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.

---

That's not socialism. That's social welfare.

This. As per the 10th Amendment, the responsibility of government is to "promote the general welfare" of the people. Far from being an overbearing and controlling presence.

---

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.

*sigh* No. No it isn't.

---

---

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.

*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.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

---

*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.

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.

---

"The only problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples money."

---

"If you always do what you've always done, You'll always get what you always got"

The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples money.

Margaret Thatcher

---

*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.

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.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

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.

Um...sure.

---

---

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.

*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.

---

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.

*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.

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

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.

---

---

*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.

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.

Marx would not have made that distinction.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

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.

Which fits hand in glove with their social inequity platform.

---

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.

---

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.

What form of wealth redistribution are you for?

---

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.

---

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.

Why do you think the wealth gap is a problem, other than that it makes some people unhappy?  You don't think the free market should determine how much money people can make?  

Also, don't you think a rule like you are proposing is easily evaded?  Leading to more rules, more evasions, more lawyers and CPAs figuring out how to evade all the new rules?  

I promise I'm not going to ask you a continuing series of questions.

---

I don't mind. This is how ideas get fleshed out. I know what I'm proposing isn't perfect, but I think it's closer to the right track than socialism. The wealth gap is a problem because once there is a severe enough imbalance, it's impossible for the people to be fairly represented, which ultimately subverts our republic, causes resentment, and leads to destabilization. I think we're seeing the fruits of that now. Here's a quick read from last year, and this was only made worse during the pandemic:

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20...n-the-u-s/

We have to find some way to keep the rich limited in their power. We need to find ways to create opportunities for the lower classes. I believe there will always be classes, but class mobility and limited power for the rich needs to be present for our republic thrive. Let me put it this way, if we took the average household income of Floridians, and put that against Bill Gates, it would take 2,194,944 million homes to compete against his wealth. What chance do we have to stand up against a law he wants passed? You can't.

The problem is that when you start having the government collect and redistribute the money, it gets filtered out through various people and institutions in ways we can't foresee. My plan eliminates that. It's obviously not with out flaws, but I think if we clean up the tax code and loopholes, it could work. You'd have to get rid of ways that people can hide personal expenditures via their businesses, but I think that could be done. Also, the biggest problem would be people making multiple companies. That would also have to be reworked.

My plan is woefully incomplete, but it's just a springboard. I think it's the right approach to solving a serious problem.

---

I think the stock market needs an overhaul, too, but I don't know enough about it to really get something I like. I've messed around with a few ideas, but, without a solid understanding of the mechanics, I feel like I am missing mark. I really need to sit down and talk with someone that really knows how the market works, but is also open to change. I've talked to some guys in the know, but the minute I start suggesting changes, they can only see how it won't work. They aren't interested in figuring out how to make it work. Not sure if that makes sense.

---

---

*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.

There is a long tradition of government involvement in infrastructure -- Roman aquaducts, traditions of roads, bridges and even common markets.

What is meant by "socialism" is not "things that have been socialized," (such as education, healthcare for the needy, police, fire, etc). as opposed to "privatized." What is meant is a government-run economy, where property rights take a back seat to a government that is charged with redistributing wealth).

---

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.

Then all is already lost.

When most people don't the differences between two opposing system of government... it's all over. Especially in this age of digital enlightenment.

---