Supporters of a plan for California to secede from the union took their first formal step Monday morning, submitting a proposed ballot measure to the state attorney general's office in the hopes of a statewide vote as soon as 2018.Marcus Ruiz Evans, the vice president and co-founder of Yes California, said his group had been planning to wait for a later election, but the presidential election of Donald Trump sped up the timeline."We're doing it now because of all of the overwhelming attention," Evans said.The Yes California group has been around for more than two years, Evans said. It is based around California taxpayers paying more money to the federal government than the state receives in spending, that Californians are culturally different from the rest of the country, and that national media and organizations routinely criticize Californians for being out of step with the rest of the U.S.
Supporters of a plan for California to secede from the union took their first formal step Monday morning, submitting a proposed ballot measure to the state attorney general's office in the hopes of a statewide vote as soon as 2018.
Marcus Ruiz Evans, the vice president and co-founder of Yes California, said his group had been planning to wait for a later election, but the presidential election of Donald Trump sped up the timeline.
"We're doing it now because of all of the overwhelming attention," Evans said.
The Yes California group has been around for more than two years, Evans said. It is based around California taxpayers paying more money to the federal government than the state receives in spending, that Californians are culturally different from the rest of the country, and that national media and organizations routinely criticize Californians for being out of step with the rest of the U.S.
Could California go it alone?
All the conservative tools are coming out of the woodwork, I guess I'm grateful that Trump won because it seems to give so many people this weird idea that their shitty viewpoints will suddenly be tolerated by the rest of the world...
Please please please help us secede, Californians are tired of supporting the bulk of fiscal responsibility for other states while be yelled at for just about everything. The troglodytes are tired of having their flaws pointed out, and I'm pretty sure we Californians could drastically improve our state health once we've removed the various forces that are screwing us over (Nestle and such causing water problems, companies fracking, desperate people hoping for economic viability, etc). We could finally be free from the heavy hand of the bible belt, and one of two things will happen.
1. You will see a continuing large exodus as your young adults flee the oppressive states for a more accepting and tolerant culture.2. Your youth will gradually shift your politics, so you'll only have a few decades before your politics favor the winds of change.
Come on nutjobs! Help us be free of you!
It's telling that with even how powerful you are, you are unable to free yourselves.
No one said anything about powerful, just financial. Its telling that your first thought is about power and implied violence....
Economic progress has always followed the centers of culture, and when humans come together in cultural centers you get rapid progress. Humans quickly learn that there are a TON of different ways to be human, and magically they become much more tolerant and open minded. Its a natural progression and you hateful conservative types are just SO angry that your fellow citizens have advanced past you (though you call it moral degradation) and somehow you take it personally that a ton of economic progress has occurred in the liberal hellholes.
I'm sarcastically sorry, but no amount of your bullshit will change the simple facts. People don't like being oppressed, they do like cultural exchange, and economic progress happens much more easily when people aren't locked into weird authoritarian bullshit that tells them there is only one narrow path to take.
My original post was just a rebuttal to all you people saying "good riddance". I don't actually want California to secede and would prefer that we all work together to make a better country. Together we are stronger, and aside from the hatred I do appreciate having conservative folks around to balance some of the extreme "progress" that can be more detrimental than beneficial.
Well then, allow me to respond in kind-
Nothing in my statement implies or even references violence. In fact, I was tempted to reference that California's economy is larger than several independent nations.
So what does that tell me about you?
I've actually lived in California. While not quite plumbing the depths of shallowness like Florida, it ain't exactly the cultural epicenter you make it out to be (of course if you could ever find it within yourself to travel a bit instead of looking down from your ivory towers, you might have found this out yourself). Nearly all of the enduring American art forms originate from the south, and the south is by and large far more integrated than keeping your basket of deplorables sequestered in Oakland and Compton.
So much for being so advanced.
And the vast majority of your state is conservative. You might have to actually stop in a place like Victorville rather than driving through on your way to Las Vegas, but they are there. Guess what? They don't like you either.
Now a sane man would look at all this hostility coming their way and might have a moment of doubt, maybe a bit of soul-searching, but as you seem incapable, allow me to wish you well on your adventures, far, far away from me.
would prefer that we all work together to make a better country.
And your post makes perfectly clear why this will never happen.
