If President Warren & Democratic Congress passed this bill, would U B concerned?

[GuitarStv]

I doubt you ask because you want to discuss this very interesting part of political history. But I'm going to answer anyway. As in the rest of Europe, there was a relatively strong, and growing communist movement, that people on the right side of the political specter found threathening. This led to increasingly extreme standpoints, which in Germany culminated in KPD being blamed for the Reichsdag fire, and mass arrested by the fascist Nazi party. They were the first inmates of the concentration camps. The "red danger" was treated differently in different European countries, and in the Scandinavian countries the growth of strong unions and socialist parties ensured that the "pure" communists never grew too strong. Whether the parties decided to join Comintern or not, was often a deciding factor in which direction they later developed.
A simplified summary: https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/modern-world-history-1918-to-1980/weimar-germany/the-communist-party-and-weimar-germany/

Perhaps what they were referring to is what that particular party/movement called themselves: the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP). We abbreviated Nationalsozialistische to Nazi.

You mean in the same way as North Korea's official name is "the democratic people's republic"?

This probably should have been a separate thread in Off Topic, but no, not at all.

The Nazi party was not socialist (although they did appropriate the name).  Relevant reading:  https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists/

[PDXTabs]

@EnjoyIt ,

There is a timely article in the Washington Post about the word socialism. They actually use Norway as an example.

[EnjoyIt]

@EnjoyIt ,

There is a timely article in the Washington Post about the word socialism. They actually use Norway as an example.

Yes, Norway has many socialistic ideals that it appears they are able to fund via their resources.  Norway has one of the highest GDP per capita in the world.  I think it is in the top 5. to my understanding, much of that economy comes from its natural resources.  With that much cash it is easy to tax a bit more and fund the many social programs Norway services.  Personally I do not believe in too much coddling of the population but it does provide a relatively comfortable living for the mass population.  Norway is probably the best example today of a functioning Democratic socialist society.  Will it last, will corruption take over like most socialist experiments in the past?  Will it turn into Venezuela in the next few decades? Will pure socialism take control and the population will go hungry like every other socialist experiment in the past?  I hope not for the Norwegians.  Maybe they can prove to the world it is possible to not allow greed to take over.  Personally I am skeptical because history has made me skeptical. 

If we look at other countries that have a large welfare influence but not the funding to pay for it eventually have problems.  Greece comes to mind very quickly. 

Although we have 1 very good example Norway we have tons of examples of socialism failing. Historically socialism looks good for a few years but human nature eventually takes over.

Unfortunately we have so much waste in the US that it keeps us from being able to fund a reasonable safety net. By cutting the cost of administrating healthcare, we can easily expand medicare and medicaid.  By decreasing military waste we can make sure Social Security is properly funded. I do not think these items should be funded via higher taxation.

[GuitarStv]

Although we have 1 very good example Norway we have tons of examples of socialism failing. Historically socialism looks good for a few years but human nature eventually takes over.

The same can be said of capitalism as well.  No truly capitalist society exists, because in it's pure form it is inherently and fundamentally flawed.

Every successful country in the world uses a mix of capitalist profit seeking and socialist regulation.  Capitalism is needed for the profit motive (work harder, you should be able to get ahead).  Socialism is needed because money is a poor judge of fairness (particularly regarding situation of birth, environmental and shared resources, etc.).  You can argue where exactly the line should be drawn between the two (and there are many opinions regarding this), but when you try to demonize either half of that winning combination it makes you look rather uninformed.

[Jrr85]

I doubt you ask because you want to discuss this very interesting part of political history. But I'm going to answer anyway. As in the rest of Europe, there was a relatively strong, and growing communist movement, that people on the right side of the political specter found threathening. This led to increasingly extreme standpoints, which in Germany culminated in KPD being blamed for the Reichsdag fire, and mass arrested by the fascist Nazi party. They were the first inmates of the concentration camps. The "red danger" was treated differently in different European countries, and in the Scandinavian countries the growth of strong unions and socialist parties ensured that the "pure" communists never grew too strong. Whether the parties decided to join Comintern or not, was often a deciding factor in which direction they later developed.
A simplified summary: https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/modern-world-history-1918-to-1980/weimar-germany/the-communist-party-and-weimar-germany/

Perhaps what they were referring to is what that particular party/movement called themselves: the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP). We abbreviated Nationalsozialistische to Nazi.

You mean in the same way as North Korea's official name is "the democratic people's republic"?

This probably should have been a separate thread in Off Topic, but no, not at all.

The Nazi party was not socialist (although they did appropriate the name).  Relevant reading:  https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists/

Just what the internet needs is another "but that's not true socialism/communism" defense.

yes, the nazi's were socialists.  It's not a coincidence that socialist/communist political movements get hijacked and turned into mass murdering machines.   

[FIPurpose]

The reason you don't constantly hear about failed capitalist regimes isn't because they don't exist, but because it's an atrocious "slippery slope fallacy" that liberals do not find convincing so they're not going to use the same terrible logic to fight bad logic.

No one argues about all the socialist and communist things that the US currently does:

- The regulated monopolies of utilities
- Minimum wage laws
- Welfare benefits
- Interstate highway system
- Medicare
- The creation of the internet
- etc.

But somehow, Fox News convinces people that the US defines unadulterated capitalism, and even one more socialist policy would cause all the rich people to completely divest, burn down their own companies, and tailspin us into a global depression. And then to top it all off, we would inevitably fall into a Venezuelan-type dictatorship where elections mean nothing and we invade Poland because apparently that's what socialists do.

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/05/2012568342122448.html

[GuitarStv]

Guys, you know that communism and socialism are quite different, right?  They're not interchangeable terms.

Socialism works hand in hand with capitalism.  Communism seeks to destroy capitalism.

[PDXTabs]

Communism seeks to destroy capitalism.

A little off topic, but I would add that Marx said that you had to naturally evolve from Feudalism, to Capitalism, to Socialism, and only then would you naturally evolve into Communism. He literally predicted the failure of the USSR, but no one seems to remember that.

You let me know when we actually see a Communist regime as Marx described it. That is, not a dictatorship or oligarchy masquerading as communism.

[gaja]

Guys, you know that communism and socialism are quite different, right?  They're not interchangeable terms.

Socialism works hand in hand with capitalism.  Communism seeks to destroy capitalism.

I doubt it, since a number of posters here apparently don't know the difference between fascism and socialism.

[FIPurpose]

Guys, you know that communism and socialism are quite different, right?  They're not interchangeable terms.

Socialism works hand in hand with capitalism.  Communism seeks to destroy capitalism.

