Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[FadedCrown]

Gen Z is actually pretty conservative, at least to my knowledge. I mean, I do go to high school with them.

[Awesome Sauce Malone]

Yes capitalist countries banned slavery. They didn’t ban it because it was anti-capitalist, they banned it because it was anti-individual liberty. Capitalism is an economic system based on liberty. It allows for the greatest amount of Liberty, but it’s liberty first, then capitalism. The dictatorships prevelant in the 1800s had no such sentiment for individual freedoms, therefore slavery fit into their economic system.

[wufan]

I honestly don't know what this means at all. I don't mean that socialism and capitalism are apples and oranges. I mean that inserting communism (a strict authoritarian political structure) as a comparison for socialism (an economic model that exists on a spectrum) is apples to oranges. I truthfully do not get the rest of your analogy at all.



Yes, pure capitalism is deeply flawed. So is socialism at its extreme. The vast majority of reasonable people in this country agree. But that is my point. The stupid point that started this entire conversation. It's crazy to just say socialists are all ignorant or socialists all hate the rich when we can't even agree on what makes a person a "socialist." You and CB seem to think that if I love EVERYTHING about our current economic model except I also believe we should have universal healthcare that I am a socialist. Aside from anything else, that is absurd. In a country that has public education, significant numbers of federal and state entitlements, minimum wages, labor regulations, food and drug regulations, progressive income taxes, taxes on capital gains, etc., the breaking point is if we simply expand existing Medicare coverage? But even if that is true, THAT version "socialism" is as far removed from the evil regimes you are saying killed millions as our current economic system is removed from a system that allows slavery and privatized conflict over limited resources.



Seriously? Free market countries OUTLAWED slavery. That is not a capitalistic action. Surely you are willing to admit that, right? That is a government regulation of a free market system. That is not capitalistic whatsoever. Pure, unadulterated capitalism allows slavery. You don't have to champion pure, unadulterated capitalism. It's not our economic model and it never has been. But pure capitalism 100% allows slavery.



That is one spicy, irrelevant, hot take.

Yes capitalist countries banned slavery. They didn’t ban it because it was anti-capitalist, they banned it because it was anti-individual liberty. Capitalism is an economic system based on liberty. It allows for the greatest amount of Liberty, but it’s liberty first, then capitalism. The dictatorships prevelant in the 1800s had no such sentiment for individual freedoms, therefore slavery fit into their economic system.

[jdshock]

atlwsu - Slavery was morally wrong. Many people used Christianity as a basis for their justification for slavery: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ...o_abolitionism

Now, those people's view of Christianity almost certainly didn't align with your beliefs. They don't align with the vast majority of Christians in the world today. But, at the time, Christianity was used to justify slavery (and later to justify a ban on interracial marriage, by way of example).

Please be clear that I'm not saying this policy was justified by Christ, or justified by an accurate reading of the Bible, or whatever. But people used Christianity as the basis for their justifications. And, as further evidence of this whole silly debate, there were Christians who used their beliefs to justify banning slavery!

[atlwsu]

"Not every policy that was justified by Christianity was morally right" is not a statement I can agree with.


"Not every policy that was justified by Christians was morally right" is a statement I can whole heartedly agree with.

[ShockingButTrue]

Dunno where we got off the rails... but I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. Morality absolutely can play a role in political and even economic decision making. We just cannot act like the last 200 years represents the pinnacle of Christian ideals. And the broader point is that it's not a debate between Christian Capitalism and atheistic socialism. Any government regulation based on the principles of Christianity is inherently NOT free-market capitalism.

The religious right has been brainwashed into thinking if you are Christian, you have to support the right. That it's Christianity and capitalism or it's atheism and socialism. And that's nonsense. All of the "moral" decisions made by our government over the last 200 years could be justified with religious or non-religious reasons. Capitalism, at its core, is not inherently tied to Christianity.

But it's the same thing we keep coming back to: these things are not as black and white as people want to act like. It's not good people vs the socialists. America is not one policy away from being a socialistic/communist tyranny. Not every policy throughout our nation's history was influenced by Christianity. Not every policy that was justified by Christianity was morally right.

I'm "debating" the motive of one of the initiator's of the green deal (w/ the sunshine alliance), that being AOC. You know, the one whom this thread is about.

You didn't like the references to the proposal being intellectually lazy, among other opinions, as presented by AOC, to some of the members of this forum. She also has some pretty "rich" ideas about how to fund this proposed bill... Printing more money, for one... Can't that be a part of the debate?

