Another somewhat simple question.

[resident_evil]

In the land of free men and women. A place of making choices under your own free will. Why does the whole nation have to live in a commune? Why are free men and women compelled to join?

Isn't it more natural and right for people of like minds to choose to move in together and form communes that people can choose to join or not?

Isn't the first, compelled commune living, a tyranny? Isn't the second, choosing to join a commune, the more just construct for a society.

A commune can exist within a Republic but a Republic cannot exist within a commune.

 

[connieb]

In the land of free men and women. A place of making choices under your own free will. Why does the whole nation have to live in a commune? Why are free men and women compelled to join?

Isn't it more natural and right for people of like minds to choose to move in together and form communes that people can choose to join or not?

Isn't the first, compelled commune living, a tyranny? Isn't the second, choosing to join a commune, the more just construct for a society.

A commune can exist within a Republic but a Republic cannot exist within a commune.

I think our Founders knew that this ( living in and around like minded people) was both a more desirable way for people to live - and also our natural inclination which is why they gave individual states so much autonomy. The fact that states would honor their various cultural differences and that it would be like traveling to a variety of different little countries that shared a currency, some common defense and roads was actually the most harmonious way to live. I think in many ways they sort of envisioned our country much like the European Union is today. Band together when necessary and have your own set of rules within your own borders.

connie

 

[Arkady]

In the land of free men and women. A place of making choices under your own free will. Why does the whole nation have to live in a commune? Why are free men and women compelled to join?

Isn't it more natural and right for people of like minds to choose to move in together and form communes that people can choose to join or not?

Isn't the first, compelled commune living, a tyranny? Isn't the second, choosing to join a commune, the more just construct for a society.

A commune can exist within a Republic but a Republic cannot exist within a commune.

Has someone proposed turning the US into commune, where all goods are held in common? If not, what, exactly, are you on about?

 

[Arkady]

I think our Founders knew that this ( living in and around like minded people) was both a more desirable way for people to live - and also our natural inclination which is why they gave individual states so much autonomy. The fact that states would honor their various cultural differences and that it would be like traveling to a variety of different little countries that shared a currency, some common defense and roads was actually the most harmonious way to live. I think in many ways they sort of envisioned our country much like the European Union is today. Band together when necessary and have your own set of rules within your own borders.

connie

The main reason the envisioned a country where each state could have its own set of rules is that a lot of them had a huge amount of wealth tied up in human property, and didn't like the idea of those slaves getting any rights.

 

[resident_evil]

Has someone proposed turning the US into commune, where all goods are held in common? If not, what, exactly, are you on about?

You can play dumb but it doesn't change how and what Democrats want to legislate. And what the results of those legislated policies will be.

 

[resident_evil]

I think our Founders knew that this ( living in and around like minded people) was both a more desirable way for people to live - and also our natural inclination which is why they gave individual states so much autonomy. The fact that states would honor their various cultural differences and that it would be like traveling to a variety of different little countries that shared a currency, some common defense and roads was actually the most harmonious way to live. I think in many ways they sort of envisioned our country much like the European Union is today. Band together when necessary and have your own set of rules within your own borders.

connie

I think so too. It is not that I think we couldn't modify that vision given some modern realities such as a shrinking world in regards to say travel, but those changes need not go as far as they have gone. I think the consent of the governed is changing because today's politcal leadership is not up to the job.

 

[Arkady]

You can play dumb but it doesn't change how and what Democrats want to legislate. And what the results of those legislated policies will be.

What Democrats want is what exists in every single major nation on earth that has ever acheived a high level of general prosperity: a hybrid system with a basis of market capitalism, and an overlay of government regulation and spending to address the shortfalls of market capitalism. The US has been that kind of hybrid system at least since the New Deal (with, for example, the WPA, Social Security, SEC, etc.). All the other major wealthy nations are also hybrid systems. That's the well-known winning formula. The only honest disagreement is about the exact formula for combining those things -- the propotions of market capitalism and socialistic intervention, and which predominates over various matters.