Both they both have shades of each other present in them. So when you're talking about those aspects that are shared, is it honestly wrong to call them "socialist/communist"?

It's like calling Trump a fascist. In the truest sense of the word, he is not a fascist. We are not currently a fascist regime. But he does present a very strong authoritarianism which is an aspect of fascism.

So does it weaken your argument more to "go ahead and admit these similarities exist" or "split the hairs as to why they are actually different"?

[GuitarStv]

Words have meanings.  It's important to use words correctly if you want to be understood, and if you want to convey information or argue a point.

Trump is not a fascist.  You can certainly say that he has admitted to admiring fascists, or that he appears to like authoritarianism.  When you describe him as a fascist though, it weakens your argument because you're telling an easily disproved lie.

There's overlap between socialism and communism in the same way that there's overlap between consensual sex between two married adults and the rape of a child.  Yes, there's sex in both instances . . . but they're not really equitable.  Communism and socialism both come from a reaction to and concern for the excesses caused by capitalism.  That's pretty much where the similarities end.  Every attempt to implement a communist system has resulted in dismal failure.  All successful countries implement forms of socialism.  Communism attempts to destroy capitalism, socialism works with it.  No, you can't equate the two words . . . and it's not a matter of splitting hairs.

[achvfi]

You have to take a long term view as most of us do in this forum. I believe if we as a country bring better life to more and more people everyone, the rewards will be significant across the board.

[Jrr85]

Words have meanings.  It's important to use words correctly if you want to be understood, and if you want to convey information or argue a point.

Trump is not a fascist.  You can certainly say that he has admitted to admiring fascists, or that he appears to like authoritarianism.  When you describe him as a fascist though, it weakens your argument because you're telling an easily disproved lie.

There's overlap between socialism and communism in the same way that there's overlap between consensual sex between two married adults and the rape of a child.  Yes, there's sex in both instances . . . but they're not really equitable.  Communism and socialism both come from a reaction to and concern for the excesses caused by capitalism.  That's pretty much where the similarities end.  Every attempt to implement a communist system has resulted in dismal failure.  All successful countries implement forms of socialism.  Communism attempts to destroy capitalism, socialism works with it.  No, you can't equate the two words . . . and it's not a matter of splitting hairs.

Both socialism and communism involve state ownership or control of property.   Both fail because of the difficulties in running a centrally planned economy and also because a gov't strong enough to expropriate property is rarely going to be controlled by benevolent people.  I think that has a little more in common than consensual sex and pedophilia. 

Speaking of words having meaning, welfare programs are not socialism, nor is regulation, nor is the existence of public goods, nor the existence of public monopolies. 

It is confusing though since many advocates of large welfare states have inexplicably thrown their lot in with people who actually want socialism and have adopted the term, and it's not clear who just wants a large welfare state and who thinks they will get socialism right this time. 

[PDXTabs]

Both socialism and communism involve state ownership or control of property.

Yes, absolutely, but you consistently mischaracterize the level of control being advocated for by democratic socialists.

Definition of socialism:
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

...

In the many years since socialism entered English around 1830, it has acquired several different meanings. It refers to a system of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control, but the conception of that control has varied, and the term has been interpreted in widely diverging ways, ranging from statist to libertarian, from Marxist to liberal. In the modern era, "pure" socialism has been seen only rarely and usually briefly in a few Communist regimes. Far more common are systems of social democracy, now often referred to as democratic socialism, in which extensive state regulation, with limited state ownership, has been employed by democratically elected governments (as in Sweden and Denmark) in the belief that it produces a fair distribution of income without impairing economic growth.

- Merriam Webster 

[EnjoyIt]

The same can be said of capitalism as well.  No truly capitalist society exists, because in it's pure form it is inherently and fundamentally flawed.

Every successful country in the world uses a mix of capitalist profit seeking and socialist regulation.  Capitalism is needed for the profit motive (work harder, you should be able to get ahead).  Socialism is needed because money is a poor judge of fairness (particularly regarding situation of birth, environmental and shared resources, etc.).  You can argue where exactly the line should be drawn between the two (and there are many opinions regarding this), but when you try to demonize either half of that winning combination it makes you look rather uninformed.

Here is a question.  Why does the world have to be fair? It isn't.  Life is not fair.  Some are born in a small starving tribe while someone else is born in affluent Norway. Should we move all the starving to Norway so that they get a fair amount of food? Someone is smart while another has a learning disability.  Should the person with straight A's give up some of his good grades to the one with the disability?  Someone chooses to smoke 2 packs a day and has lung cancer is that fair?  What about someone who never smoked a day in their life and gets similar cancer?  Someone chooses to have multiple kids and no job while someone else chooses to get an education and get away from government subsides.  Is it unfair to family of 5 if they live in a smaller apartment with less things?  Is it fair for the working family to subsidize the non working if they are able bodied and can work but would rather not?

Here is the reality as I see it.  There is a shit ton of unfairness in the world and as we stand here today I see no reason why we should make arbitrary lines of fair and squeeze everyone in. Frankly it is impossible to fix it all and in my opinion equally unfair to take away from someone and simply give it to a less fortunate against their will (No I am not talking about taxes are theft.  I am talking in generalities.)  But, within every border we should have some social measures that allow those who had a less than average beginning to achieve improvement.  Public education is probably the best example that allows people who have the desire and ability to change their fortune to actively do so.  I think it is reasonable and even in the best interest of the more fortunate to have a pathway for success for everyone within that border.  But we shouldn't place people into jobs just because they started off less fortunate.  That is poor business and equally unfair to those who can do the job better.  We should provide basic healthcare to every person within a border and the key word is basic. But we should not subside bad continuous decisions like smoking despite being offered multiple quitting modalities that is unjust to everyone who has to subsidize it. We need to stop giving kids participation awards and awards for mediocrity.  We need to reward those who are smarter, better, harder working and willing to succeed because that is how we innovate and improve as a society.

In regards to socialism vs capitalism. We have history that shows what happens over time with regards to socialism.  Socialism gets more and more ingrained in society and eventually overtakes capitalism.  Again, this is generalities.  Too much socialism and people starve and the economy turns to shit.  To much capitalism and the working class gets taken advantage of and those unable to work suffer.  With too much capitalism the working class can eventually rebel via a strike and improved conditions are created.  With socialism it is very hard to pull back because once the government creates something, it is very difficult if not impossible to take it away.

