3 ms·

Doesn't matter to me. It seems clear to me that his policies are socialist regardless of what he calls himself.

JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
We have Medicare and Social security, which are socialist policies. If you've ever voted for any serving member of Congress, you've voted for someone who socialist policies. Instead of fearing or causing a panic over a label, consider concretely articulating your concerns with Sanders' (or any candidates) policies.
- gwright 7y ago
  I don't really care what you call it, but Bernie's plans amount to nationalizing as much economic activity as possible, utilizing a command economy approach to provide goods and services, shifting responsibilities from states to the federal government, removing individual responsibility in favor of an endless number of "rights" that are to be provided by a federal bureaucracy, redesigning the thrust of our public policy to guarantee outcomes vs opportunities, and more. Almost all of this is completely antithetical to our federal system, not supported by any generally accepted interpretation of the Constitution. Anybody on HN who requires that someone "articulate .. concerns" about these things is terribly uninformed about the historic nature of these types of initiatives. I doubt that anything I could write will affect their thinking. As for Medicare and Social Security and all the other federal nonsense, yes those existing programs are problematic. Almost every federal program would be better off as a state or private program.
  - vkou 7y ago
    > I don't really care what you call it, but Bernie's plans amount to nationalizing as much economic activity as possible, If Sanders' proposals amount to nationalizing as much economic activity as possible, you have a lack of appreciation for what is possible.
    - gwright 7y ago
      Sure it could be even worse, but is that supposed to be a rationale for accepting his approach? Just don't understand what point you are trying to make.
      - vkou 7y ago
        That you are being incredibly hyperbolic and alarmist when you are equivocating what are minor tweaks to what is, and what will remain a mixed public/private market economy... to full-blown-complete nationalization.
        gwright 7y ago
        I think you are misinterpreting the scope of what Sanders is proposing.
        JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
        Could you please point to any evidence of Sanders plans to replace a market economy with an entirely centrally planned economy? That's essentially been your assertion, and I'm not familiar of any sources making this claim.
        gwright 7y ago
        Here is a discussion re: energy sector https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/02/bernie-sanders-climate-federal-electricity-production-110117 https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/02/bernie-sanders-clim... And here is a report about his statements over the years to nationalize various industries: https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/14/politics/kfile-bernie-nationalization/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/14/politics/kfile-bernie-nationa... There doesn't seem to be any limiting principle to way that Sanders approaches public policy.
  - JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
    To be fair, your argument does not quantify precisely. At all. Your argument claims Bernie wants to "nationalize as much economic activity as possible". Health care is the first thing that comes to mind. What activities, in particular, are you concerned with nationalizing? Your argument is emotional and lacking in facts. A better argument would be: "Bernie has proposed nationalizing <X> which would have consequences <Y, Z> and those are consequences leave us worse off than <other option>". Saying he "wants to nationalize everything" with no further detail, is a logical fallacy: appeal to emotion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion > As for Medicare and Social Security and all the other federal nonsense, yes those existing programs are problematic. A lot of people don't plan for retirement. Do you think giving people in old age no money to survive is better than having a Social Security program?
    - gwright 7y ago
      Bernie has advocated during his political career for nationalization of health care, energy sector, banks, utilities, drug companies and "major industries". There doesn't seem to be any limiting principle for Sanders re: the proper role for the national government so I see no reason to believe that he thinks any differently about these things now than in the past. He even brags about his consistency of beliefs over time. https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/14/politics/kfile-bernie-nationalization/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/14/politics/kfile-bernie-nationa... Regarding Social Security and Medicare, the fact that those programs as constructed are not financially sound is well known and health insurance as well as public retirement plans don't have to be national programs. There is no reason that states couldn't fund those programs if they so choose. The advantage of having those programs at the state level is that it introduces competition. People can vote with their feet and move to states that provide a better mix of taxes/services.
      - JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
        And what are your arguments as to the consequences of nationalizing health care, energy sectors, etc.? Your argument hasn't identified a problem with the nationalizing.