Le sigh, backpedaling like a true champion, good job. There are plenty of terrible places in California it is true, and the vast minority of the state is conservative. Just using "ivory towers" shows the type of person you are and the presumptions you make. Have fun with your backwards culture, may your children take the best of your teachings and then grow beyond them.
I fully understand the hostility, it is misplaced in just about every way except on the issues of abortion and civil rights (I presume you are not pro-choice and that gays should not be allowed to marry).
I've traveled across the US and many other countries as well, so spare me that little bit. Other states are great, except for the people such as yourself who would imprison or kill those that don't share your beliefs. Thankfully you are in the minority of the US and it is only a matter of time before your archaic and likely religious beliefs are relegated to history.
If you'd like to have a more productive discussion please include a point by point list of your grievances, why are you so hostile towards Californians? You may be surprised in how much a godless liberal such as myself might agree with. At the least we can all then be clear about our positions.
may your children take the best of your teachings and then grow beyond them.
Ha! I'm saving that one.
Pffft, you're a laugh riot.
In case I was being a little too obtuse in saying "I've actually lived in California", let me repeat I lived in California.
I'm a godless, let-the-queers-do-what-they-want-abortions-for-all hedonist at heart.
I left in part to sanctimonious assholes like you.
So basically 0 for 3 there guy.
Don't let the door hit you on your ass on the way out.
My friend, we're all in for you to leave.
Hell, if you need to compromise something, we can accept NorCal and fold it into Eastern Oregon or something. We'll be flexible. No reason to be mean-spirited - we can make this work! It'll be the most amicable of divorces.
However, your last two points are a little weird.
1. To my certain knowledge, Californians have been pouring into Texas, Oregon, Colorado and Washington. So much so that it's a pain in the ass.2. Actually, the direction of the youth shifting politics is far from monotonic. GenX shifted things broadly left, but millenials have slowed that trend and in many parts turned on the Democrats (apparently after years and years of failure to deliver promised change).
But yeah! Let's redraw the map! Go, CalFree!
The Democrats are just a political party and have shifted into authoritarian type policies. I'm talking about cultural changes, and overwhelmingly millenials are pro freedoms for everyone and are leaving their religious communities in droves. Partisan politics is NOT what I'm talking about.
California has become too expensive for many, one of the downsides to economic prosperity. People aren't fleeing the culture, they're looming for a place they can afford to buy a house. Most of the people I see leaving are heading to the more liberal bastions in other states.
Also, don't kid yourself, you are in the minority and have simply surrounded yourself with an echo chamber.
Hey, I'm pro freedom as well. No problems with that. In fact, I think that they should legalise plural marriages both male and female. Better yet, take marriage as a concept right out of the hands of government. Leave it to churches. Let government just track domestic partnerships.
Want a sex change? Don't care. Not my thing, but you're welcome to it. Want to do dope? Coke? Smack? Don't care, by all means legalise them all, just have treatment for addicts.
The problem is that the democrats have become increasingly dictatorial and intolerant, and I think that millenials may have been put off by that - but also manifestly this has broken any kind of monotonic shift in the direction of progressivism. Liberality, yes, but not progressivism. And I have no problem with that.
As for people being economic fugitives from California - that in no way contradicts the idea that while California may attract people, it also repels them to the point that is provided more emigrants in some recent years than it received immigrants from other states.
Well, magically we find that we have common ground and that the politicians are the true source of a lot of our gripes. I'm quite on the liberal side of the spectrum and I fully agree with your points except for the fugitives bit. I'm sure some of them are more conservative minded people looking for a more welcoming community, but I still put my money on it being about economics. I've considered moving myself just so I could afford a home!
We need to change the tone of our conversations here, if the argument is over political policies then we should discuss those things. Please note that the modern Democrat party is no longer liberal or progressive (as those terms have historically been used) and you are 100% correct about them.
> Californians have been pouring into Texas, Oregon, Colorado and Washington. So much so that it's a pain in the ass.
A couple of years ago I met a sharp, middle-aged doctor who had just moved to Buffalo, NY from Southern California. One major reason for his move was that the health care system in CA was dysfunctional (his words). His job satisfaction out west was very low--always fighting the system so that he could actually deliver some care to his patients.
And we've got plenty of water too.
I hear that some it is even in liquid form.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
Secession is a bad idea. The feds are pretty bad, but that doesn't mean that secession is good. But as they're proposing to do this in the legal way, it won't happen anyway, so for this to come up right now is just a vote of no confidence in the elected government (which I agree with).
