I did put out a provocative hypothesis, didn't I? It's too bad you took it personally, but really I was using a word you brought into the conversation.

Your point about some citizens will always be more equal than others (the variation in ownership) is one I would not argue. It's common sense. However, that wasn't the point.

You put forth a scenario about what the country would be like if Hillary had won, that we would be heading to increased statism and communism. Since only a tiny fraction of Americans are communist, I assumed you were speaking theoretically . If you think that most American liberals would accept a totalitarian state, you are quite mistaken.

I pointed out that in Marxist thought, the withering away of the state is an end goal. It's not that different from the conservative ideal of a minimalist state.

I don't think that either side will reach their goal of extermination or minimization of the state. I do agree with Loki that bureaucracies can be creaky, unresponsive, and even counter productive. It's in their nature and they do need shaking up once in a while. The 'State' itself will not diminish because it is a collective expression of power. The only real question is: who gets to use it and for what ends?

I'm under no illusions that the federal gov't will be reduced in power (shrunk financially) under a Trump Presidency or Republican Congress. Resources may be diverted, but they will be put to use for the services of what Tom Wolfe called the Masters of the Universe and the suppression of anyone who stands in their way. I eagerly await the savings from the budget cuts being put to use in cutting deficits and debt, but I won't hold my breath. I have a suspicion about where that money will end up.

In the pockets of the Masters and the US gov't more deeply debt to the Chinese. Both more alike than different.

"If you think that most American liberals would accept a totalitarian state, you are quite mistaken."

Query: If Liberals are so opposed to a totalitarian state, why do you unquestioningly support more and more and more government, which is the unfailing hallmark of a totalitarian state? You say you oppose totalitarianism yet your efforts are all toward putting in place the one mechanism that makes this form of repression possible. What the hell do you think is going to happen? Do you ACTUALLY think that AUTHORITY, once in place and all powerful, is going to just magically become both omniscient and utterly benevolent? If you do, I'd like the name of your drug dealer. I haven't had a good hallucination in decades.

I did put out a provocative hypothesis, didn't I? It's too bad you took it personally, but really I was using a word you brought into the conversation.

Your point about some citizens will always be more equal than others (the variation in ownership) is one I would not argue. It's common sense. However, that wasn't the point.

You put forth a scenario about what the country would be like if Hillary had won, that we would be heading to increased statism and communism. Since only a tiny fraction of Americans are communist, I assumed you were speaking theoretically . If you think that most American liberals would accept a totalitarian state, you are quite mistaken.

I pointed out that in Marxist thought, the withering away of the state is an end goal. It's not that different from the conservative ideal of a minimalist state.

I don't think that either side will reach their goal of extermination or minimization of the state. I do agree with Loki that bureaucracies can be creaky, unresponsive, and even counter productive. It's in their nature and they do need shaking up once in a while. The 'State' itself will not diminish because it is a collective expression of power. The only real question is: who gets to use it and for what ends?

I'm under no illusions that the federal gov't will be reduced in power (shrunk financially) under a Trump Presidency or Republican Congress. Resources may be diverted, but they will be put to use for the services of what Tom Wolfe called the Masters of the Universe and the suppression of anyone who stands in their way. I eagerly await the savings from the budget cuts being put to use in cutting deficits and debt, but I won't hold my breath. I have a suspicion about where that money will end up.

In the pockets of the Masters and the US gov't more deeply debt to the Chinese. Both more alike than different.

"If you think that most American liberals would accept a totalitarian state, you are quite mistaken."

Query: If Liberals are so opposed to a totalitarian state, why do you unquestioningly support more and more and more government, which is the unfailing hallmark of a totalitarian state? You say you oppose totalitarianism yet your efforts are all toward putting in place the one mechanism that makes this form of repression possible. What the hell do you think is going to happen? Do you ACTUALLY think that AUTHORITY, once in place and all powerful, is going to just magically become both omniscient and utterly benevolent? If you do, I'd like the name of your drug dealer. I haven't had a good hallucination in decades.

It is not that we support unquestioningly more and more government. We just happen to support different policies than conservatives. The alleged increase in government that we support is not true. The federal govt takes about the same share of the economy now as in 1950, give or take a few percentage points, excepting the 2008 recession.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/government-spending-to-gdp
http://taxfoundation.org/short-history-government-taxing-and-spending-united-states/

As for supporting 'the one mechanism that makes this form of oppression possible', I have a different take on that. The govt is the only institution in which I have a voice, no matter how small. All other power centers are beyond my control. I do not fear, on principle, the voice of the people. I fear more the institutions that couldn't care less about what I think.