We have Medicare and Social security, which are socialist policies. If you've ever voted for any serving member of Congress, you've voted for someone who socialist policies. Instead of fearing or causing a panic over a label, consider concretely articulating your concerns with Sanders' (or any candidates) policies.

gwright 7y ago
I don't really care what you call it, but Bernie's plans amount to nationalizing as much economic activity as possible, utilizing a command economy approach to provide goods and services, shifting responsibilities from states to the federal government, removing individual responsibility in favor of an endless number of "rights" that are to be provided by a federal bureaucracy, redesigning the thrust of our public policy to guarantee outcomes vs opportunities, and more. Almost all of this is completely antithetical to our federal system, not supported by any generally accepted interpretation of the Constitution. Anybody on HN who requires that someone "articulate .. concerns" about these things is terribly uninformed about the historic nature of these types of initiatives. I doubt that anything I could write will affect their thinking. As for Medicare and Social Security and all the other federal nonsense, yes those existing programs are problematic. Almost every federal program would be better off as a state or private program.
- vkou 7y ago
  > I don't really care what you call it, but Bernie's plans amount to nationalizing as much economic activity as possible, If Sanders' proposals amount to nationalizing as much economic activity as possible, you have a lack of appreciation for what is possible.
  - gwright 7y ago
    Sure it could be even worse, but is that supposed to be a rationale for accepting his approach? Just don't understand what point you are trying to make.
    - vkou 7y ago
      That you are being incredibly hyperbolic and alarmist when you are equivocating what are minor tweaks to what is, and what will remain a mixed public/private market economy... to full-blown-complete nationalization.
      - gwright 7y ago
        I think you are misinterpreting the scope of what Sanders is proposing.
        JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
        Could you please point to any evidence of Sanders plans to replace a market economy with an entirely centrally planned economy? That's essentially been your assertion, and I'm not familiar of any sources making this claim.
        gwright 7y ago
        Here is a discussion re: energy sector https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/02/bernie-sanders-climate-federal-electricity-production-110117 https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/02/bernie-sanders-clim... And here is a report about his statements over the years to nationalize various industries: https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/14/politics/kfile-bernie-nationalization/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/14/politics/kfile-bernie-nationa... There doesn't seem to be any limiting principle to way that Sanders approaches public policy.
- JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
  To be fair, your argument does not quantify precisely. At all. Your argument claims Bernie wants to "nationalize as much economic activity as possible". Health care is the first thing that comes to mind. What activities, in particular, are you concerned with nationalizing? Your argument is emotional and lacking in facts. A better argument would be: "Bernie has proposed nationalizing <X> which would have consequences <Y, Z> and those are consequences leave us worse off than <other option>". Saying he "wants to nationalize everything" with no further detail, is a logical fallacy: appeal to emotion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion > As for Medicare and Social Security and all the other federal nonsense, yes those existing programs are problematic. A lot of people don't plan for retirement. Do you think giving people in old age no money to survive is better than having a Social Security program?
  - gwright 7y ago
    Bernie has advocated during his political career for nationalization of health care, energy sector, banks, utilities, drug companies and "major industries". There doesn't seem to be any limiting principle for Sanders re: the proper role for the national government so I see no reason to believe that he thinks any differently about these things now than in the past. He even brags about his consistency of beliefs over time. https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/14/politics/kfile-bernie-nationalization/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/14/politics/kfile-bernie-nationa... Regarding Social Security and Medicare, the fact that those programs as constructed are not financially sound is well known and health insurance as well as public retirement plans don't have to be national programs. There is no reason that states couldn't fund those programs if they so choose. The advantage of having those programs at the state level is that it introduces competition. People can vote with their feet and move to states that provide a better mix of taxes/services.
    - JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
      And what are your arguments as to the consequences of nationalizing health care, energy sectors, etc.? Your argument hasn't identified a problem with the nationalizing.