socialism is fine in that instance."

 

[Cat]

I find it sad and ironic that some of the same people who rail against "Socialism" are also passionate about the government taking over all news media, and censoring or even arresting journalists that don't tow the party line, or serve as a propaganda mouthpiece for the government. Rightguide, Dan O'Keefe/Hisarpy/PersonalFavors/etc, Busybody, and Ann Tagonist are by far the worst offenders in this respect. Well guess what folks; when the government controls all news media, that's socialism. And of course, these people are perfectly fine with it in this case.

In my own state, the government owns and controlls all liquor stores. By definition, Government control of commerce= socialism. I point this out to my elected representatives and they will simply answer "Yeah but blah-de-blah-de-blah, socialism is fine in that instance."

Selective socialism?

People are weird.

 

[SebastianHolt]

Again, when people say "Socialism" they mean the authoritarian, single ruler with an iron fist, brand of socialism that is now in place in North Korea or other similar countries. Nobody wants that.

Nobody wants an autocratic, iron-fisted rule, ultra-nationalist capitalist state either though; that's what people are missing here. In both cases, people suffer from lack of personal freedom and general lack of prosperity.

A model like that of some of the Scandanavian countries is workable; there, the government owns many industries and buisnesses, and private industry is more tightly regulated than in the United States, but free enterprise and capitalism does exist alongside of it, and more importantly, the people still have the same (if not actually MORE) personal liberty than in the United States (especially right now.)

Scandinavian countries - their citizens are not like Americans. We have generations that live off welfare and government housing. I don't think you will find that over there