Think of it in terms of metallurgy. Steel is a combination of iron and carbon, often with various trace elements. An engineer can believe that a particular function will be better served by high-carbon steel than by iron without that meaning he wants to try to build something out of pure coal. The recipe is key. In the same way, a social engineer can believe a particular societal goal can be better served by a more socialized market solution without him thinking that we'd be better off with outright communism. The problem so many right-wingers have is their black-and-white mentality, that insists that somehow purity is the goal, rather than function. A pure iron bridge may be better than a pure carbon bridge, but a steel one is better than either.

 

[resident_evil]

What Democrats want is what exists in every single major nation on earth that has ever acheived a high level of general prosperity: a hybrid system with a basis of market capitalism, and an overlay of government regulation and spending to address the shortfalls of market capitalism. The US has been that kind of hybrid system at least since the New Deal (with, for example, the WPA, Social Security, SEC, etc.). All the other major wealthy nations are also hybrid systems. That's the well-known winning formula. The only honest disagreement is about the exact formula for combining those things -- the propotions of market capitalism and socialistic intervention, and which predominates over various matters.

Think of it in terms of metallurgy. Steel is a combination of iron and carbon, often with various trace elements. An engineer can believe that a particular function will be better served by high-carbon steel than by iron without that meaning he wants to try to build something out of pure coal. The recipe is key. In the same way, a social engineer can believe a particular societal goal can be better served by a more socialized market solution without him thinking that we'd be better off with outright communism. The problem so many right-wingers have is their black-and-white mentality, that insists that somehow purity is the goal, rather than function. A pure iron bridge may be better than a pure carbon bridge, but a steel one is better than either.

What the other nations have proven is that nations have to have some socialism but the by far larger part of an economy has to be capitalist in order to pay for the socialism.

We are financially and they are financially in deep trouble because of the socialism already on the books.

 

[Arkady]

What the other nations have proven is that nations have to have some socialism but the by far larger part of an economy has to be capitalist in order to pay for the socialism.

We are financially and they are financially in deep trouble because of the socialism already on the books.

It's hard to measure this meaningfully, but the easiest measure I've come up with is comparing various nations by total taxation as a share of GDP. By that measure, all the world's wealthy nations have taxation of between around 1/4 and just under 1/2 of GDP, with Denmark being at the high end and the US being at the low end. The average is just a little over 1/3, among those wealthy nations. So, that suggests a capitalist/socialist structure, where capitalism should be in the majority, but where the sweet spot seems to be a bit over 1/3 socialist.

Lest you think the countries with lots of socialism are in terrible financial condition, Germany is one with much higher taxation (37%, compared to 24% for the US), and I think most people would argue it's on more sustainable grounds than the US (e.g., a massive trade surplus, rather than a massive trade deficit,and a small budget surplus, rather than a massive budget deficit). Norway has 41% taxation, and is considerably richer than the US, with a massive budget surplus.

Personally, I don't think US taxes need to rise that much, if we can just get over our absurd desire to outspend the rest of the world on military toys by such margins. But if we're going to be pissing away that kind of money on such unproductive baubles for the generals, then a big tax hike is in order.

 

[connieb]

The main reason the envisioned a country where each state could have its own set of rules is that a lot of them had a huge amount of wealth tied up in human property, and didn't like the idea of those slaves getting any rights.

Yes, and? I will say you are only partially correct. Most people in the other colonies didn't want those people getting rights either - so it had nothing to do with rights. But, many slave owners did have a large part of their net worth not to mention their way of life tied up in slavery and that is not something people are willing to give up or change easily. As usual politicians though - they were happy to use and molify those slave owners while it was politically expedient to do so, then turned back on every promise they have ever made when the tide changed.


connie

 

[resident_evil]

It's hard to measure this meaningfully, but the easiest measure I've come up with is comparing various nations by total taxation as a share of GDP. By that measure, all the world's wealthy nations have taxation of between around 1/4 and just under 1/2 of GDP, with Denmark being at the high end and the US being at the low end. The average is just a little over 1/3, among those wealthy nations. So, that suggests a capitalist/socialist structure, where capitalism should be in the majority, but where the sweet spot seems to be a bit over 1/3 socialist.

Lest you think the countries with lots of socialism are in terrible financial condition, Germany is one with much higher taxation (37%, compared to 24% for the US), and I think most people would argue it's on more sustainable grounds than the US (e.g., a massive trade surplus, rather than a massive trade deficit,and a small budget surplus, rather than a massive budget deficit). Norway has 41% taxation, and is considerably richer than the US, with a massive budget surplus.

