JohnCorrespondent

What if you see a Chevy Volt, without any bumper stickers -- how would you react to that one?

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

It might be more accurate to say that those not receiving welfare spend154% more on entertainment...

JohnCorrespondent

I have a car that gets really good gas mileage, but I throw out a smoke bomb every few miles to make up the difference. Just to keep up my street creds. I live in a Republican Conservative neighborhood.

JohnCorrespondent

No, what you call a troll had made a relatively thoughtful post. You and Archie call such "lecturing" but it's a lot better than telling people to "f**k off" which is what Archie did.

JohnCorrespondent

Just possibly that's what they intended to say. But if so, they certainly failed to say it clearly.

In case it's still relevant, "A" spending 154% more than "B" is not the same as "B" spending 154% less than A. Numbers don't work that way (except where A and B each spend zero dollars).

JohnCorrespondent

And Hug wrote "Bernie and his crowd of communist followers."

The question I had posed was:

"It depends on what the phrase "our government" means. For me, "our government" is supposed to be a carefully designed system of Separated Powers and Checks and Balances. Who, today, tends toward overthrowing _that_ system?"

The best example of a present-day American eroding the system of Separated Powers and Checks and Balances is Trump. This is because Trump (1) assumes too many rights for himself, which don't belong to the Presidency, and (2) despises Congress's role in overseeing the Executive Branch.

(1) violates the Separation of Powers concept.

(2) violates the Checks and Balances concept.

According to the article https://politicaledu.org/2017/08/14/donald-trump-hates-constitutional-separation-powers/ Trump said:

"... As President, I can make far better deals with foreign countries than Congress.”

The article explains:

"... [When] he touts his unilateral ability to make better deals than all of Congress, [he] fundamentally attacks the separation of powers and seeks to delegitimize Congress, its ability, and its lawmaking authority.

"The Founding Fathers gave Congress, especially the Senate, broad authority over legislative affairs, including foreign policy (there’s a reason the president must seek senatorial ratification for treaties). Congress has an explicit prerogative to regulate foreign commerce, a central component of foreign policy. Yet Trump’s words undermine the separation of powers by implying that he alone should be charged with foreign affairs and Congress should either cede to him all authority in that front or simply rubber-stamp all of his decisions. The words reek of contempt for Congress. He yearns for unilateral authority unchecked and unquestioned by another governing branch. In other words, he wants – and feels entitled to – a fundamental overhaul of the separation of powers simply because of his self-assumed greatness.

"Trump’s statement also seeks to delegitimize Congress by implying the body is incompetent when it comes to foreign affairs – and its incompetence means America is worse off than had Congress simply sat back and allowed Trump to work his magic. This implication serves only to undermine any actions taken by Congress by leading people to immediately doubt any congressional creation, especially when it comes to foreign relations. Why should I trust Congress when the president himself has said the body is ineffectual when it comes to making deals? Why not just let Trump make deals and pass legislation? Why bother with Congress at all?"

I think you can see a lot of similarity between Trump's behaviors and the article's description.

The U.S. is vulnerable to losing its Democratic Republic form of government (not all at once, but more as in erosion). This is not just Trump's fault, of course. However, Trump especially exacerbates Americans' ignorance of how and why American governmental institutions guard against an autocratic, king-like assumption of power:

In a democracy it is important that the public be well-informed, to understand why our government was formed in the way it is, so they can uphold and support it by discussing and voting intelligently. But Trump mis-educates Americans. In addition to the above example about foreign policy, another example of this mis-educating is how Trump recently:

"... falsely designated himself the "chief law-enforcement officer of the United States" while speaking with reporters on Tuesday.

"Attorney General William Barr is the chief law-enforcement officer of the US.

"[...] The attorney general also said his main responsibility was to make sure the DOJ is free from political interference." [such as interference from Trump who already has a biased interest in the case, and who also doesn't even have a law degree]

(https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-declares-himself-chief-law-enforcement-officer-barr-doj-2020-2)

I don't mean to portray these as absolute ideas. There may be rare occasions when a President might have a good reason to interfere in the DOJ, probably after carefully consulting with legal advisors first. Trump's a big problem because he carelessly tramples over the very idea that anything should be free from his influence.

A president, being in a seat of great power, should be circumspect and careful about exercising his influence in details such as, e.g., the sentencing of Roger Stone. This is to avoid or minimize any undue influence in cases. It is to maintain a justice system in which the people can be rightly confident that the laws are applied equally to all, not subject to the whims of a dictator.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Are you wearing shorts

JohnCorrespondent

I wonder whether the original poster is still here to see your reply.