"I guess I'm grateful that Trump won because it seems to give so many people this weird idea that their shitty viewpoints will suddenly be tolerated by the rest of the world..."
I think you've missed the real meaning of the election: pendulums swing back. The progressive viewpoints have driven society in one direction for the last 40 years or so. The pendulum reached the end of its swing a couple of years ago. Finally, enough people are fed up with the "shitty viewpoints" of the progs and SJWs: the swing back has begun.
It's our turn now.
The one thing that I do regret, quite genuinely, is that the pendulum will inevitably swing too far. In 15 or 20 years, I will be back on your side, trying to damp the swing to the right. But for the moment? The next few years are going to be seriously enjoyable. The pendulum has a long ways to go, just to reach center.
Oooh man you're deluded. The Democrats are neo-liberals that have actually eroded a lot of liberal policies and enacted a ton of authoritarian garbage, the pendulum has been swinging hard towards tyranny, with some key pieces such as abortion, gay marriage, and the push to end the drug war. Those last items are there to give the population a sense that progress is being made and things are getting better. The problem is that while they distracted us with gains in civil rights (probably what gets you most upset) they've taken away a lot of economic viability for the average person (another thing the conservative folks are very upset about).
You may swing the pendulum of civil rights in your own state, and hopefully we get fiscal policy that is beneficial to citizens and not corporations. However, it is more likely that as your politics really come to light the majority (remember, HRC won the majority vote) of people will double down on their efforts to stop your authoritarian wet dreams.
Since we're throwing shit back and forth without any specifics, care to give me some of the highlights of how the pendulum has swung too far?
"Since we're throwing shit back and forth without any specifics, care to give me some of the highlights of how the pendulum has swung too far?"
Sure. Care to post under your own name?
First, it's not about authoritarianism at all. Both sides of the coin that are politics in the USA (Democrats and Republicans) belong to the same group, a group that wants to consolidate its own power. You may note my other post on this article, where I am all for secession, because it breaks up "too big to fail" governments. Governments which are, of course, totally against the idea.
So where has the pendulum swung to far?
Multiculturalism: the idea that every culture is equally good and deserving of respect. Nope, sorry, some cultures are barbaric, and should be banned from polite company. I'm not in the US, but it's the easy example here: Once, the US was proud to be the "melting pot", where people gave up their original culture and became just Americans. This is no longer true: now, people are encouraged to maintain separate subcultures. Black culture. Hispanic culture. Islamic culture. African culture. Multiculturalism is a disaster: Ask Minnesotans how they are enjoying Somali culture. [wnd.com]
Political correctness. You are not allowed to criticize certain groups, regardless of context. Depending on where you are, this can be really extreme. Example: The freak-out in the US about transgender people and bathrooms. Another example: Thou shalt not criticize anything to do with feminism.
Racism (and very similar: sexism). Whites are racist, but profoundly racist attitudes on the part of non-whites else are somehow not a problem. Example: the BLM movement in the US is focused on white violence against blacks, but utterly ignores the fact that blacks commit far more violent crimes. Example: Here in Europe, the kid gloves with which crimes by muslim refugees are handled (rape a young boy? It's ok, the rapist had a "sexual emergency" [dailymail.co.uk]).
So what should happen, when the pendulum swings back toward center?
- Western culture should regain its pride. Western culture, with its roots going back to the Romans and Greeks, has a lot to be proud of. There is every reason for Westerners to be proud of our culture. Not least of which: we invented most of the technology in use on the planet today.
- Multiculturalism should end. People who immigrate must be expected to adapt to the local culture.
- Freedom of speech. This is probably hopelessly naive, but people should feel free to share their viewpoints without worrying about social ostracism, swatting, losing their jobs, death threats, etc..
- Treat people as individuals. Equality, yes. Special treatment, no. The current pressure to hire people based on their gender or ethnicity needs to stop. Inevitably, certain groups will migrate towards certain professions. The average woman has better social skills than the average man - most social workers are women. Men are usually stronger than women - most construction workers are men. From watching sports, certain areas in Africa seem to produce the best runners. As long as each individual has been treated fairly, and rated by their competence, there is no problem.
Haha sorry, you're just showing your best troll face :P go suck an egg
Excellent! Now that is a good post.