Personally, I don't think US taxes need to rise that much, if we can just get over our absurd desire to outspend the rest of the world on military toys by such margins. But if we're going to be pissing away that kind of money on such unproductive baubles for the generals, then a big tax hike is in order.

So are you comparing apples to apples? Not really is the answer.

Did you add up all the State taxes and State debt to Federal taxes and Federal debt to get the grand total for comparison with Germany?

Given that Germany takes advantage of its position in the EU to feed their economic prowess maybe you should compare the entire EU economic data to all the UNITED States economic data? I think you'd find that a better comparison.

Please come back with actual comparable data. But just as a side note Norway is rich because of a small population that lives off of enormous (but dwindling resource) oil wealth. Not only that but Europe has heavily relied on Pax Americana and even so their socialist systems are unable to really service their population w/o real rationing.

What we've learned is that your generosity with other people's money is not a sustainable paradigm.

 

[Mytzlplk]

Has someone proposed turning the US into commune, where all goods are held in common? If not, what, exactly, are you on about?

I'd say it's a pointless platitude. It's really nothing more than the claim of a "rugged individualist" to be free from the tyranny of the society in which it like all the rest of us, is dependent on.

These "Grisly Adams" types always exaggerate with things like commune. It may strike the right chord in their fellow travelers, but sounds pretty stupid to the rest of us.

 

[resident_evil]

I'd say it's a pointless platitude. It's really nothing more than the claim of a "rugged individualist" to be free from the tyranny of the society in which it like all the rest of us, is dependent on.

These "Grisly Adams" types always exaggerate with things like commune. It may strike the right chord in their fellow travelers, but sounds pretty stupid to the rest of us.

It is a piss poor characterization. Nobody claimed that a society of Grisly Adams are not interdependent with each other for greater success. The claim is that tick parasites need to be pulled and tossed in the fire. If the description fits, the question is what genus of tick is a mytzplk?

 

[Mytzlplk]

I'd say it's a pointless platitude. It's really nothing more than the claim of a "rugged individualist" to be free from the tyranny of the society in which it like all the rest of us, is dependent on.

These "Grisly Adams" types always exaggerate with things like commune. It may strike the right chord in their fellow travelers, but sounds pretty stupid to the rest of us.

and as you can see, the poor thing simply moved from the common rugged individualist BS to another common claim from that type -- that the poor choose to be poor, etc, although it's not often we see that Nazi-like solution of tossing them into the fire voiced as it was.

I was gonna add at the end of my last comment "and particularly those of us far more concerned about the fascist/corporatist takeover of our democracy that this kind seems to wholly support", but I didn't think it was warranted at the time, but certainly do now.

 

[resident_evil]

and as you can see, the poor thing simply moved from the common rugged individualist BS to another common claim from that type -- that the poor choose to be poor, etc, although it's not often we see that Nazi-like solution of tossing them into the fire voiced as it was.

I was gonna add at the end of my last comment "and particularly those of us far more concerned about the fascist/corporatist takeover of our democracy that this kind seems to wholly support", but I didn't think it was warranted at the time, but certainly do now.

Socialist like you are the true National Socialist German Workers Party kindred spirits. You make unaffordable populist social promises and when you can't deliver you go all authoritarian totalitarian on the rest of us. You support the government that subsumes the individual to the greater good. We support Republics that enshrine Individual Bill of Rights that protect the individual from the State and the masses. And in the end we are all individuals.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

In the land of free men and women. A place of making choices under your own free will. Why does the whole nation have to live in a commune? Why are free men and women compelled to join?

Isn't it more natural and right for people of like minds to choose to move in together and form communes that people can choose to join or not?

Isn't the first, compelled commune living, a tyranny? Isn't the second, choosing to join a commune, the more just construct for a society.

A commune can exist within a Republic but a Republic cannot exist within a commune.

You live in a commune?

Do you all run around naked, smoke dope, and have random sex with wild abandon?

;-)

 

[resident_evil]

You live in a commune?

Do you all run around naked, smoke dope, and have random sex with wild abandon?

;-)

Has that been your experience so far :0)