So yes, I very much fear pulling too far socialist because I fear that once the hump is crossed, there is no going back.  Maybe you think it is a good thing, but history so far has proven otherwise.  I look at Europe and I see some socialism going too far and problems arising.  Just as Norway is a good example of democratic socialism going well Greece is a good example today of democratic socialism starting to cause problems. Will Norway avoid Greece's fate only time will tell. I see a lot of socialism in the US as well. The ones I fear are the ones when government interferes with the market and picks winners and losers.  When government has too much control over industry cronyism takes place and winners are decided neglecting the benefit of the people as I alluded to earlier with the corn industry and the health insurance industry.  I fear the massive military that the US spends on despite needing those funds elsewhere BTW, picking winners in the military development industry.

I'm sure as always I will get shit from the far left on this forum but these are my views and I have the right to have them. Some may even think I am a republican which I am not.  I can take it and any other dumbass insults people throw my way when someone doesn't agree blindly with all their political views.

[doneby35]

socialism = more taxes = forcefully taking more of other people's money.
Healthcare is not a right, college education is not a right, universal income is not a right, guaranteed housing is not a right, all of which democratic socialists are wanting to implement. Your rights as an american are in the constitution.
We're doing great and always have, so i don't understand the obsession to become more like european/scandinavian countries.

[FIPurpose]

The reason you don't constantly hear about failed capitalist regimes isn't because they don't exist, but because it's an atrocious "slippery slope fallacy" that liberals do not find convincing so they're not going to use the same terrible logic to fight bad logic.

Except the United States failed as a laissez faire capitalist regime and as a result introduced socialist concepts (i.e., Social Security Act) to back-stop a capitalist economy with social safety nets along with a lot of Keynsean policies to bootstrap the economy back into operation. Even then it took the Second World War to really ramp things up. For more information I recommend reading any well researched book on the Great Depression.

I think you may have gotten lost in my sentence. I'm saying capitalism fails, but you're never going to here that "passing moderately capitalist policy x" will send us straight into an oligarchy because it's bad logic.

Fox News has been heavily pushing "all socialism" == Venezuela a lot this election cycle. So absolutely every Democratic policy suggestion gets boiled down to: "So you want to be Venezuela?". It's stupid rhetoric, and while I expect a few people to fall in line, I believe that this is an overall losing line of thinking. I have to believe that most people will see it for what it is.

[GuitarStv]

Speaking of words having meaning, welfare programs are not socialism, nor is regulation, nor is the existence of public goods, nor the existence of public monopolies.

You're mistaken.

Are the welfare programs you're talking about wholly devised, owned, and operated by the state?  If so, they're socialist.  If there are privately owned companies providing welfare to people for profit, then I guess they would be considered capitalist.

Of course a public monopoly would be entirely socialist in nature.  Providing public goods is one of the goals of socialism.  Capitalism is designed to concentrate wealth into the hands of few, socialism is an opposite response to that, and these are some of the methods employed to do that.

Does regulation result in a restriction of the free exchange (for the benefit of the people) that would otherwise take place in a free market?  If so, that's socialist.  In pure capitalism, no restrictions on markets are permissible.

The same can be said of capitalism as well.  No truly capitalist society exists, because in it's pure form it is inherently and fundamentally flawed.

Every successful country in the world uses a mix of capitalist profit seeking and socialist regulation.  Capitalism is needed for the profit motive (work harder, you should be able to get ahead).  Socialism is needed because money is a poor judge of fairness (particularly regarding situation of birth, environmental and shared resources, etc.).  You can argue where exactly the line should be drawn between the two (and there are many opinions regarding this), but when you try to demonize either half of that winning combination it makes you look rather uninformed.

Here is a question.  Why does the world have to be fair? It isn't.  Life is not fair.  Some are born in a small starving tribe while someone else is born in affluent Norway. Should we move all the starving to Norway so that they get a fair amount of food? Someone is smart while another has a learning disability.  Should the person with straight A's give up some of his good grades to the one with the disability?  Someone chooses to smoke 2 packs a day and has lung cancer is that fair?  What about someone who never smoked a day in their life and gets similar cancer?  Someone chooses to have multiple kids and no job while someone else chooses to get an education and get away from government subsides.  Is it unfair to family of 5 if they live in a smaller apartment with less things?  Is it fair for the working family to subsidize the non working if they are able bodied and can work but would rather not?

Here is the reality as I see it.  There is a shit ton of unfairness in the world and as we stand here today I see no reason why we should make arbitrary lines of fair and squeeze everyone in. Frankly it is impossible to fix it all and in my opinion equally unfair to take away from someone and simply give it to a less fortunate against their will (No I am not talking about taxes are theft.  I am talking in generalities.)  But, within every border we should have some social measures that allow those who had a less than average beginning to achieve improvement.  Public education is probably the best example that allows people who have the desire and ability to change their fortune to actively do so.  I think it is reasonable and even in the best interest of the more fortunate to have a pathway for success for everyone within that border.  But we shouldn't place people into jobs just because they started off less fortunate.  That is poor business and equally unfair to those who can do the job better.  We should provide basic healthcare to every person within a border and the key word is basic. But we should not subside bad continuous decisions like smoking despite being offered multiple quitting modalities that is unjust to everyone who has to subsidize it. We need to stop giving kids participation awards and awards for mediocrity.  We need to reward those who are smarter, better, harder working and willing to succeed because that is how we innovate and improve as a society.

The world doesn't have to be fair (and it will never be perfectly fair).  I certainly didn't say that it would be.

When capitalism concentrates wealth and power into the hands of a few (as it inevitably will), the many poor tend to get upset about the unfairness that they see.  Eventually they revolt and overthrow their oppressors.  Adopting socialist policy allows the capitalist society to reduce this occurrence.  Think of it not as a way to make everything fair - but a way to perpetuate the current power structures that you benefit from for longer.

In regards to socialism vs capitalism. We have history that shows what happens over time with regards to socialism.  Socialism gets more and more ingrained in society and eventually overtakes capitalism.  Again, this is generalities.  Too much socialism and people starve and the economy turns to shit.  To much capitalism and the working class gets taken advantage of and those unable to work suffer.

That's the beauty of democratic socialism.  It's not hard to pull back at all.  If the people want less of it, they just need to exercise their right to vote and they can elect whomever they want.

With too much capitalism the working class can eventually rebel via a strike and improved conditions are created.

No.  Eventually, capitalism concentrates all wealth into the hands of the few.  With too much capitalism, the bourgeois control everything - the means of production, the land that the proletariat live on, the stores they shop at.  The working class are slaves in all but name.

[GuitarStv]

socialism = more taxes = forcefully taking more of other people's money.

Nobody forcefully takes anything from you.


When you go into a restaurant and order soup, is it wrong for the restaurant to charge you for the soup?

You are paying tax for services rendered.  (Including military, police, fire, schools, roads, the legal system, etc.)