I agree with everything you said, but it would be easy to take some points to extremes. Multiculturalism is fine as long as immigrants are also adapting to the local culture. Follow the local laws and adapt enough to coexist without real friction. They don't need to become christians or stop celebrating their own culture. PC culture has definitely gone too far though its intentions were initially good.
However, you can't ignore the long term cultural prejudice that has existed in the US. It has gotten better, but there are still very visible vestiges along with enclaves of full-blown bigots/racists. If conservatives can admit that there are real reasons for why anti-racist and PC culture came about THEN we can move forward. Until then every pushback against those two items will only be interpreted as further antagonism and support of prejudice. It runs very deep to the point where even people who truly are not racist can say some stupid things without realizing that it amounts to cultural domination.
Criticism of PC culture (as a catch-all) should be accompanied with understanding why that culture came about. "It is terrible that some policies target minorities and we're working to end race divisions, but don't call me racist just because I disagree with XYZ." If you're talking to someone who can't separate out concepts then stop engaging, they are true believers and need to work through their emotional baggage before meaningful discussion can occur. It goes both ways.
> (rape a young boy? It's ok, the rapist had a "sexual emergency").
When I saw your link to the Daily Fail I decided to do a little digging. They (and you) have massively risrepresented the facts of the case: The attacker did claim to have a "sexual emergency" but the courts did not take that into consideration, it's only the newspapers that have chosen to make a big deal of those two words. The case was flagged for retrial due to some legal technicality around an omission of evidence made by the prosecution, that's all. The attacker was tried to the same standards as anybody else, there was no special treatment. A white European guy would have been dealt with the same way in the same circumstances. The perpetrator is in jail, his conviction of sexual abuse is still upheld, and he will be re-tried properly for rape and almost certainly re-convicted. Even if the rape charge doesn't stick, the sexual abuse one will keep him behind bars.
What we see here is a legal system working correctly - making sure everything is done fairly and by the book. This kind of thing happens all the time, all over the world, and for some reason it only hits the headlines when there's an immigrant at the centre of it.
In short, your link is hyperbolic, alarmist, and dishonest. Confirmation bias to generate xenophobia and anti-immigrant feelings.
Here's another newspaper covering the same story: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/iraqi-refugee-raped-10-year-old-boy-swimming-pool-vienna-austria-sentence-conviction-overturned-a7377491.html [independent.co.uk]
Please read this: political compass [wikipedia.org].
Please please please help us secede, Californians are tired of supporting the bulk of fiscal responsibility for other states while be yelled at for just about everything.
To help support the policies that 'the democrats' helped put in place. You would also need to take with you the debt you have helped incur. We can be nice and say you get 1/50th of it. Can your state take on an additional 400 billion in debt? Proportionally probably MUCH higher. As you are going to have to give the US a sweetener to make it worth their time to let it happen.
Also you probably would end up tearing your state in 2. A good portion of the country folk do not like you. They will not sit by and go 'oh well no biggie'. They will be pissed off about the shit show you put forward they are not going to be happy with the idea that the 'city is in charge'.
Do you like higher prices? You better. The country folk are going to stick it to you.
Do you have your own currency? Better set one up. Do you have anything to back it up except code and happy feelings?
Those 'key bases' do you have a plan to take them from the US? They do not give them up easily.
Do you have a plan for the 800,000 federal employees and how to pay them if you decide to keep them on? Or are you just going to throw them in the streets and hope they can find a job in the now massive unemployment you just created?
Do you have a plan for the 47% of the land the US gov owns? Do you have a plan for the 50 million dollars per year they feed into your local govs which is now gone? They pay local taxes on it and make sure the places stay nice. Better have a plan for the 1.5 billion dollars in local spending that those parks generate going away.
Do you have a plan for the several million retired, federal, and service men and women? Do you have funding for them? They are going to want their money.
Do you have a plan for the millions of dollars the fed pays to local govs for those nice military bases? You better be ready to renegotiate and they have 0 reason to leave. Better raise some local taxes to cover the deficit.
Do you have a plan for the postal service? You will end up with a large infrastructure that is underfunded. Better raise those taxes to help pay for it.
How are your roads and rails? Better find a way to fund them. Federal aid will be gone. Time to raise gas prices again.
How are your oil reserves? Better like higher prices for that too as the bankers will stick you on the exchange rates for your new untested currency that has massive inflation.
