Converation thread

“When you tax people who produce, you’re encouraging them not to produce.”

It's important to consider that taxation isn't inherently discouraging production. When we look at the Scandinavian countries, which have relatively high tax rates, we see that they are still prosperous and productive. These countries use their tax revenue to fund robust social programs, ensuring a strong safety net for their citizens, and in turn, this creates a more stable and equal society.

An example of this balance is Sweden. Despite having high taxes, Sweden maintains a strong economy and a high standard of living. The taxes collected are used to provide a range of services,…  Read more such as free healthcare, education, and affordable housing, which benefit all citizens and contribute to a more equitable society.

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on how countries like Sweden manage to maintain economic productivity and a high standard of living despite high taxes. Can you think of an alternate solution that would provide similar benefits without the use of taxation?

First off, they are *NOT socialist nations. They are left-wing nations, but they are not socialist. They are just on their path to getting there. They are capitalistic in reality, which is why what they do actually works. The only successes they have enjoyed are due to trade with other nations and capitalistic areas of their economy whereas wherever they have implemented far-left policies like the ones here they have failed. In fact, in many ways Scananavia is LESS socialist than America is because they don't let BLM drug-addicts riot through the streets, the actually put people in priso…  Read moren and make them stay there. They make hefty profits off of the same oil you demonize in America. The whole thing is like comparing apples to oranges. You can't. In some areas they are MUCH tot he right of us and others slightly to the Left. So in short your comparison is meaningless and not an example of true socialism.

Indeed, it's crucial to realize that the success of these Scandinavian countries can be attributed to their free-market economy and strong emphasis on the rule of law. One example is Norway, which has a thriving oil industry that contributes significantly to its GDP. This industry operates in a competitive environment, which ultimately benefits the country and its citizens.

Moreover, these countries have created policies that encourage entrepreneurship and innovation, which are key drivers of economic growth. It's interesting to note that they have managed to strike a balance betwe…  Read moreen maintaining a competitive economy and implementing social welfare policies.

What are your thoughts on how the United States can learn from the Scandinavian model to foster economic growth and promote social welfare without resorting to full-blown socialism?

There should be no "democratic socialism," first of all because democracy and socialism are actually opposites. It's like saying "free tyranny," or "peaceful Nazism" -- they cannot exist in the same sentence. And, Sweden and Scandinavia are, true successful, but not because they have a few liberal policies. What made them successful was that they have certain policies in place to encourage business and innovation, while they have some that don't. This doesn't mean they should our models for America, especially when you consider that their success…  Read more is NOTHING compared to Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge's ROARING TWENTIES, a period of unprecedented prosperity brought about by the strongest free market principles in human history. And, before you tell me that those collapsed because of overproduction of goods, let me tell you that that is actually false in every way. They collapsed because the RINO (Republican In Name Only) President Herbert Hoover passed the Smoot-Hawley tariff, a dramatic increase in taxes on imported goods, despite 1000 economic begging him not to, which caused the Stock Market Crash (an event that only affected one percent of the population that had invested on Wall Street) to a Recession. (In fact, the economy was showing signs of improving once more when the Smoot-Hawley tariff was signed into law). Then, because the economic damage of the Tariff that was borne of his big-government policies, Hoover attempted to do even more federally for people, which resulted in even worse of an economic situation than ever before. If he had sat back and done nothing, we must remember, the depression would have lasted approximately once month!

While you make a strong case for the importance of free market principles, it's important to consider that democratic socialism is not inherently opposed to democracy. It is a different approach to achieving a more equitable society, one that combines aspects of socialism and capitalism. For example, countries like Denmark and Finland have implemented democratic socialist policies, such as universal healthcare and free education, while still maintaining a market economy. These countries consistently rank high in terms of happiness, equality, and quality of life.

One could argue that the…  Read more Roaring Twenties, though a time of great economic growth, also led to significant social and economic inequality. The vast wealth accumulated by a few individuals during that time period did not trickle down to the majority of the population, and the economic boom eventually led to the Great Depression.

It's also worth noting that Franklin D. Roosevelt's policies, including the New Deal, are widely credited with helping to pull the country out of the Great Depression and alleviating the suffering of millions of Americans. Programs like the Civilian Conservation Corps and the Social Security Act provided much-needed support to those who were struggling, and laid the groundwork for the modern welfare state.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on how we can achieve a more equitable society without some form of social safety net or progressive policies aimed at addressing income inequality. Can you provide an example of a purely free market system that has successfully addressed these issues?

Okay, that's quite a long response you made, so I'll dismantle it systematically. Alright, first off there is no such thing as "democratic socialism." That's like saying "tyrannical freedom," or "bright black" or "Dark white" or "cold hot." They are opposites.

Next let's attack your Scandinavian argument. It's crucial to note that these countries, like I have said *SO* many times, are to the left of us on some things and to the right of us on others. So they are actually closer to centrism than socialism. Also, their…  Read more universal healthcare is complete crap because you can't even choose your own doctor -- you're told which one to visit by the State -- so organic people like me who prefer to see naturopath doctors who actually delve into the root cause of the problem instead of poisoning you with pharmaceutical "vaccines" and toxic medicines would sure be in a rut. And as for their "equality" and "quality of life" -- there's no comparison to the roaring twenties.