You might not eat any of the carrots in your soup, but you'll still have to pay for the whole thing.  In the same way, when you choose to voluntarily live and work in a country you have to pay for all of the things that country has decided are worth paying for with taxes (even if you don't think you personally need police protection).  You have many options in a democratic country to avoid being taxed:
- Make less money
- Leave the country
- Become politically active and get enough people to agree with you to change government spending

You're never forced to do anything though.  Unless you've already eaten the soup, and are trying to dash for the door.

[PDXTabs]

socialism = more taxes = forcefully taking more of other people's money.

That's definitely what we are doing in the military industrial complex, which is a huge industry BTW. Lots of jobs, lots of profits going to companies and shareholders. It looks a lot like state control of the economy to me.

Healthcare is not a right, college education is not a right, universal income is not a right, guaranteed housing is not a right, all of which democratic socialists are wanting to implement. Your rights as an american are in the constitution.

Is that the document that lays out how I can vote for people to represent me, spread my views in public, and petition the government for change? I think that's how my parents got kick ass college educations for very little money.

We're doing great and always have, so i don't understand the obsession to become more like european/scandinavian countries.

People like living in doors, eating healthy food, and paying less (overall, everyone's costs rolled up) for healthcare.

Have you read about the New Deal? Because you really should.

[doneby35]

socialism = more taxes = forcefully taking more of other people's money.

Nobody forcefully takes anything from you.


When you go into a restaurant and order soup, is it wrong for the restaurant to charge you for the soup?

You are paying tax for services rendered.  (Including military, police, fire, schools, roads, the legal system, etc.)

You might not eat any of the carrots in your soup, but you'll still have to pay for the whole thing.  In the same way, when you choose to voluntarily live and work in a country you have to pay for all of the things that country has decided are worth paying for with taxes (even if you don't think you personally need police protection).  You have many options in a democratic country to avoid being taxed:
- Make less money
- Leave the country
- Become politically active and get enough people to agree with you to change government spending

You're never forced to do anything though.  Unless you've already eaten the soup, and are trying to dash for the door.

Except the US is not a democratic country, it's a republic. There's a difference. Just because a majority of the population asks for something doesn't mean it should be implemented.
And also, if i order soup, i'm ordering it for myself so i'm happy to pay for it. If the government taxes for something that i don't even use and i'm not talking about police protection (to pay for welfare programs for example), then it is forcefully taking other people's money.

[EnjoyIt]

In regards to socialism vs capitalism. We have history that shows what happens over time with regards to socialism.  Socialism gets more and more ingrained in society and eventually overtakes capitalism.  Again, this is generalities.  Too much socialism and people starve and the economy turns to shit.  To much capitalism and the working class gets taken advantage of and those unable to work suffer.

That's the beauty of democratic socialism.  It's not hard to pull back at all.  If the people want less of it, they just need to exercise their right to vote and they can elect whomever they want.

I think this is where we strongly disagree because in theory you are correct.  But in realty, once the people get something, it is nearly impossible to vote it away.  You see it play out today in some of the pension plans in Greece.  You also see it in plenty of counties in the US. These is where I think the flaw of socialism takes place and eventually burrows through society to its decline.

1) socialism = more taxes = forcefully taking more of other people's money.

When you start a conversation that taxation is theft, you lose all credibility with anyone who may disagree with you.  Taxation isn't theft even if it feels like it is taken at gun point.  At the end of the day one can start a movement to alter taxation or simply move.  No one is forcing you to pay taxes.  More socialism does mean increased taxation which I oppose vehemently considering how much wasteful spending we already have today.

Healthcare is not a right.

I fully agree with you, but providing some basic health services actually benefits those who can afford it.  It is not good for the rich to have too of sick people coming the lands and infecting others or being forced to steal from the rich to pay for their medicines.

College education is not a right.

I agree with this as well and see no reason why it should be free. it should be inexpensive and easily affordable but definitely not free.  Books, teachers, desks all cost money.  On the other hand education prior to college should be free because giving people the opportunity to get ahead allows them to not mooch on the rest of society and again steal from the rich so that they can buy groceries.

Universal income is not a right.

I 100% agree no on is entitled to free money just cause they exist.

Guaranteed housing is not a right.

Also agree but again, giving people the ability have low cost housing is a good idea for any affluent area because it removes people from the streets as well as provides housing for the people who partake in the service industry which every area requires to exist.

i don't understand the obsession to become more like european/scandinavian countries.

I agree with that as well.  Actually I fear that we will follow the footsteps of some of those countries to our own detriment.

[Slow2FIRE]

...Healthcare is not a right, college education is not a right, universal income is not a right, guaranteed housing is not a right, all of which democratic socialists are wanting to implement. Your rights as an american are in the constitution...

Do you mean the constitution of the United States of America which has been amended as follows:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I mean, heck - if you want to play loose with the wording (as some do with the 2nd amendment) then I believe the 5th amendment prevents anyone from being denied healthcare that would lead to the loss of their life without due process of law, such as a pharmaceutical company denying life saving medication simply because someone can't pay the demanded price.

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

[Jrr85]

Speaking of words having meaning, welfare programs are not socialism, nor is regulation, nor is the existence of public goods, nor the existence of public monopolies.

You're mistaken.

Are the welfare programs you're talking about wholly devised, owned, and operated by the state?  If so, they're socialist.  If there are privately owned companies providing welfare to people for profit, then I guess they would be considered capitalist.

You are confusing the words socialism with public or governmental and capitalist with private.  They are not the same thing.  Law enforcement is not "socialist" just because it's not a profit seeking enterprise.  When LEO's use asset forfeiture to make it policing for profit, that doesn't turn it into capitalist.  Everything in the world is not socialist or capitalist. 

Of course a public monopoly would be entirely socialist in nature.

  A government run monopoly of a means of production, such as a municipal utility is socialist, yes.  But an investor owned utility regulated by the government is not socialist, although the line can get blurry if the gov't uses its regulatory power to essentially commandeer the company. 

  Providing public goods is one of the goals of socialism.  Capitalism is designed to concentrate wealth into the hands of few, socialism is an opposite response to that, and these are some of the methods employed to do that.

  This is just unadulterated BS.  Capitalism is not designed to concentrate wealth into the hands of a few.  Capitalism lets people more or less make free choices with their life and recognizes private ownership.  Might as well socialism is designed to make everybody poor.   

Does regulation result in a restriction of the free exchange (for the benefit of the people) that would otherwise take place in a free market?  If so, that's socialist.  In pure capitalism, no restrictions on markets are permissible.

  Capitalism is not the same thing as anarchy.

You are confusing the words socialism with public or governmental and capitalist with private.  They are not the same thing. 

