Why is democratic socialism bad?


Because it is based on an immoral idea in which government force is used to confiscate the product of one individual’s labor, which is then transferred by government to another individual for their personal economic needs.

One of our forefathers explains this very thing as follows:

"Under a just and equal Government, every individual is entitled to protection in the enjoyment of the whole product of his labor, except such portion of it as is necessary to enable Government to protect the rest; this is given only in consideration of the protection offered. In every bounty, exclusive right, or monopoly, Government violates the stipulation on her part; for, by such a regulation, the product of one man’s labor is transferred to the use and enjoyment of another. The exercise of such a right on the part of Government can be justified on no other principle, than that the whole product of the labor or every individual is the real property of Government, and may be distributed among the several parts of the community by government discretion; such a supposition would directly involve the idea, that every individual in the community is merely a slave and bondsman to Government, who, although he may labor, is not to expect protection in the product of his labor. An authority given to any Government to exercise such a principle, would lead to a complete system of tyranny." ___ See Representative Giles, speaking before Congress February 3rd, 1792

And our very own Supreme Court gave you the following reason:

"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen [a working person’s earned wage] and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation."____ Savings and Loan Association v.Topeka,(1875)


The Democrat Leaders promise for free cheese doesn’t work in Cuba, doesn’t work in Venezuela ___ it only works for corrupted politicians who confiscate and then redistribute “free cheese” in order to buy votes and remain in power.


My biggest concern wth a society you propose is whether our ennui starts to dissipate or simply becomes retargetted


Arthur C. Clarke gets into that subject in “Childhood’s End”. I agree to some extent but I’ve never been less bored with life while being forced to work rather than to work on my own terms. I like going to work, the structure and routine, but I hate that stressful days when I’m putting in 12 hours and nothing is progressing. Those days are…4 out of 5 on a good week. A little stress is good, but that much stress is overwhelming over time.


Except its not.


so let me ask you.
what happens when the 90% that arent the have’s get tired of the 10% that own the majority of wealth in this country and decides to take it from them. right now teh top 10% owne 75% of the wealth. the top 1% owns 50%
what will happen if the lower 50% gets tired of the wealthy taking more and more of the wealth. its happened before and at the rate we re going it will happen in the US in the not to distant future

better it be done through democratic socialism them violence


Well Karl, one thing that has happened is the Bolshevik revolution and the eventual creation of the USSR. The USSR killed many of its own citizens who dared to dissent. Is that preferable? And long term, how will did that model work out? What was the GDP for the Soviet Union in 2017? Hard to have a GDP when to don’t exist.


except it is. what right does the government have to any percentage of anything I create? What is the limit to what the government can take from you or me?


So no failure then. :+1:


Seriously? Capitalism as an economic model didn’t fail in any of the countries you mentioned. If you believe it did, please choose one country and detail the failure.


The fact that you live in this country and benefit from govt services.


Because if the majority wants something, they take it. This includes your house, your .life (doesn’t matter if you are innocent or guilty of a crime), your liberties…all at the mercy of popular opinion and group-think.

While social democracy sounds good at first (people voting for what they want, their money going to the poor, etc.), there are some terrible drawbacks. When the government gets into something, when greedy politicians who put their paycheck above the interests of their constituents, get their mits on something that is supposed to be your right, then it can never be good.

Not only that, but it punishes success, or it can. When people work hard, they want something to compensate for their work. The problem is, the harder you work, the more money you make, but the more money you make, the more the government takes. Eventually the rich move out, and the “backbone” tax bracket of the population finally falls to the people who it was meant to support. Unless you go like NK and prevent them from leaving. But that would be a crime…


I wonder if you are aware, public health care spending in Canada accounts for 70 percent of health care expenditures, in the US, it is 64.3 percent.




Group theft is not immoral?


The unavoidable truth is, the Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’, Andrew Gillum and Ayanna Pressley’s socialist plan for “free” college tuition will be paid for by taxing millions of college graduates who worked for and paid their own way through college and are now trying to finance their own economic needs.


I don’t mind if you want to be a socialist with all your like minded people, but leave me out…


Taxes aren’t theft.


Our very own Supreme Court disagrees with you as follows:

"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen [a working person’s earned wage] and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation". __ Savings and Loan Association v.Topeka,(1875)


The liberty to succeed or fail at one’s own hand is a socialist’s nightmare and not the American Dream


Government doesn’t have rights. It has powers. And those powers are expressed in the constitution. The limits are what the elected officials in congress determine via tax legislation.


No it doesn’t, they are specifically referring to taxation in which the express purpose is to benefit private enterprise, not further a public interest.


The limits are what the elected officials in congress determine via tax legislation.?

I suggest you read MARBURY v. MADISON regarding Congress’ powers.

The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.

Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

_ _

If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.

Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void. _ Chief Justice Marshall, MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

I suggest you also read Federalist Paper No. 45 which tells us:

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

And finally, read the 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.___ Tenth Amendment


"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story


Life expectancies and infant mortality rates are not measured the same way in any two countries basically, and it is virtually impossible to make a fair and objective comparison. We count deaths that other countries don’t count etc. etc. and it skews the numbers.