Upon reading what you wrote, I think: some regulation is good; of course excessive regulation is bad by definition; and regarding liberty, there will always be some balancing between liberty and something else (e.g., security).

If socialism (or capitalism or crony capitalism or any other economic system) is administered by a dictatorship or oligarchy, then of course it's probably going to be excessive and too destructive of liberty; and I'd use the word "dictatorship" or "oligarchy" to identify that problem.

Some people believe that "socialism" cannot exist without "dictatorship".

If "democratic socialism" exists or can exist, it's extremely different from "dictatorial socialism".

Bernie Sanders obviously believes _democratic_socialism_ exists or can exist. So do an increasing number of other people in the U.S. (Of course, something like it does exist as _part_ of our current system in the U.S. -- but Americans haven't liked to call it socialism because so many of them have been taught that the very word represents an evil or some other kind of wrongness -- never mind thinking about whatever the word actually means.)

A more fully-embraced democratic socialism may be happening right now in some countries, such as, for example, some Northern European countries ("Scandinavian" countries). If so, they would laugh at the blindness of many Americans failing to see their systems.

In the U.S. we have a mixture of socialist-like things and capitalist-like things, and mixtures of other things. We have a mixture of free trade and tariffs, for example, so we don't have pure free trade and we don't have entirely regulated trade; we have a mixture.

I think you're right about crony capitalism being the problem currently in the U.S. I had thought it was some kind of "fascism" but "crony capitalism"'s probably the more accurate term.

Mr. Rogers

The Democrats are using mass media, our schools, and our political system to induce voters to embrace socialistic ideologies without the capitalistic base that is required to sustain our economy. A change in social philosophy requires a national awareness of who God is or a change in the definition of God.

JohnCorrespondent

Usually a mention of God simply makes a discussion less meaningful. But if you can give a good definition of God, maybe it will work this time.

If you leave out the words "Democrats", "socialistic", and "capitalistic base that is required to sustain our economy", and substitute more general terms, then your first sentence would surely be true. Like this:

Some people are using mass media, our schools, and our political system to induce voters to embrace ideologies without a good base of understanding.

It's not surprising that "Democrats" AND "Republicans" and "Liberals" and "Conservatives" and most people whenever they get a chance will: use mass media, schools, & our political system to induce voters to embrace ideologies without a good base of understanding.

When I was in high school in rural America near the middle of the U.S., back in the late 1960s, a significant part of our political, economic, and history education amounted to little more than teaching us to shun "communism" and "socialism" (but without teaching us why) and was reinforcing our natural tendency to think the society we were born into, with its economic philosophy, brand of religion, form of government, and pretty much everything else about the society we were born into, was the best in the world, and all other countries had at best only a pale imitation of our ideas and our capabilities (but without teaching us why nor even how to figure out any of this for ourselves).

(I do remember another part, which was one semester of Civics, from which I remember a few ideas such as separation of powers and checks and balances.)

Don't get me wrong about the "communism" and "socialism" part of that. Communism and socialism have often been associated with brutal, bad dictatorships. I could readily understand the idea that dictatorships are bad. That one has never seemed to need much explanation. But we weren't really taught what communism and socialism are; we've only been taught to conflate them with dictatorships; and that misses the point of what communism and socialism are really about.

Also, there are good arguments for & against "socialism" (etc.) AND good arguments for & against "capitalism" (etc.). It's just that we weren't _taught_ _those_ in any thoughtful way (if at all). Instead we were made to understand (without it being made explicit for us to examine and think about) which side was taboo in our society, which so far as we knew meant: which side was taboo in the entire universe (except maybe in an empire of evil -- that would be whichever side we weren't born into).

The situation with teaching ideologies without understanding is parodied well by George Orwell in Animal Farm:

"'Four legs good, two legs bad.' This, [Snowball] said, contained the essential principle of Animalism. ... [T]he sheep developed a great liking for this maxim ... (pp50-51)

"... [T]here would be no more debates.

"In spite of the shock that Snowball's expulsion had given them, the animals were dismayed by this announcement. Several of them would have protested if they could have found the right arguments. Even Boxer was vaguely troubled. He set his ears back, shook his forelock several times, and tried hard to marshal his thoughts; but in the end he could not think of anything to say. Some of the pigs themselves, however, were more articulate. Four young porkers in the front row uttered shrill squeals of disapproval, and all four of them sprang to their feet and began speaking at once. But suddenly the dogs sitting round Napoleon let out deep menacing growls, and the pigs fell silent and sat down again. Then the sheep broke out into a tremendous bleating of 'Four legs good, two legs bad!' which went on for nearly a quarter of an hour and put an end to any chance of discussion. (pp68-69)

"... 'If Comrade Napoleon says it, it must be right.' And from then on [Boxer] adopted the maxim, 'Napoleon is always right' ... (p70)

"[O]ut from the door of the farmhouse came a long file of pigs, all walking on their hind legs. ... [Napoleon] carried a whip in his trotter. ...