[GuitarStv]

Speaking of words having meaning, welfare programs are not socialism, nor is regulation, nor is the existence of public goods, nor the existence of public monopolies.

You're mistaken.

Are the welfare programs you're talking about wholly devised, owned, and operated by the state?  If so, they're socialist.  If there are privately owned companies providing welfare to people for profit, then I guess they would be considered capitalist.

You are confusing the words socialism with public or governmental and capitalist with private.  They are not the same thing.  Law enforcement is not "socialist" just because it's not a profit seeking enterprise.  When LEO's use asset forfeiture to make it policing for profit, that doesn't turn it into capitalist.  Everything in the world is not socialist or capitalist. 

Law enforcement isn't socialist because it's not a profit seeking enterprise.  It's socialist because it's a state owned monopoly that excludes private businesses from competing with it (for the good of the people).  If police forces were privately owned and unregulated they would compete to solve crimes or provide protection - this would be a capitalist setup.

Asset forfeiture is not policing for profit, but it's a pretty clear violation of property rights and due process.

Agreed that not everything in the world is socialist or capitalist.

Of course a public monopoly would be entirely socialist in nature.

  A government run monopoly of a means of production, such as a municipal utility is socialist, yes.  But an investor owned utility regulated by the government is not socialist, although the line can get blurry if the gov't uses its regulatory power to essentially commandeer the company. 

Sure.

  Providing public goods is one of the goals of socialism.  Capitalism is designed to concentrate wealth into the hands of few, socialism is an opposite response to that, and these are some of the methods employed to do that.

  This is just unadulterated BS.  Capitalism is not designed to concentrate wealth into the hands of a few.  Capitalism lets people more or less make free choices with their life and recognizes private ownership.  Might as well socialism is designed to make everybody poor.   

Capitalism is designed to concentrate wealth.  In a capitalist system it's not possible for there to be a large number of people at the top . . . it always collapses to a few at the top and many at the bottom.  That's why it's efficient.  The best ideas/widgets/whatever rise to the top and gain dominance.  Structurally it can never do anything else.  That's the main reason that people started looking for socialist solutions, because when capitalism concentrates wealth too thoroughly it leads to all sorts of problems.

At a fundamental level, socialism is designed to make everyone equal . . . when things go far overboard this does tend to make everyone equally poor because the profit motive is not prevalent enough.  This is why socialism and capitalism work so well together to keep each other in check.

Does regulation result in a restriction of the free exchange (for the benefit of the people) that would otherwise take place in a free market?  If so, that's socialist.  In pure capitalism, no restrictions on markets are permissible.

  Capitalism is not the same thing as anarchy.

You are confusing the words socialism with public or governmental and capitalist with private.  They are not the same thing.

[/quote]

Capitalism isn't quite anarchy (although there are many traits shared), but pure capitalism depends on entirely free markets.  A free market cannot have government controls by definition.  If a government is controlling the sale of sex, the importation of goods, applying pollution controls, etc. it is acting in a way that benefits the people to the detriment of generating capital.  That's one of the fundamental tenants of socialism.

Socialism is about making more goods and services public, typically through a government action.  Capitalism is about allowing private industry to compete.  Naturally, many government actions are going to be socialist and many private actions will be capitalist.  People who believe that the mix of capitalism and socialism should be tilted towards capitalism will therefore usually favour small government, and people who believe otherwise will favour large governments.

[doneby35]

As a side note, I feel like this thread is about to get blocked real soon.

[obstinate]

Here is a question.  Why does the world have to be fair?

An easily answered one. The world doesn't have to be fair, by existence. It obviously isn't. Some of us would like for it to be more fair, and advocate for policies whereby it would be. Because we think it would be a more fun place to live for more people if it were.

I mean, isn't this obvious? Can it really be that you have so little understanding of the other side's perspective that you don't know this?

[PDXTabs]

@EnjoyIt  ,

I would add that some of us are acting with purely selfish motive. That is, if we know that pure capitalism tends to a concentration of wealth (and monopoly), then maybe we are personally afraid of the outcome. That is, today I have a good job and max out my 401k, but maybe tomorrow I get sick or seriously mentally ill. I would still prefer to live indoors, eat healthy food, and visit the doctor whenever I need to.  Maybe one of my kids or grandkids is a total f***up, but I don't want to see them living on the street, and I'm willing to trade a little "economic freedom" to make that happen.

Poor people in the US have a drastically different life expectancy (on par with the third world) than rich people, and worse than the rest of the "developed" world. Hell, where I am there is an increasing problem with homelessness in my neighborhood. How long until someone is desperate enough to stab me for $40, because they were tired of sleeping on the street and just wanted to spend one night in a motel? I would rather not be mugged for $40 because the richest nation on earth couldn't figure out how to house its citizens.

[GuitarStv]

Yep.  Helping others is a selfish act . . . it makes the world a better place for the person doing the helping as well as for the person being helped.

[gaja]

My old political science teacher back in high school used to categorize the major political ideologies based on what they thought was more important; freedom or equality. Neither of those are inherently morally superior to the other, and someone who places high value on equality will struggle to understand the thought process of someone who feels freedom is most important. I think finding the correct balance between those two is a better explanation for the different governance systems, than to try to define everything as capitalism or socialism.

[Norioch]

My old political science teacher back in high school used to categorize the major political ideologies based on what they thought was more important; freedom or equality. Neither of those are inherently morally superior to the other, and someone who places high value on equality will struggle to understand the thought process of someone who feels freedom is most important. I think finding the correct balance between those two is a better explanation for the different governance systems, than to try to define everything as capitalism or socialism.

What about valuing "prosperity"? Equality is worthless if it means everyone is living in equal misery, and freedom is worthless if it means you're free to choose how you die.

[PDXTabs]

What about valuing "prosperity"? Equality is worthless if it means everyone is living in equal misery, and freedom is worthless if it means you're free to choose how you die.

Yea, I want the freedom to live indoors, ride my bike to the library, eat healthy food, see the doctor whenever I need to, and not get hurt by other people. But maybe that's prosperity, not freedom.

[doneby35]

What about valuing "prosperity"? Equality is worthless if it means everyone is living in equal misery, and freedom is worthless if it means you're free to choose how you die.

Yea, I want the freedom to live indoors, ride my bike to the library, eat healthy food, see the doctor whenever I need to, and not get hurt by other people. But maybe that's prosperity, not freedom.

