2 ms·

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

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.
  - gwright 7y ago
    Really? I'm sorry but HN is just not the place to educate someone on all the negative consequences of nationalization of industries and the negative effects of command economies. It isn't like this is an obscure concept or point of view for which I can add any useful thoughts to what is already well known.
    - JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
      Every other first-world country on Earth has nationalized health care, so I don't find it unreasonable for me to question if your argument is sound when presented with no accompanying facts. Asking for facts and being replied to with the effect "Really?" is far from effective persuasion. Emotional appeals won't work. Facts and data will.

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.
- gwright 7y ago
  Really? I'm sorry but HN is just not the place to educate someone on all the negative consequences of nationalization of industries and the negative effects of command economies. It isn't like this is an obscure concept or point of view for which I can add any useful thoughts to what is already well known.
  - JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
    Every other first-world country on Earth has nationalized health care, so I don't find it unreasonable for me to question if your argument is sound when presented with no accompanying facts. Asking for facts and being replied to with the effect "Really?" is far from effective persuasion. Emotional appeals won't work. Facts and data will.