"... [I]n spite of their terror of the dogs, and of the habit, developed through long years, of never complaining, never criticizing ... [the animals] might have uttered some word of protest. But just at that moment, as though at a signal, all the sheep burst out into a tremendous bleating of --

"'Four legs good, two legs better! Four legs good, two legs better! ...'

"It went on for five minutes without stopping. And by the time the sheep had quieted down, the chance to utter any protest had passed, for the pigs had marched back into the farmhouse." (pp132-133)

Strycker Loc: The middle of somewhere else.

I suppose I am one of those who believes that “democratic socialism” will, by necessity, lead to a dictatorship in order to remain socialist. A system where one individual must be harmed in order for another to benefit is doomed to failure in a free country. Most people will choose to be on the side that benefits and not on the side being harmed. The leaders will have to force people to be harmed for the good of all and to sustain the socialist system. A dictatorship. The only choice other than a dictatorship is to revert back to capitalism.

The Scandinavian countries are slowly moving back to capitalism. Slowly decreasing promised benefits in order to encourage higher participation in a capitalist system. “Democratic socialism” will end either by slowly reversing course back to capitalism (Sweden) or by becoming a dictatorship (Venezuela), usually in a relatively short period of time. A few years.

The USA is a much larger and more diverse than Scandinavian countries. It will be more difficult and take much longer, if it is even possible, to reverse course once the promised socialist programs are established.

Socialist programs have a tendency to become larger and larger, by any means possible, to remain in power. Obamacare is a great example of that. Obamacare was not measured by improvement in healthcare, health care did not improve. Obamacare was not measured in a reduction in healthcare costs or insurance costs. Health care cost, insurance cost and deductibles only went up. Obamacare success was measured by how many people they could get to sign up for free insurance. How much they could grow dependence on a government program. And even failing that, some now want to push for “medicare for all” or "single payer" as a solution to Obamacare failure. A 11% medicare tax levy on middle class income plus many other regulations to force participation. To grow government by any means necessary.

On the other hand, capitalism will eventually result in crony capitalism perhaps leading to oligarchy or authoritarianism as corruption creeps in. There is only one solution to stemming national crony capitalism. It's not more consolidation of power in Washington as in “democratic socialism”. It's less centralized government. More local self rule. Local corruption, which is inevitable, is much easier to fight or leave than a powerful central government. The founders had it right.

We are no where close to fascism. Though many like to banter the word around to create division and promote identity politics.

JohnCorrespondent

Less centralized _power_ is an attractive concept. If the U.S. were to be broken up into a lot of sovereign states, we'd probably enjoy it until some other country were to attack us to start taking over parts of our land. At that time we'd wish for consolidated power of defense.

The U.S., with its benefit of consolidated power of defense against other countries' potential aggressions, has a government which was designed to guard against abuses of power. So the danger of consolidated power, intervening too much in our lives without our say-so, might be lessened, and the power would be retained by the People and by their faithful representatives in government. As you've probably noticed at one time or another, our government doesn't always live up to its original theory, or our People have failed to make it do so.

I think your fear of socialism (becoming a dictatorship) is misplaced, and would at least as appropriately be a fear of capitalism. Thank you for your recognition that capitalism also has its problems.

Strycker Loc: The middle of somewhere else.

10th Amendment “ The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” This pretty much covers defense along with foreign treaties and trade, immigration, regulate commerce and promote the general welfare. We are sovereign states or at least we are suppose to be. Much of that sovereignty has been conceded to the federal government in exchange for federal dollars under federal control.

I don't see how the power of defense against potential aggression leads to the power against abuse of power? From my perspective the federal government is already intervening too much in are lives without our say so because the 10th amendment prohibited any intervention beyond what the constitution delegated. The federal government has already failed to live up to the original theory. It has done so simple by redefining promote to mean provide and regulate commerce to mean regulate products.

Please explain to me how socialism over time does not lead to a dictatorship in order to be sustainable.

JohnCorrespondent

First, know that we (and probably most other countries) have long had some mixture of socialism and capitalism. It may happen (and seems to me likely to happen) that we will continue to have some mixture of socialism and capitalism.

If there is a blatantly unfair socialist system (anywhere in the world), then to continue as it is, it would need some form of oppression (which might be a dictatorship or it might be some other form of oppression) to prevent the people from stopping the unfairness. But this is a link between unfairness and oppression. This kind of link is not specific to socialism. _Any_ kind of unfairness over time would lead to some form of oppression in order to be sustainable as an unfair system.