1. We have both prosperity and freedom. The problem is that a lot of people born here do not appreciate having either and they are more than willing to sacrifice their freedom for more government control and hand holding and becoming more like canada or europe where you can be fined and arrested for not referring to others by their preferred pronouns.
2. The poor in the US are not really poor. I come from a poor country. Minimum wage here allows me to live a very comfortable life.
3. Everyone wants healthcare to be more affordable and available to everyone. The disagreement is how to make that happen. My mom needs cataract surgery, she's in canada, she was told the wait time is... wait for it... 18 months. Now that's great healthcare!

[PDXTabs]

2. The poor in the US are not really poor. I come from a poor country. Minimum wage here allows me to live a very comfortable life.

Firstly, I am comparing the US to the rest of the rich nations, which I made incredibly obvious with my language.

Secondly, the UN says we have a huge poverty problem for a rich nation.

[GuitarStv]

1. We have both prosperity and freedom. The problem is that a lot of people born here do not appreciate having either and they are more than willing to sacrifice their freedom for more government control and hand holding and becoming more like canada or europe where you can be fined and arrested for not referring to others by their preferred pronouns.

Canadian here.  No, you can't be fined or arrested by not referring to others by their preferred pronouns.  I feel like you're maybe referring to bill C-16?  If so, it would be worth reading: http://sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-16-no-its-not-about-criminalizing-pronoun-misuse/.

Don't get me wrong, the US is a decent place.  It has some freedom, and an awful lot of prosperity.  But the country that locks up more of it's people than any other in the world, one of the most restrictive first world countries regarding drugs and alcohol use, and a country where prostitution is illegal (unless you film it for sale - because porn is OK somehow) . . . how the fuck is that free?  Plenty of countries that tilt a little more to the socialist side are objectively more free than the US.  The US doesn't even make the top 10 (https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2016-11-29/these-are-the-freest-countries-in-the-world).

[doneby35]

1. We have both prosperity and freedom. The problem is that a lot of people born here do not appreciate having either and they are more than willing to sacrifice their freedom for more government control and hand holding and becoming more like canada or europe where you can be fined and arrested for not referring to others by their preferred pronouns.

Canadian here.  No, you can't be fined or arrested by not referring to others by their preferred pronouns.  I feel like you're maybe referring to bill C-16?  If so, it would be worth reading: http://sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-16-no-its-not-about-criminalizing-pronoun-misuse/.

Everything i have read in the past states that you can be fined for misusing pronouns and be ordered to pay the fine by the human rights commission. And if you don't pay the fine, what would happen? i assume jail time. Misinterpreting laws does occur.

[PDXTabs]

3. Everyone wants healthcare to be more affordable and available to everyone. The disagreement is how to make that happen. My mom needs cataract surgery, she's in canada, she was told the wait time is... wait for it... 18 months. Now that's great healthcare!

Sorry, I was riding socialized public transit when it occurred to me that I should comment on this. Is Canada a prison state now? Can't she travel to the economically free US for her surgery? I am more familiar with UK healthcare where every citizen gets a decent standard of care that is paid for by their tax dollars and if you want more health care/insurance you are free to pay for it. Lo and behold they still pay less than the US for the public part (that is, less than we pay today for the ACA+Medicare+Medicaid).

[gaja]

What about valuing "prosperity"? Equality is worthless if it means everyone is living in equal misery, and freedom is worthless if it means you're free to choose how you die.

Yea, I want the freedom to live indoors, ride my bike to the library, eat healthy food, see the doctor whenever I need to, and not get hurt by other people. But maybe that's prosperity, not freedom.

It might be a bad translation on my part, but i’m trying to describe moral values. Not stuff that makes life comfortable. I strive to be a decent human being, and want my country to treat people fairly, giving everyone as equal a chance as possible. That is what I think is the moral thing to do, what aligns with my values.  Prosperity is a tool that can be used to reach other goals. It has no intrinsic moral value.

[doneby35]

3. Everyone wants healthcare to be more affordable and available to everyone. The disagreement is how to make that happen. My mom needs cataract surgery, she's in canada, she was told the wait time is... wait for it... 18 months. Now that's great healthcare!

Sorry, I was riding socialized public transit when it occurred to me that I should comment on this. Is Canada a prison state now? Can't she travel to the economically free US for her surgery? I am more familiar with UK healthcare where every citizen gets a decent standard of care that is paid for by their tax dollars and if you want more health care/insurance you are free to pay for it. Lo and behold they still pay less than the US for the public part (that is, less than we pay today for the ACA+Medicare+Medicaid).

So tax everyone for socialized healthcare but you end up needing to pay for private healthcare anyway? hmmm.

[Norioch]

It might be a bad translation on my part, but i’m trying to describe moral values. Not stuff that makes life comfortable. I strive to be a decent human being, and want my country to treat people fairly, giving everyone as equal a chance as possible. That is what I think is the moral thing to do, what aligns with my values.  Prosperity is a tool that can be used to reach other goals. It has no intrinsic moral value.

Prosperity is a moral value. Or rather, human happiness is good, human suffering is bad (this can also extend to lots of non-human species) is the basis for utilitarian morality. I'm using the word "prosperity" to refer to all sorts of human endeavors, not just the shallowest sort of material wealth. I don't think GDP alone, for example, is a full measure of the sort of prosperity I'm talking about, and I don't think maximizing GDP at the cost of all else is a moral imperative. I'm talking about prosperity in the "live long and prosper" sense. I'm talking about fulfilling as many levels as possible of Maslow's hierarchy of needs for as many people as possible.

[daverobev]

What about valuing "prosperity"? Equality is worthless if it means everyone is living in equal misery, and freedom is worthless if it means you're free to choose how you die.

Yea, I want the freedom to live indoors, ride my bike to the library, eat healthy food, see the doctor whenever I need to, and not get hurt by other people. But maybe that's prosperity, not freedom.

1. We have both prosperity and freedom. The problem is that a lot of people born here do not appreciate having either and they are more than willing to sacrifice their freedom for more government control and hand holding and becoming more like canada or europe where you can be fined and arrested for not referring to others by their preferred pronouns.
2. The poor in the US are not really poor. I come from a poor country. Minimum wage here allows me to live a very comfortable life.
3. Everyone wants healthcare to be more affordable and available to everyone. The disagreement is how to make that happen. My mom needs cataract surgery, she's in canada, she was told the wait time is... wait for it... 18 months. Now that's great healthcare!

I would suggest visiting other countries and doing some more research before making statements like these.

1. You can be fined in the US for parking the wrong way on a street. You can be fined for crossing the street except at a designated place. In some states, you have the freedom to use your mobile phone while driving (except right outside schools). There are huge gated communities where you are not free to enter. There is lots and lots and lots of gun violence, including by the police on the innocent.