How is your large h1b visa population? Do you have a plan for them? They will now be in the wrong country. Not all will be looking to just move to your new country.
Did you like other americans coming to your area to live? Well that will fall off quickly. As moving from one country to another is massive challenge. Even from one state to another is a pain. You think otherwise but try looking into moving like that. It is not that easy and not cheap so you better be willing to pay for people to move there.
Do you have a military? Better get one going or be prepared to pay for one to help you. The Americans are coming and I would say 50% of your population will help them.
Do you have a plan for the massive drop off in federal school aid? Better raise that tuition and make loans with your newly minted inflationary currency.
How is your water supply? Huge parts of it come from the nevadas. Owned by the federal gov. They will quickly see no reason to help you when other states are saying 'we could use the water'. So hope you have those desalination plants working. Better have a way to deal with the brine they churn out by the millions of gallons at a time.
Oh do you like taxes and tariffs? You have 0 treaties with anyone. So they will screw you over on them. Remember the federal gov no longer has your back on that. The fed has been negotiating for you for years. You think the UK, EU, Korea, Japan, China, Canada, Mexico, and the your new foe the US will be all over that. Remember all of those countries are good at it. Beware bankers with smiling faces.
How is your copyright/contract regime. Remember you no longer have the fed backing you up. GPL depends upon it. Hollywood depends on it. You have no treaties. Copyright law is very clear in the US about that. You get no protection. Drag it on negotiations for 2-3 years (which the US and EU are quite capable of doing) and suddenly your software economic bubble dries up.
Do you like corruption? People will quickly realize they can buy favor from their new political friends with money. Some of the largest 1%rs live in cali. Think they are not going to abuse that?
Do you like the CIA and other five eyes orgs? You would become their playroom. The FBI would just up and look the other way as it would be out of their jurisdiction.
The troglodytes are tired of having their flaws pointed out, and I'm pretty sure we Californians could drastically improve our state health once we've removed the various forces that are screwing us overAh so you are going to remove your economic base and continue to insult them than work with them. Good plan. You may want to look to why your state has continuously built large cities and farms in what is very arid conditions.
You will see a continuing large exodus as your young adults flee the oppressive states for a more accepting and tolerant culture.You think your propaganda would continue to be played on the air? You think the federal gov would allow another country to have a say in what it means to be 'american'?
Your youth will gradually shift your politics,People as they get older realize that the pie in the sky help everyone does not work out. Resources are scarce and other people own them. All 'youth' think that.
My bet is the Fed wouldnt even need to use military force against you. They would cripple you with debt and backroom deals that cut you out of the mix. They have done it before and they *will* do it again. You don't think the entirety of the middle east and central america is pissed off at us because we are such great guys do you?
I do not quite think you realize HOW intertwined all of the states are at this point. California is where it is because of massive federal aid (money and personal). If it were not for the fed it would just be another shitty part of mexico with some nice beaches.
You propose an idea out of anger. You are now in stages 2 and 3 of the stages of grief. Anger and bargaining. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%BCbler-Ross_model#Stages [wikipedia.org]
No, my proposal was not serious, just a rebuttal to all the people saying "yeah, get rid of California!" It was basically a bit of satire to throw back.
You have quite a few of your financial points mixed up, California is one of the economic powerhouses of the US, we subsidize the other states and yet overwhelmingly we are fine with it. It would just be nice if that help wasn't thrown in our face...
People as they get older realize that the pie in the sky help everyone does not work out. Resources are scarce and other people own them. All 'youth' think that.
This is the fundamental shift the world is going through, realizing that we can not continue on with insane private ownership that lets thousands live in opulence while millions go starving. Many of the Native Americans by and large had a much more egalitarian society where everyone worked together, the individualist ideas of Western culture have some merit but they are now tearing at the very fabric of human society. Summed up nicely by "fuck you I've got mine".
We have already reached the technological point where scarce resources are not that much of a problem for human survival, but you keep beating that dead horse. Other people are busy creating / supporting a better future.
Le sigh, backpedaling like a true champion, good job.
No, my proposal was not serious, just a rebuttal to all the people saying "yeah, get rid of California!" It was basically a bit of satire to throw back.I understand now. It was not clear to me.
