5 ms·

> 99% of socialist want to expand democracy Yes I know they do. This is a bad thing. The Founding Fathers were famously skeptical of democracy as were many, ma

> 99% of socialist want to expand democracy Yes I know they do. This is a bad thing. The Founding Fathers were famously skeptical of democracy as were many, many thinkers and societies before them. And yes it's always democratic in the beginning but democracy is not a panacea (as the Founding Fathers understood) and quickly things devolve into despotism. Just because someone exists doesn't mean they should have a say in how a society is run. Existence is a pretty low bar compared to how developed and complex the structures of a well organized society are. > 71k people die every year in the US due to lack of healthcare. Millions are born each year due to abundance and millions more don't die for want of food and other essential services and that is because there's a functioning market clearing mechanism (price). Again I think you should read Human Action, even so you can just understand your 'enemy'.

jahaja 6y ago
> This is a bad thing. It's refreshing to see that this anti-democratic sentiment is said so bluntly, usually it's covered up in weasel words. > And yes it's always democratic in the beginning Please let me know which of the communist regimes of the 20th century that started out democratic. > Millions are born each year due to abundance and millions more don't die for want of food and other essential services and that is because there's a functioning market clearing mechanism (price). That's a sociopathic response to why on earth 71k people should die every year in a country of abundance simply because they don't have any money.
- googthrowaway42 6y ago
  > It's refreshing to see that this anti-democratic sentiment is said so bluntly, usually it's covered up in weasel words. This sentiment is at the core of America. It's not a secret at all. Pure democracy is necessarily predicated on a rejection of human rights. We have a Constitution because individuals have human rights that cannot be violated no matter how many people vote on it. Pure democracy is evil. > Please let me know which of the communist regimes of the 20th century that started out democratic. What do you think the word "soviet" means in Soviet Union? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_democracy > That's a sociopathic response to why on earth 71k people should die every year in a country of abundance simply because they don't have any money. This is a utopian response which is actually indicative of sociopathy. "There are three questions which will destroy most of the arguments on the left: 1. Compared to what? 2. At what cost? 3. What hard evidence do you have?" – Thomas Sowell
  - jahaja 6y ago
    > This sentiment is at the core of America. It's not a secret at all. It's not a secret no, but it's certainly not part of the propaganda. > Pure democracy is necessarily predicated on a rejection of human rights. Why is that? Maybe you should be blunt here too and just say private-property enforcement instead of human rights? > What do you think the word "soviet" means in Soviet Union? Are you really going argue that it was a democracy because of the name? Why are you doubling down on your own ignorance? Even the link you yourself posted contains this: "After Lenin's party, the Bolsheviks, only got a minority of the votes in the election to the Russian Constituent Assembly, he disbanded it by force after its first meeting". The Bolsheviks took power in a coup for themselves and never let go of it. > This is a utopian response which is actually indicative of sociopathy. What? There's nothing utopian about universal healthcare and that's firmly established by now. That also sounds like a means to an end argument which is sociopathic if anything is.
    - googthrowaway42 6y ago
      > There's nothing utopian about universal healthcare and that's firmly established by now Universal healthcare necessarily means rationing of healthcare resources. Universal healthcare does not mean that every person who has an ailment gets treated. A market naturally matches supply (healthcare infrastructure) and demand (sick people). When you remove the market it's up to government to do this matching process which means rationing.
      - jahaja 6y ago
        Sorry, but if you ignore existing facts and reality around the western world just too parrot some libertarian free market bullshit you're clearly far too deep into dogma.
        googthrowaway42 6y ago
        It's not dogma it's just logic. Finite resource, no market, means rationing. Why is that dogmatic? This has nothing to do with libertarian ideals, it's just a logical almost tautological statement. Not every person under a universal healthcare system gets the treatment they want when they want it. Are you disputing that?

jahaja 6y ago

> This is a bad thing. It's refreshing to see that this anti-democratic sentiment is said so bluntly, usually it's covered up in weasel words. > And yes it's always democratic in the beginning Please let me know which of the communist regimes of the 20th century that started out democratic. > Millions are born each year due to abundance and millions more don't die for want of food and other essential services and that is because there's a functioning market clearing mechanism (price). That's a sociopathic response to why on earth 71k people should die every year in a country of abundance simply because they don't have any money.

googthrowaway42 6y ago
> It's refreshing to see that this anti-democratic sentiment is said so bluntly, usually it's covered up in weasel words. This sentiment is at the core of America. It's not a secret at all. Pure democracy is necessarily predicated on a rejection of human rights. We have a Constitution because individuals have human rights that cannot be violated no matter how many people vote on it. Pure democracy is evil. > Please let me know which of the communist regimes of the 20th century that started out democratic. What do you think the word "soviet" means in Soviet Union? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_democracy > That's a sociopathic response to why on earth 71k people should die every year in a country of abundance simply because they don't have any money. This is a utopian response which is actually indicative of sociopathy. "There are three questions which will destroy most of the arguments on the left: 1. Compared to what? 2. At what cost? 3. What hard evidence do you have?" – Thomas Sowell
- jahaja 6y ago
  > This sentiment is at the core of America. It's not a secret at all. It's not a secret no, but it's certainly not part of the propaganda. > Pure democracy is necessarily predicated on a rejection of human rights. Why is that? Maybe you should be blunt here too and just say private-property enforcement instead of human rights? > What do you think the word "soviet" means in Soviet Union? Are you really going argue that it was a democracy because of the name? Why are you doubling down on your own ignorance? Even the link you yourself posted contains this: "After Lenin's party, the Bolsheviks, only got a minority of the votes in the election to the Russian Constituent Assembly, he disbanded it by force after its first meeting". The Bolsheviks took power in a coup for themselves and never let go of it. > This is a utopian response which is actually indicative of sociopathy. What? There's nothing utopian about universal healthcare and that's firmly established by now. That also sounds like a means to an end argument which is sociopathic if anything is.
  - googthrowaway42 6y ago
    > There's nothing utopian about universal healthcare and that's firmly established by now Universal healthcare necessarily means rationing of healthcare resources. Universal healthcare does not mean that every person who has an ailment gets treated. A market naturally matches supply (healthcare infrastructure) and demand (sick people). When you remove the market it's up to government to do this matching process which means rationing.
    - jahaja 6y ago
      Sorry, but if you ignore existing facts and reality around the western world just too parrot some libertarian free market bullshit you're clearly far too deep into dogma.
      - googthrowaway42 6y ago
        It's not dogma it's just logic. Finite resource, no market, means rationing. Why is that dogmatic? This has nothing to do with libertarian ideals, it's just a logical almost tautological statement. Not every person under a universal healthcare system gets the treatment they want when they want it. Are you disputing that?