2. The poor in the US are not on minimum wage, of a sufficient number of hours to get healthcare. The poor have 2-3 jobs with variable hours that they have to juggle. They are kept down by the cost of being poor (ie, not being able to afford up front costs to save money down the line).

3. There is no 'disagreement' in the rest of the developed world. People get universal healthcare. If you're poor, it is free to use. Yes, in some countries there are specific payroll deductions or taxes that are used specifically for health funding - that's fine, everything needs to be paid for somehow. But generally speaking, a visit to the doctor does not result in money being paid by you to the doctor. Neither does a visit to an emergency room. Neither does pregnancy/birth. The US is generally a 'for profit' system, and a complex mire of one at that. There is no efficiency, and no desire by the people within the part of the system that makes money for it - because it suits them for it to be a mess, it pays their salary. Which reminds me of this Upton Sinclair quote:

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.

It is absolutely incredible to me how much the US likes to preach to others, while shitting on the poor in society.

[GuitarStv]

1. We have both prosperity and freedom. The problem is that a lot of people born here do not appreciate having either and they are more than willing to sacrifice their freedom for more government control and hand holding and becoming more like canada or europe where you can be fined and arrested for not referring to others by their preferred pronouns.

Canadian here.  No, you can't be fined or arrested by not referring to others by their preferred pronouns.  I feel like you're maybe referring to bill C-16?  If so, it would be worth reading: http://sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-16-no-its-not-about-criminalizing-pronoun-misuse/.

Everything i have read in the past states that you can be fined for misusing pronouns and be ordered to pay the fine by the human rights commission. And if you don't pay the fine, what would happen? i assume jail time. Misinterpreting laws does occur.

Y'know . . . in addition to the last link I posted:
http://www.canadalandshow.com/no-wont-jailed-using-wrong-pronoun/
https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/qbnamx/no-the-trans-rights-bill-doesnt-criminalize-free-speech
https://www.mcgilldaily.com/2017/09/no-pronouns-wont-send-you-to-jail/
https://www.wsbtv.com/news/not-real-news-no-jail-in-canada-for-misusing-gender-pronoun/727649568

Even fucking Fox has the story right:  http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/04/05/not-real-news-no-jail-in-canada-for-misusing-gender-pronoun.html

Check your sources dude.  Or hell, check the actual bill:  http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-16/third-reading

Give it a read.  Seriously.

If that's too hard, try the simplified Q and A provided by the government:  http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/questions-and-answers-about-gender-identity-and-pronouns

Notice there's nothing in either source about jail time for using the wrong pronoun?  Notice how there isn't even anything about a fine?  You'll look less ignorant if you bother to inform yourself about the things you make your mind up about.

[EnjoyIt]

1. We have both prosperity and freedom. The problem is that a lot of people born here do not appreciate having either and they are more than willing to sacrifice their freedom for more government control and hand holding and becoming more like canada or europe where you can be fined and arrested for not referring to others by their preferred pronouns.

Canadian here.  No, you can't be fined or arrested by not referring to others by their preferred pronouns.  I feel like you're maybe referring to bill C-16?  If so, it would be worth reading: http://sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-16-no-its-not-about-criminalizing-pronoun-misuse/.

Everything i have read in the past states that you can be fined for misusing pronouns and be ordered to pay the fine by the human rights commission. And if you don't pay the fine, what would happen? i assume jail time. Misinterpreting laws does occur.

Y'know . . . in addition to the last link I posted:
http://www.canadalandshow.com/no-wont-jailed-using-wrong-pronoun/
https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/qbnamx/no-the-trans-rights-bill-doesnt-criminalize-free-speech
https://www.mcgilldaily.com/2017/09/no-pronouns-wont-send-you-to-jail/
https://www.wsbtv.com/news/not-real-news-no-jail-in-canada-for-misusing-gender-pronoun/727649568

Even fucking Fox has the story right:  http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/04/05/not-real-news-no-jail-in-canada-for-misusing-gender-pronoun.html

Check your sources dude.  Or hell, check the actual bill:  http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-16/third-reading

Give it a read.  Seriously.

If that's too hard, try the simplified Q and A provided by the government:  http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/questions-and-answers-about-gender-identity-and-pronouns

Notice there's nothing in either source about jail time for using the wrong pronoun?  Notice how there isn't even anything about a fine?  You'll look less ignorant if you bother to inform yourself about the things you make your mind up about.

@GuitarStv
doneby35 made a mistake in his/her (I don't want to use the wrong pronoun) thinking.  Why be so obnoxious about pointing it out and going out of your way to diminish them?  Why not just show the info, educate, and move on?

[swampwiz]

As a side note, I feel like this thread is about to get blocked real soon.

As the OP, I must say that it has drifted quite a bit!

[GuitarStv]

1. We have both prosperity and freedom. The problem is that a lot of people born here do not appreciate having either and they are more than willing to sacrifice their freedom for more government control and hand holding and becoming more like canada or europe where you can be fined and arrested for not referring to others by their preferred pronouns.

Canadian here.  No, you can't be fined or arrested by not referring to others by their preferred pronouns.  I feel like you're maybe referring to bill C-16?  If so, it would be worth reading: http://sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-16-no-its-not-about-criminalizing-pronoun-misuse/.

Everything i have read in the past states that you can be fined for misusing pronouns and be ordered to pay the fine by the human rights commission. And if you don't pay the fine, what would happen? i assume jail time. Misinterpreting laws does occur.

Y'know . . . in addition to the last link I posted:
http://www.canadalandshow.com/no-wont-jailed-using-wrong-pronoun/
https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/qbnamx/no-the-trans-rights-bill-doesnt-criminalize-free-speech
https://www.mcgilldaily.com/2017/09/no-pronouns-wont-send-you-to-jail/
https://www.wsbtv.com/news/not-real-news-no-jail-in-canada-for-misusing-gender-pronoun/727649568

Even fucking Fox has the story right:  http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/04/05/not-real-news-no-jail-in-canada-for-misusing-gender-pronoun.html

Check your sources dude.  Or hell, check the actual bill:  http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-16/third-reading

Give it a read.  Seriously.

If that's too hard, try the simplified Q and A provided by the government:  http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/questions-and-answers-about-gender-identity-and-pronouns

Notice there's nothing in either source about jail time for using the wrong pronoun?  Notice how there isn't even anything about a fine?  You'll look less ignorant if you bother to inform yourself about the things you make your mind up about.

@GuitarStv
doneby35 made a mistake in his/her (I don't want to use the wrong pronoun) thinking.  Why be so obnoxious about pointing it out and going out of your way to diminish them?  Why not just show the info, educate, and move on?

Yeah, that's what I did the first time.

