How's "socialist" California doing?

@averagejoe1 said
I think Democratic Socialists is the term du jour..... and that, I think, is a belief that both the economy and the society should be run democratically , to meet public needs. Further, that no citizen shall be allowed to profit ahead of others. This regulation, therefore, is a concept of control, if you will, by an ‘entity-certain’. Take that a step further, and you will ...[text shortened]... daily news? If not, can you modify? Let’s get on same page of def, then discuss its merits. Thanks.

"... no citizen shall be allowed to profit ahead of others."

What does this mean? Allowed by whom?

Do you envision this as a restriction under democratic socialism?

@handyandy said
"... no citizen shall be allowed to profit ahead of others."

What does this mean? Allowed by whom?

Do you envision this as a restriction under democratic socialism?

This subject can really get laborious, Libs have the advantage because there are 1,023 forms of Dem Socialism last time I counted, subject to be parsed differently with each post!. You know, "Uh, which version of Bridge shall we play today"? I am no expert, but I did just check Wikipedia and I think it confirms what I just wrote, considering it advocates political democracy alongside Social Ownership of the means of production. This is so unbelievable to me,,... that some here are leaning that way, that I cannot even begin to be glib or clever to write about it. The article goes further to say that DemSocialilsts find Capitalism to be incompatible with their values. I assume this is a correct assessment.

Very difficult. Very difficult. Y'all just write about the pros and cons of Socialism, allow me to observe. I will wait to see what the final resolution is. To respond to your question, Handy, my answer is that no citizen will be allowed to profit ahead of others in this scenario. You see, I want my child to sell more stuff than others, to win more wrestling matches than others, to sell more lemonade than others, to make more real estate deals than others, to be smarter than others, to make more money than others.....to be able to pay the boat builder that builds his boat...so the boat builder makes money. Many people here on this thread think that a govt entity at some point is supposed to get involved. This is very sad to me.
(to your sub-question, my answer is 'allowed, or not allowed, by the govt.".)

@averagejoe1 said
I think Democratic Socialists is the term du jour..... and that, I think, is a belief that both the economy and the society should be run democratically , to meet public needs. Further, that no citizen shall be allowed to profit ahead of others. This regulation, therefore, is a concept of control, if you will, by an ‘entity-certain’. Take that a step further, and you will ...[text shortened]... daily news? If not, can you modify? Let’s get on same page of def, then discuss its merits. Thanks.

What I think of "Socialism" is this:

SOCIALISM: a social system in which the producers possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods.

That is something I would support IF coupled with a respect for Natural Rights. This combination is compatible with our nature; hierarchical societies where all property was divided by force thus limiting freedom from the get go do not meet those specifications.

However, contrary to your seeming understanding, such a society would not necessarily mean total "equality of outcome". It would mean that one person could not be placed in power over another because of economic or any other equality (obviously this is general statement which might be modified in particular circumstances like child-parent and other dependent relationships).

Now that's my philosophical position though I recognize that in the Real World, we live in a capitalist, unequal, hierarchical society. Therefore, being a realist, I support such reforms that will make it a more socialist, less unequal and more egalitarian society such as the ones that are natural to Man and in which our species lived for most of its existence on earth.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Where there existed a tyrannical government where the People had no chance to move towards such a desirable society by democratic means.

@no1marauder said
What I think of "Socialism" is this:

SOCIALISM: a social system in which the producers possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods.

That is something I would support IF coupled with a respect for Natural Rights. This combination is compatible with our nature; hierarchical societies where all property was divided by force thus limit ...[text shortened]... the ones that are natural to Man and in which our species lived for most of its existence on earth.

Natural Rights? What in the world?...............................
Somebody else tackle that one.

Than, King, you seem to make ‘equalty’ a factor of some sort to ‘figure in’ to your creating the new world. There is no ‘equality’ in the U S Society. But you think it should be a society of equality?? What does that mean?

@averagejoe1 said
Natural Rights? What in the world?...............................
Somebody else tackle that one.

Than, King, you seem to make ‘equalty’ a factor of some sort to ‘figure in’ to your creating the new world. There is no ‘equality’ in the U S Society. But you think it should be a society of equality?? What does that mean?

Ever here this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

@no1marauder said
Ever here this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

I am with you. But you are not about liberty. Freedom from govt. That is tantamount to Socialism!!!!!!

@no1marauder said
Ever here this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

And note this distinction...’ that all men are created equal “. I am with you up to that point. But after they have been created equal, they make their own choices as they go out into the world, and they become a little bit unequal. They can be a 40 year old cab driver, or, a 40 year old deli owner. They are simply not equal. Response, please

@averagejoe1 said
And note this distinction...’ that all men are created equal “. I am with you up to that point. But after they have been created equal, they make their own choices as they go out into the world, and they become a little bit unequal. They can be a 40 year old cab driver, or, a 40 year old deli owner. They are simply not equal. Response, please

I already addressed your fallacious "equality of outcome" argument. That is not what socialism is about.

A deli should be owned by the people who work there; a cab should be owned by the guy who drives it. That would be socialism.

@averagejoe1 said
I am with you. But you are not about liberty. Freedom from govt. That is tantamount to Socialism!!!!!!

There are all types of ways your liberty can be constrained. Some are reasonable, some are not.

The divvying up of the world into private property for a relative few was the biggest restriction on liberty the human race ever did.

@no1marauder said
I already addressed your fallacious "equality of outcome" argument. That is not what socialism is about.

A deli should be owned by the people who work there; a cab should be owned by the guy who drives it. That would be socialism.

Let me get this straight. A deli should be owned by the people who work there?????????????????. I have no idea what you are saying. It should be owned by my Cousin Vinny, who pays people mjnimum wage, or more, depending on their value. NOT owned by the people who work there. What do you mean?

@averagejoe1 said
Natural Rights? What in the world?...............................
Somebody else tackle that one.

Than, King, you seem to make ‘equalty’ a factor of some sort to ‘figure in’ to your creating the new world. There is no ‘equality’ in the U S Society. But you think it should be a society of equality?? What does that mean?

Somebody else tackle that one.
Than, King, LOL, 😉 Awwwwww....LOL

@no1marauder said
There are all types of ways your liberty can be constrained. Some are reasonable, some are not.

The divvying up of the world into private property for a relative few was the biggest restriction on liberty the human race ever did.

“Divvying up of the world into private property “. You say that like it is ‘not ‘good’. Is it? Good? Or is it not good? Private property rights, that is. What say you??

@no1marauder said
Policies that you and other right wingers call "socialist" like investing in public infrastructure and human capital, supporting worker rights and higher minimum wages, having a responsible level of taxation on the wealthy, etc. etc. etc. all contribute to California's economic success.

There's still a few bumps to be worked out, in particular the State still does have ...[text shortened]... highly urban State with a fairly large recent immigrant population) but they are on the right track.

I see, so the economy is booming because of increased taxes along with building infrastructure and taxing the wealthy.

Gee, you would think a state like Illinois would be doing just as well.

It would not have to do with anything...............say............like all the corporate giants in California like in Silicon Valley or anything, right?