[Shockm]

Dunno where we got off the rails... but I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. Morality absolutely can play a role in political and even economic decision making. We just cannot act like the last 200 years represents the pinnacle of Christian ideals. And the broader point is that it's not a debate between Christian Capitalism and atheistic socialism. Any government regulation based on the principles of Christianity is inherently NOT free-market capitalism.

This is true about where the Democrats are going and Modern Freedom in the Democrat Party
Capitalism and freedom=Democrat/Planned Parenthood Abortions
Democrat and freedom=Legalized Infanticide and late term abortions
Democrat=Medicare for all which will result in (because of high costs) Health Care Prioritizing (therefore less care for the elderly and for the most elderly no health care and even end of life decisions forced, except for the wealthy political class).
Democrat Green Deal=Higher taxes for middle class along with wealthy class

Each of these are freedom issues/economic decisions, and will mostly affect the middle class/lower class people. The wealthy elites, powerful, and politically connected will be able to afford their own care until death no matter what.

[jdshock]

What one considers morally repugnant is not a part of the modern socio/economic/political debate? SMGDH. Says you? Watched C-Span much lately?

This, from the prime initiator of the new green deal herself (allied with the -ahem- sunshine movement) :"Social movements are and should be the moral compass of our politics."

Now, digging further, she states her primary ideology: "I think there's a lot of people being more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right!" (emphasis mine). Is that just another way of describing a "false equivalent?" Do you agree with this statement?

Remind me again, who was it that said "Walls are immoral?"

But I do agree with you jd, surprisingly, in that injecting any form of a "moral equivalence" into a robust and stimulating political debates is stupid.

So, who's footin' the bill for this bill?

Dunno where we got off the rails... but I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. Morality absolutely can play a role in political and even economic decision making. We just cannot act like the last 200 years represents the pinnacle of Christian ideals. And the broader point is that it's not a debate between Christian Capitalism and atheistic socialism. Any government regulation based on the principles of Christianity is inherently NOT free-market capitalism.

The religious right has been brainwashed into thinking if you are Christian, you have to support the right. That it's Christianity and capitalism or it's atheism and socialism. And that's nonsense. All of the "moral" decisions made by our government over the last 200 years could be justified with religious or non-religious reasons. Capitalism, at its core, is not inherently tied to Christianity.

But it's the same thing we keep coming back to: these things are not as black and white as people want to act like. It's not good people vs the socialists. America is not one policy away from being a socialistic/communist tyranny. Not every policy throughout our nation's history was influenced by Christianity. Not every policy that was justified by Christianity was morally right.

[ShockingButTrue]

That's not the debate at all. It's just a convenient way to say "I want capitalism in every area except those areas I find morally repugnant." Any "Christian ideal" that is a government regulation meant to limit capitalism is still a government regulation of capitalism, and it moves the economic system closer to socialism.

What one considers morally repugnant is not a part of the modern socio/economic/political debate? SMGDH. Says you? Watched C-Span much lately?

This, from the prime initiator of the new green deal herself (allied with the -ahem- sunshine movement) :"Social movements are and should be the moral compass of our politics."

Now, digging further, she states her primary ideology: "I think there's a lot of people being more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right!" (emphasis mine). Is that just another way of describing a "false equivalent?" Do you agree with this statement?

Remind me again, who was it that said "Walls are immoral?"

But I do agree with you jd, surprisingly, in that injecting any form of a "moral equivalence" into a robust and stimulating political debate is stupid.

So, who's footin' the bill for this proposed bill?

[jdshock]

The argument is really about capitalism based on Christian ideals (what we have had for 200+ years) vs socialism pushing an atheistic/agnostic moral foundation (what the AOCs of the country want). Let's call it ChristCap vs AgSoc.

Go!

So slavery, Jim Crow laws, etc. were all capitalism based on Christian ideals? I mean, to be fair, historically, Christianity was used to justify things like slavery.

"Christian ideals" should have nothing to do with one's opposition to government intrusion into areas such as healthcare, taxes, etc. Any argument that Christian ideals fall on your side of the big government debate can be met with an equally founded argument on the opposite side.

The idea that the real argument is about "ChristCap v. AgSoc" is a cop out answer. That's not the debate at all. It's just a convenient way to say "I want capitalism in every area except those areas I find morally repugnant." Any "Christian ideal" that is a government regulation meant to limit capitalism is still a government regulation of capitalism, and it moves the economic system closer to socialism.