We should wish that any unfair system should eventually be fixed or, if necessary, "overthrown".

With all those concepts in place, all that remains for answering your question is to examine socialism and any other system to see what kind(s) of unfairness are in it.

One definition of socialism (the one I heard from the person who answered the phone at a "Socialist" organization) is: a system in which the workers own the means of production. Do you see anything inherently unfair in that?

I have not called up any "Capitalist" organization to find out what their definition of capitalism is. Maybe you have. Meanwhile I'll try to make up a simple description of what capitalism is:

Capitalism is a system in which people who have capital are able to do things with that capital.

So which of those two systems is more likely to develop some big unfairness, such that we should eventually wish it to be fixed or, if necessary, "overthrown"? And why do you think so? Whichever system tends to develop a big unfairness is the system which would, over time, need some form of oppression to sustain it as it is.

For me, what happens with "land" illustrates an important difference between capitalism and socialism the way I think of them:

In America before the Europeans came (and thus before it was called "America"), the Native Americans had several well-developed societies. (Disclaimer: I'm not that kind of Native American but I've read some about them and am describing how I think they were.) Some of those societies appeared to be more similar to what we'd call "socialist" than "capitalist". They didn't have private ownership of plots of land. They farmed the land as communities. The land (the means of production for farming, hunting, materials for housing, etc.) was owned in common by the community. They got along pretty well this way, which makes logical sense, because no individuals created the land, so no individuals should own it. That probably _was_ the logic of those people, and we can sometimes see it in how some Native Americans describe the land, even now. (Disclaimer: of course, even if I could speak for _some_, I could not speak for all Native Americans, some of whom, for all I know, could have been capitalists.)

Then along came the Europeans, who stole the land and thereafter sold it among themselves. That's a form of capitalism. Gaining possession of the land in that way didn't have much to do with being "workers" (one of the words socialists like to focus on). Nobody created the land; but somebody took it by force, and imposed a system upon it; I call that system a form of capitalism, especially because it involves private "ownership" of land.

The answer to your question is: that "socialism" itself does not require a dictatorship, and this is _because_ "socialism" is not inherently unfair; so (further answering your question: _how_ it does not require a dictatorship) it maintains itself, _without_ having to resort to oppression, by being fair. Fair socialism will not need oppression. Unfair socialism would need oppression.

Only very _unfair_ socialism, or very _unfair_ capitalism, or very _unfair_ systems in general, will eventually need some form of oppression (which could be a dictatorship, or could be some other form of oppression) to sustain the unfairness.

Whether the economic system is socialist or capitalist or something else, there will be a need for some form of government. Whether the economic system is socialist or capitalist or something else, the government might be a "democracy" or it might be something else.

In the U.S. today there is (among other things) a kind of capitalism that a lot of people think is very unfair.

(Here is a historical example. Historical examples are useful because with hindsight we are more likely to agree on what happened and what it meant.) There were big tobacco companies which knew tobacco was bad for us but continued to push it on us and also tried (successfully for a long time) to obscure the science that said it was bad for us. These big companies, or big corporations, were accountable to their biggest shareholders, but not very accountable to most of the people in the U.S., many of whom were misled by tobacco advertising and tobacco corporations' misinformation campaigns and became addicted to smoking tobacco. The large corporations "profited" at the expense of public health. Many of the top people in them knew, or should have known but were trying not to know, that they were harming public health. They were tempted by money, to not fully realize the damage they were doing to the people. This went on for a long time.

That lack of accountability to most of the people is a form of oppression.

Eventually the people overthrew that particular oppression. They didn't do it by becoming successful capitalists; that would have been to become the major shareholders in those corporations. Instead, they did it through the government; essentially, I think it was through democracy. In that particular scenario, capitalism (rule by the few who had lots of "capital" -- the biggest shareholders in the large corporations such as tobacco corporations) was the "bad" element while democracy was the "good" element.

Capitalism tends to focus a lot on money (a form of "capital"). In comparison with capitalism, socialism focuses more on people.

Democracy is related to socialism. Both of them are about the great mass of people who should have rights, because they are workers, and even just because they are people, not because they are rich.

Almost anyone can be a "worker". A lot fewer people can get rich.

I was lucky enough to have been born into the middle class in the U.S. Now that I've been working many years and am retired, I finally have enough "capital" so that I can buy my own house and the little plot of land under it. In this sense I am a little "capitalist" and I am happy to have "my" land and "my" capital to do things with. But my real worth is the work I have done or will do, and I know that people matter more than money does. I am a mixture of socialist and capitalist.