Many of the Native Americans by and large had a much more egalitarian society where everyone worked togetherI studied native american history for a few years. It is not all the sunshine and lollipops that they show you on TV. It was a fairly brutal way to live. They got eviscerated by the very idea you are trying for. The idea no one owns anything. They found out that those who DO own things can afford to buy guns and people to man them. The concept of ownership was foreign to them. They understand it *very* well now. But back then they felt they were getting one over on 'the pale face'. To them it was nothing more than a game. By the point they realized they had been had it was too late. Take for example the oil thing happening now with one of the tribes. No one gave a damn about them until there was money and oil involved. A bunch of NIMBYs are taking advantage of them. They will realize again too late they have been had. Either by the gov, the NIMBYs, or the oil company.
California is one of the economic powerhouses of the USIf you remove apple and google it is not quite as sunny. Do not confuse the prosperity of a few companies that hire a small percentage of the population with the health of the rest of the economy. I picked those two as they are both companies that could conceivably pick up its entire labor force and move somewhere else if they liked. Labor participation rate is at a 40 year low right now. It sounds as if you are grasping at ways to fix it. There is no nice way to fix it. No clean fix. Basic income only works until the inflationary measure it creates catches up in the market. Low level base jobs are being automated away. With nothing to replace them. Min wage is going up and locking more people out of the labor pool. Companies are not doing as good so they hire as little as possible and skirt as many laws as they can get away with. We can tax the companies more but they just pass it on as an expense to those who already can not afford it.
We have already reached the technological point where scarce resources are not that much of a problem for human survival, but you keep beating that dead horse. Other people are busy creating / supporting a better future.My points was the economies of all of the states are mingled. To remove one would hurt them all. Especially the one removed. Not about resources. I used resources as a point to show how unprepared cali would be for that sort of move. People with resources would take advantage of the situation and many would suffer for the 'noble' idea that cali is better than the others. We are americans. In the slogan of one of our presidential candidates. We are stronger together. Even if we disagree :)
Only one thing leads to economic prosperity. That is building things (we both can agree on this I hope). I like to recommend this book to those who disagree and think you can just manage the money better. http://steshaw.org/economics-in-one-lesson/contents.html [steshaw.org] I like to recommend this book as it shows why the very things we try to do to help others ends up harming them even worse. It is a good read even if you do not agree with it from an ideological POV. It shows the major pitfalls of the solutions we keep trying.
I agree with most of those as well, except for the economics and native american bits.
Native Americans understand private property now because that is the system they have to work with. On the reservation things are different, though they still have problems with private ownership and greed within the tribe.
Economics: its all just a system to help humans exchange goods and services, at a certain point building more things is actually detrimental, and doing anything solely for the sake of "the economy" is a backwards approach. Do things to solve human problems, let the economy just be a secondary game hardly necessary for daily survival. I have spent lots of time optimizing things that have no monetary benefit to myself, so I don't believe we humans require a profit motive to accomplish things. I'm sure there are good points in that book you linked, but I stopped at the beginning of chapter 2 when he argues that a hoodlum breaking a window is actually beneficial to the economy. That may be true, but it fails to account for the environmental concerns of wasting energy / resources fixing something that shouldn't have needed fixing. It also takes resources away from building new housing. With such basic assumptions forming the foundation of his book I am not going to bother continuing since there will be subsequent errors built upon the flawed assumptions.
Social safety nets should not be considered from a monetary perspective, when done that way it is near impossible to see the benefits. You need to view things from a human perspective first, and monetary concerns come second.
You may want to actually finish the chapter. He makes his point in the last paragraph.
The glazier’s gain of business, in short, is merely the tailor’s loss of business. No new “employment” has been added. The people in the crowd were thinking only of two parties to the transaction, the baker and the glazier. They had forgotten the potential third party involved, the tailor. They forgot him precisely because he will not now enter the scene. They will see the new window in the next day or two. They will never see the extra suit, precisely because it will never be made. They see only what is immediately visible to the eye.
tl;dr you broke something, and other things are not done because of it.
Also damn its like maybe 3 paragraphs of text... You read it with a closed mind and learned nothing. If you *read* the whole thing you will see why social programs tend to fail and why. If you want to build systems that work you *must* work around those issues. They are important if you actually want to help someone with those programs.
Just scanned through your link, Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt.