It's important to consider that democratic socialism is not a contradiction in terms, but rather a blending of ideas. It seeks to combine the best aspects of socialism and democracy to create a more equitable and compassionate society.

Regarding the Scandinavian countries, while they may not be purely socialist, they have successfully adopted social welfare policies that have led to better quality of life for their citizens. Their healthcare systems, for example, provide coverage to everyone, ensuring that no one is left without access to care. While you may have concerns about the doc…  Read moretor selection, it's important to remember that the overall goal is to provide healthcare for everyone, which is a noble pursuit.

As for the Roaring Twenties, it's true that there was a period of economic growth, but it ultimately led to the Great Depression. While some may not have cared about income inequality at the time, it's crucial to consider the long-term consequences of such disparities. It's also essential to recognize that the rich becoming richer does not always translate to better wages and opportunities for the working class.

It's clear that you have concerns about the New Deal, but it's important to remember that many Americans at the time were suffering and needed support. While some jobs may have been lost due to increased taxes, millions of people were given hope and a chance to recover from the devastation of the Great Depression.

In conclusion, I'd like to invite you to consider an alternate perspective: Can you think of a time when adopting more progressive policies has led to a better quality of life for the majority of people? I encourage you to come up with a counter argument or solution that addresses the need for a more equitable society while still promoting economic growth.

Let's, again, go at this systematically. As for democratic socialism not being "a contradiction in terms, but rather a blending of idea," that's false. In reality democratic socialism is a term that socialists use to mask their communism and make it more acceptable to the general public since most Americans are still hostile to the word communism. Also a more equitable and compassionate society has NEVER, EVER been created by Socialism because in order for it to work it requires a perfection of human nature -- which is impossible. It puts its entire trust and its entire…  Read more hope into the arms of the government, enslaving a blind population of sheeple to the cold, hard chains of government dependence. It's never worked and it never will. Rather than, as you put a "more equitable and compassionate society," socialism has unconditionally and always lead to racism, bigotry, and an Orwellian police state that censors all those who dare to oppose it.

While I understand your concerns about democratic socialism, it's important to recognize that it's not equivalent to communism. Democratic socialism seeks a balance between the benefits of socialism and the democratic values that many of us hold dear, such as individual freedom and equality. It's essential not to judge an entire ideology based on the actions of a few individuals or regimes.

It's possible to create a more equitable and compassionate society without resorting to totalitarianism or oppression. For example, policies like universal healthcare, affordable housi…  Read moreng, and free education can help reduce poverty and improve quality of life for everyone, not just the wealthy.

Regarding wealth inequality, I agree that wealth creation is essential, but it's also crucial to ensure that everyone has access to opportunities and resources to succeed. A more equitable distribution of wealth can contribute to a more stable and prosperous society, which benefits everyone in the long run.

As for the Great Depression and FDR's policies, it's essential to consider the context in which these policies were implemented. At the time, millions of Americans were suffering, and many credit the New Deal for providing much-needed relief and support. While not all aspects of the New Deal may have been perfect, it's crucial to remember that it was created in response to an unprecedented crisis.

“Democratic socialism seeks a balance between the benefits of socialism and the democratic values that many of us hold dear, such as individual freedom and equality.”

That's what's concerning -- a "balance" between freedom and tyranny? Heck no thank you! I prize my liberties too dearly to give them up for any government benefit! As Ben Franklin said, "He who would trade precious liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety." And Patrick Henry said, "beware encroachments on the public liberty! Guard with jealous attention against anyone who dares approach that jewel!"

It's important to understand that seeking a balance between socialism and democracy does not mean trading freedom for tyranny. The goal is to create a society where everyone has equal opportunities and access to essential services, such as healthcare and education, without compromising individual liberties.

For instance, consider the case of public libraries. They are a government-provided service that enables access to knowledge and resources for everyone, regardless of their income. Public libraries do not restrict individual freedom; instead, they enhance it by providing equal opportunities for personal growth and development.

I encourage you to reflect on this example and provide a counter-argument or solution that addresses the need for a more equitable society while maintaining individual liberties.

I think libraries should be privatized because if you look at them they're only buying woke, Politically Correct books to indoctrinate the population. No service, even libraries, are free because we pay for them with taxes. We'd get the same thing for the same price except with better books and service field by competition if there were private libraries that we paid a subscription fee to.

While I understand your concerns about the selection of books in public libraries, it's important to remember that libraries serve diverse communities with varying interests and perspectives. Public libraries have a responsibility to provide a wide range of materials, including those that may not align with everyone's beliefs or preferences. The goal is to promote intellectual freedom and provide access to information for all.

It's also worth mentioning that privatizing libraries and implementing subscription fees could exacerbate existing social inequalities by limiting acces…  Read mores to knowledge and resources for those who cannot afford to pay. Public libraries, funded by taxes, ensure that everyone has the opportunity to access information, regardless of their financial situation.

A specific example of the importance of public libraries is their role in bridging the digital divide. Many individuals, particularly those from low-income communities, rely on libraries for access to computers and the internet, which are crucial for education, job searching, and staying connected in our increasingly digital world.

In light of this example, I encourage you to consider the potential consequences of privatizing libraries and propose a solution that ensures equal access to information and resources while addressing your concerns about book selection.