[Dave Stalwart]

Actually I’ve never thought about that before but that’s kinda right

[Kung Wu]

The argument is really about capitalism based on Christian ideals (what we have had for 200+ years) vs socialism pushing an atheistic/agnostic moral foundation (what the AOCs of the country want). Let's call it ChristCap vs AgSoc.

Go!

[jdshock]

I think my statements are the sentiments you are battling against when engaging a free market hawk. Maybe it’s apples and oranges, but the commy apple is rotten and the capitalist orange is juicy and delicious. Discarding the orange because it’s bruised doesn’t imply that you want to eat the rotten apple.

I honestly don't know what this means at all. I don't mean that socialism and capitalism are apples and oranges. I mean that inserting communism (a strict authoritarian political structure) as a comparison for socialism (an economic model that exists on a spectrum) is apples to oranges. I truthfully do not get the rest of your analogy at all.

Certainly capitalism is hugely flawed. It didn’t kill 10 million or even 1 million people. It does kill a few, but saves more than it kills. It does cause harm, suffering, depression. Unfortunately it’s the best damn thing that’s ever happened to the world. Once the capitalists invent replicators, then we can live in communism.

Yes, pure capitalism is deeply flawed. So is socialism at its extreme. The vast majority of reasonable people in this country agree. But that is my point. The stupid point that started this entire conversation. It's crazy to just say socialists are all ignorant or socialists all hate the rich when we can't even agree on what makes a person a "socialist." You and CB seem to think that if I love EVERYTHING about our current economic model except I also believe we should have universal healthcare that I am a socialist. Aside from anything else, that is absurd. In a country that has public education, significant numbers of federal and state entitlements, minimum wages, labor regulations, food and drug regulations, progressive income taxes, taxes on capital gains, etc., the breaking point is if we simply expand existing Medicare coverage? But even if that is true, THAT version "socialism" is as far removed from the evil regimes you are saying killed millions as our current economic system is removed from a system that allows slavery and privatized conflict over limited resources.

also, capitalism didn’t create slavery; in fact free market countries were the first to outlaw slavery. Certainly they should have done this sooner, but it took a long time to resolve liberty rights and property rights.

Seriously? Free market countries OUTLAWED slavery. That is not a capitalistic action. Surely you are willing to admit that, right? That is a government regulation of a free market system. That is not capitalistic whatsoever. Pure, unadulterated capitalism allows slavery. You don't have to champion pure, unadulterated capitalism. It's not our economic model and it never has been. But pure capitalism 100% allows slavery.

100 years from now, people will be calling out pro-choice people of this century as abhorrent capitalists.

That is one spicy, irrelevant, hot take.

[C0|dB|00ded]

Healthcare spending accounts for nearly 18% of the country's GDP. The Federal government's share is 28.1% and households 28%. Private business spends 19.9% and state and local governments 17.1%. Other misc. private expenditures amount to 6.8%.

https://www.cms.gov/research-statistics-data-and-systems/statistics-trends-and-reports/nationalhealthexpenddata/nhe-fact-sheet.html

Based on the above data, a government takeover of the remaining private parts of healthcare would increase the government's share of GDP by 10%. In 2016, government spending, as a percentage of GDP, was nearly 40%. Add in nationalized healthcare and government spending will account for 50% of the GDP in America. I'm no Nobel prize winning mathematician but... when a tax-funded institution spends more every year than the private sector it taxes... well... somebody is either gonna have to increase taxes, find new natural resources within the U.S. territories that can be nationalized and sold, or load up the battleships and start a conquerin'...


T


...:cool:

[C0|dB|00ded]

"I tend to lean conservative, or perhaps libertarian in my views, but your last line amuses me. If the socialist/communist path leads to our failure to innovate, then how is it also possible world leadership of innovation would be taken over by a socialist/communist nation?"

I'm speaking specifically about China. They are Communist in government but Capitalistic in economy. Their Communist leaders utilize Capitalism only as a means to an end. They learned from the USSR. They know they need free markets to beat the U.S. but still somehow maintain a dictatorial control over the people. It's only because of their unique, ancient culture (servitude), that they are able to pull it off. They get to pretend to be Americans but live under constant threat that everything they own could be taken from them at a moment's notice.

A lot of what they've built has been on the back of U.S. technology. Perhaps if we lose our innovative momentum theirs will also dissipate. It would make sense that as the U.S. becomes more Socialistic, the rest of the world would become poorer. Essentially civilization would become collectively lazier with the incentive for personal profit having been minimized.


T


...:cool: