08-14-2021, 08:19 AM
The smaller the community, the more I'm open to it. However, in general, I would prefer not to hand out monopolies to the government. If we could weed out corruption, it might be more appealing.
(08-14-2021, 07:47 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]That's not socialism. That's social welfare.
(08-14-2021, 08:00 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ](08-14-2021, 07:47 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]That's not socialism. That's social welfare.
When the government owns a utility that's an example of socialism. Jacksonville is fairly socialist with JEA in charge of water and electricity.
(08-14-2021, 09:47 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-14-2021, 08:00 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]When the government owns a utility that's an example of socialism. Jacksonville is fairly socialist with JEA in charge of water and electricity.
*sigh* No. No it isn't.
(08-14-2021, 03:25 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ](08-14-2021, 09:47 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]
*sigh* No. No it isn't.
*sigh* You're right, socialism has nothing to do with the government owning the means of production. That's just me making stuff up again.
(08-14-2021, 04:34 PM)Ronster Wrote: [ -> ]The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples money.
(08-14-2021, 03:50 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ](08-14-2021, 03:25 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]*sigh* You're right, socialism has nothing to do with the government owning the means of production. That's just me making stuff up again.
Sorry, I should have been more focused in my response. Characterizing Jacksonville as "fairly socialist" just because JEA is community-owned is akin to describing the 2020 Jacksonville Jaguars as 'fairly championship' because they won a single game.
Besides, JEA is fee-based service. Don't pay your utility bill for a month and see how much of that Bernie Sanders water and electricity flows into your home.
(08-14-2021, 09:01 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ](08-14-2021, 03:50 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry, I should have been more focused in my response. Characterizing Jacksonville as "fairly socialist" just because JEA is community-owned is akin to describing the 2020 Jacksonville Jaguars as 'fairly championship' because they won a single game.
Besides, JEA is fee-based service. Don't pay your utility bill for a month and see how much of that Bernie Sanders water and electricity flows into your home.
Football games are black and white. You either win or lose. Nothing in the economy or the government is really that black and white.
And yes, the JEA will cut off your electricity if you don't pay your bill. Just like the Soviets had no problem throwing you in a gulag if they thought you were hoarding. If you're trying to be nice and help the poor, that's social welfare. Socialists want to government to own and control stuff. Some of them want that so they can be nice and help the poor, and those people are into both socialism and social welfare. But many do not. Many just want the control.
(08-14-2021, 09:47 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-14-2021, 08:00 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]When the government owns a utility that's an example of socialism. Jacksonville is fairly socialist with JEA in charge of water and electricity.
*sigh* No. No it isn't.
(08-14-2021, 03:25 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]*sigh* You're right, socialism has nothing to do with the government owning the means of production. That's just me making stuff up again.
(08-14-2021, 09:47 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-14-2021, 08:00 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]When the government owns a utility that's an example of socialism. Jacksonville is fairly socialist with JEA in charge of water and electricity.
*sigh* No. No it isn't.
(08-14-2021, 03:25 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]*sigh* You're right, socialism has nothing to do with the government owning the means of production. That's just me making stuff up again.
(08-15-2021, 10:01 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ](08-14-2021, 09:47 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]
*sigh* No. No it isn't.
(08-14-2021, 03:25 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]*sigh* You're right, socialism has nothing to do with the government owning the means of production. That's just me making stuff up again.
LOL. Water and electric systems are not "production", they're services and commonly owned/operated by municipalities throughout this country. Factories are production, the control of which is consistent with the socialist model.
(08-16-2021, 06:37 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]I think if you ask people if they like socialism or capitalism, most people won't know what those words mean. I think a better survey would ask people if they believe that wealth should be forcibly redistributed; if they think rich people have too much money and ought to be made to give up some of it. I think that survey would really get to the nub of the difference between Democrats and Republicans, at least in the traditional sense of what those parties represent. Traditionally, Republicans have represented capitalism, and Democrats have advocated redistribution of wealth.
(08-16-2021, 07:15 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah, I am for a form of wealth redistribution, but that's not what I get up in arms about. There is a conditioning that takes place in which the elite reframe the public understanding of a word(s). This comes out of postmodern thought. I know that sounds like some farfetched gobblety gook, but it's not. The best modern example is "defund the police." The minute "defund" has to be redefined for it to make sense to someone, they are attempting to manipulate the populace. We have a word that perfectly fits the description of what they say they want to do, "Reform the police." However, they don't use that word. They use defund, and tell the populace that they mean reform. Then why not use reform? Because they want to get rid of the police. Don't believe me? As soon as their base started using the word defund, the same groups that started "defund the police" changed it to "abolish the police." I know a majority of people don't want to get rid of the police, but this is a great example of how a minority are using language to manipulate the people, and they are following the formula laid out in postmodernism. Language is power.
The people at the top know what socialism means. The people at the bottom don't (as evidenced in this thread). Before you can try to enact socialism, it has to not be a dirty word. Change that in the culture first, then you can reintroduce the idea.
(08-16-2021, 08:12 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Well, technically, it's not a wealth redistribution. I think the wealth gap is a very real problem. Instead of the government redistributing the wealth, I'd like a law that limits the wealth of the highest paid employee to 100x more than the lowest paid employee. This includes all benefits and stocks. If the lowest paid full time employee makes 30k, the CEO can make 3 million.
Tax loopholes need to be cleaned up for this to work, and we need to include company benefits (like carsor housing costs), but this is how I'd reduce the wealth gap. If a CEO wants more money, increase the company's profit and raise the employees salary.
(08-14-2021, 03:25 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ](08-14-2021, 09:47 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]
*sigh* No. No it isn't.
*sigh* You're right, socialism has nothing to do with the government owning the means of production. That's just me making stuff up again.
(08-16-2021, 06:37 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]I think if you ask people if they like socialism or capitalism, most people won't know what those words mean. I think a better survey would ask people if they believe that wealth should be forcibly redistributed; if they think rich people have too much money and ought to be made to give up some of it. I think that survey would really get to the nub of the difference between Democrats and Republicans, at least in the traditional sense of what those parties represent. Traditionally, Republicans have represented capitalism, and Democrats have advocated redistribution of wealth.