There is at least one huge unwritten premise behind his book -- that the markets are in some ways "fair". What we have now is possibly like a repeat of the Robber Baron era in the late 1800s, where a few super rich buy politicians to further enrich themselves...also known as corruption. Corruption on a scale never imagined. Nothing works right when there are billionaires throwing their weight around.
Further, based on the examples set by the super rich, people that might act like good competing capitalists in "normal times" develop the great urge to become monopolists (while usually hiding behind a screen of "just a successful capitalist"). And the lack of regulation (through subversion of government) lets monopoly and other unfair practice grow.
No system operates well with corruption. Blaming markets is just ignorant (no, they are not fair, they are self-correcting), and pulling out the Robber Baron trope is just ignorant (recall spending for Hilary was 10 to 1).
You're being willfully obtuse.
"Silly socialist utopia" hmmm, you really don't know much beyond what you hear on Fox news huh?
Quick clue for you: we are already in a dystopian socialist nightmare where we pay for the safety nets but the scared conservative types ruin every implementation so they hardly do much real good. The only thing I would change is to fully socialize healthcare and education, and in the past we pretty much had education already set. Then the profiteers came in saying how they would make everything better and more efficient, turns out they just jacked up prices and have saddled entire generations with unsustainable debt. Yay free market is best /s
Multiple other countries have implemented these changes while maintaining individual economic freedom. The successful versions are a blend of pure free market capitalism and social safety nets. Instead of realizing this, most anti-socialist people come up with reasons why it wouldn't work in the US or how terrible it is to have the government take a huge chunk of your paycheck. Nevermind that the successful socialist countries have statistically better indexes across the board for education, health, and happiness.
"We must stand strong against the Reds!"Kool-aid, it refreshes your thirst while washing your brain!
Especially since all of your "utopia" efforts need not be done at the state level, but can be proven by your rich cities. Or are you telling me the conservative stronghold in San Francisco is why the streets smell of urine?
Other countries have had to claw themselves out of disastrous welfare policies (re: Sweden from the 70s), and at least most understand any welfare program is essential a deal with the devil. You have to be mindful of costs so they don't ultimately destroy your economy.
However, from the 1970s and onwards Sweden's GDP growth fell behind other industrialised countries and the country's per capita ranking fell from 4th to 14th place in a few decades. From the mid-1990s until today Sweden's economic growth has once again accelerated and has been higher than in most other industrialised countries (including the US) during the last 15 years. A report from the United Nations Development Program predicted that Sweden's rating on the Human Development Index will fall from 0.949 in 2010 to 0.906 in 2030.
Sweden began slowing the expansion of the welfare state in the 1980s, and even trimming it back, and according to the OECD and McKinsey, Sweden has recently been relatively quick to adopt economic liberalisation policies, such as deregulation, compared to countries such as France. The current Swedish government is continuing the trend of moderate rollbacks of previous social reforms. Growth has been higher than in many other EU-15 countries. Also since the mid-1980s, Sweden has had the fastest growth in inequality of any developed nation, according to the OECD. This has largely been attributed to the reduction in state benefits and a shift toward the privatisation of public services.
Keep your cancer to yourself.
but the scared conservative types ruin every implementation
Can't have a successful Big Brother without an Emmanuel Goldstein scapegoat.
Nevermind that the successful socialist countries have statistically better indexes across the board for education, health, and happiness.
And the unsuccessful ones don't.
...and if you name a Oligarchical Liberal Democracy with elements of State Capitalism and without Democracy in the Workplace, I will point out that your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries.
You are still are omitting the quotation marks around words that are clearly-established bullshit.No country has ever come anywhere close to the meaning of that word as defined by Marx.
Though they -claim- to be following Marx's works, the "Commies" shit all over his idea and set up Totalitarian governments.
The Mensheviks, who had the better, more worker-centric plan, were quashed in the early days of Leninism.In 1921, even before Lenin was dead, the Bolsheviks had set up a board of directors [google.com] that wasn't answerable to The Workers.Their State Capitalism was very much like other examples of Capitalism.
lack of democracy in the workplace
...is called Capitalism.
is just another variant of socialism
Your deep ignorance of economic systems is on display yet again.You are describing OLIGARCHY, which is a GOVERNMENTAL system....and, as already mentioned, Capitalist exploitation of The Workers.
Their State Capitalism was very much like other examples of Capitalism.
It's not even close. Like claiming fake diamonds are diamonds.