Why is democratic socialism bad?


#21

Wrong…


#22

Some degree of social engineering has been going on in this country for over a hundred years. Socialism can mean many things to different people. I’m ok with Democrats running on socialism and open borders. Do it.


#23

Because it is only “democratic” for the majority. It is forced upon the rest.


#24

Name one capitalist society that failed.


#25

Silicon Valley


#26

Sounds awful lot like charity giving. The amount of money a worker pumps into it makes no sense to not take that money and have a health savings account or IRA investment that would pay more to that individual.


#27

???


#28

#29

Silicon Valley is the ultimate meritocracy, and the absolute example of what happens when you privatize things that should be public. The market valuation of the major companies in Silicon Valley exceed the GDP of countries like Russia and South Korea. Jeff Bezos is worth more than most small countries, yet people are dying in his warehouses because they can’t stop working for long enough to take a bathroom break or they’ll be fired. It took ten years for Zuckerberg to go from being worth nothing to being one of the richest men in the world to completely losing control of his own platform because there are little to no regulations. There’s a world where a few billionaires pick their pet charities and try to do something noble, while their workers can’t even live in the cities where their offices are located. Silicon Valley is the most innovative concept in human history and it has produced almost nothing that genuinely enriches the human experience.


#30

No its not.


#31

The never ending thirst to cede more to the government always amazes me. The answer to all that ails mankind can answered by mama government, it seems. Does anyone want to be free anymore?


#32

bruv, you know that social security contributions are capped, right?


#33

what, in your opinion, is a historical demonstration of the opposite? When did a society thrive on minimal to no government intervention?


#34

Are you saying all those Scandinavians are dependent on the state? Yet they still have democracies. Weird.


#35

Are all this semi-socialist countries awful places? Some have better standards of living than us.


#36

Government being a necessity doesn’t mean government being all encompassing is better.

And isn’t the United States an example you’re asking for? The federal government has increased in size dramatically since the early 1900s. How ever did we rise to great prominence from 1776 until then without all of these fantastic, can’t do without programs and bureaus?


#37

Sure it sounds like that. So? It solved a problem very successfully. Without it that problem could still exist.


#38

Of course it is. You are posting nonsense.


#39

We didn’t really rise from great prominence until after WW2. We were more or less on par with the great powers going into WWI. Given our absolute advantage in natural resources over any other European power, and the devastation on the continent in the first half of the century, our rise was nearly inevitable.

On the flip side, what happened from the gilded age onward? Worker’s rights, organized labor, social security. These things did more to add to the quality of life than any single thing done by Rockefeller, Carnegie, Morgan or the like.


#40

Constitutional issues aside for the moment, aren’t all things in our country passed by the majority and forced upon the rest? That isn’t solely a socialist thing. You’ve really just described our system.