When he/she ignored that, and continued to spout stupidity I was more straight forward.  If someone makes a mistake that's one thing.  To willfully ignore evidence presented because you would prefer to believe a lie, that's quite another.

[onlykelsey]

Back on topic!!  Thoughts from a left-leaning corporate lawyer.

I'm not sure I'm sold on all of the details, but Warren really does understand consumer financial stuff more than anyone on the right or the left, and she is not afraid to get down in the weeds when coming up with policy proposals.  I don't always agree with her goals, but she is definitely a smart cookie, and it seems like her proposals almost always actually move her towards her bigger picture goals, which is not something I can say about other figureheads on the left.  Having worked for a lot of big corporations, my experience is that they're not afraid of Bernie, but some are afraid of Warren, who genuinely understands their industry and has a very different take on what it should look like.

It seems like the Accountable Capitalism Act has two basic proposals:

• It takes us back to a time when corporations needed an actual charter (originally from the king, and now from the state) to do business.  Worth noting that it's targeted only at companies with revenue over $1 bn, which I think gets you about halfway down the Fortune 500.  Raising this to 5 or 10 bn would be an easy way to moderate the act, if congress were interested.  The charter will require that not only shareholders' interests are considered in making decisions.  So basically all huge corporations become for profit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_corporationbenefit corporations like Patagonia.  I think this will protect companies from shareholder class actions in some ways, because it would allow them to consider factors other than the highest price in transactions without worrying about Revlon litigation.
• For these ~200 companies, 40% of their board seats would have be elected by employees, sort of like in Germany.  This seems less worrying (and maybe less helpful if you agree with her goals), because management is generally in the hand of, well, management, and not boards.  Additionally, corporate governance dictates that you recuse yourself from votes you have a conflict in, so I imagine employee-elected directs may be recused quite often.

I'm not super worried about it, especially given the very limited scope.  We have lots of precedents of benefit corporations working (Patagonia, Kickstarter, Ben and Jerry's, Seventh Generation, etc) both for shareholders and employees (or the environment, in some cases).  I'm not sure the board seats will do much, frankly, but maybe I'm wrong.

[doneby35]

1. We have both prosperity and freedom. The problem is that a lot of people born here do not appreciate having either and they are more than willing to sacrifice their freedom for more government control and hand holding and becoming more like canada or europe where you can be fined and arrested for not referring to others by their preferred pronouns.

Canadian here.  No, you can't be fined or arrested by not referring to others by their preferred pronouns.  I feel like you're maybe referring to bill C-16?  If so, it would be worth reading: http://sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-16-no-its-not-about-criminalizing-pronoun-misuse/.

Everything i have read in the past states that you can be fined for misusing pronouns and be ordered to pay the fine by the human rights commission. And if you don't pay the fine, what would happen? i assume jail time. Misinterpreting laws does occur.

Y'know . . . in addition to the last link I posted:
http://www.canadalandshow.com/no-wont-jailed-using-wrong-pronoun/
https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/qbnamx/no-the-trans-rights-bill-doesnt-criminalize-free-speech
https://www.mcgilldaily.com/2017/09/no-pronouns-wont-send-you-to-jail/
https://www.wsbtv.com/news/not-real-news-no-jail-in-canada-for-misusing-gender-pronoun/727649568

Even fucking Fox has the story right:  http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/04/05/not-real-news-no-jail-in-canada-for-misusing-gender-pronoun.html

Check your sources dude.  Or hell, check the actual bill:  http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-16/third-reading

Give it a read.  Seriously.

If that's too hard, try the simplified Q and A provided by the government:  http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/questions-and-answers-about-gender-identity-and-pronouns

Notice there's nothing in either source about jail time for using the wrong pronoun?  Notice how there isn't even anything about a fine?  You'll look less ignorant if you bother to inform yourself about the things you make your mind up about.

@GuitarStv
doneby35 made a mistake in his/her (I don't want to use the wrong pronoun) thinking.  Why be so obnoxious about pointing it out and going out of your way to diminish them?  Why not just show the info, educate, and move on?

Yeah, that's what I did the first time.

When he/she ignored that, and continued to spout stupidity I was more straight forward.  If someone makes a mistake that's one thing.  To willfully ignore evidence presented because you would prefer to believe a lie, that's quite another.

I wasn't believing a lie, in response to the first link you sent, my response was simply that everything that i've read in the past stated that the law could be misinterpreted. You need to chill and have some patience instead of calling people stupid. I read the content in all of the links after your attack and i'm always open to have my mind changed, but less so when people are going to start calling others stupid and ignorant. You might be correct and only time will tell, so you won the c-16 argument, good job. Moving on.

[BicycleB]

@onlykelsey - re board seats and worker recusal, does the act have a safe harbor exception?  Does it need one?

Former auditor here. I think that to some degree, boards have power to the extent that they assert it. They have responsibility to ensure that the appropriate stakeholders (currently stockholders) have their interests served by management. To enforce that, they have the power to hire/fire the chief executive. Normally they are to set policy, and the CEO is supposed to follow it. Also the chief audit executive usually reports to them. How much authority they assert by using their power depends on the board. I do suspect that the balance of power is more CEO-centric than it should be, but that varies.

Current boards and CEOs get assaulted periodically by activist investors (example, Paul Singer).
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/08/27/paul-singer-doomsday-investor

I think Warren's bill would change the grounds of such pressure, reducing financial reasons but increasing societal reasons. No doubt there would be hassles and a period of confusion. My guess that it's worth it, and that a recusal exception allowing worker board members would be worthwhile. Open to other thoughts though!

[mak1277]

@onlykelsey - re board seats and worker recusal, does the act have a safe harbor exception?  Does it need one?

Former auditor here. I think that to some degree, boards have power to the extent that they assert it. They have responsibility to ensure that the appropriate stakeholders (currently stockholders) have their interests served by management. To enforce that, they have the power to hire/fire the chief executive. Normally they are to set policy, and the CEO is supposed to follow it. Also the chief audit executive usually reports to them. How much authority they assert by using their power depends on the board. I do suspect that the balance of power is more CEO-centric than it should be, but that varies.

I think this is true in theory but not so much in practice.  Think about it...the board members are either retired people or people who have "day jobs".  They don't want to/can't focus 100% of their time and energy on the company they serve.  Many of them serve on multiple boards.  Contrast this with CEOs and management teams whose only responsibility is serving the company.  It makes perfect sense that management would drive the ship and the board would only be there for supervisory purposes.  Obviously if management is doing a lousy job, it's the board's responsibility to make changes, but you can't expect the board to truly run the company.  At least, as a shareholder, I don't want them to.

[partgypsy]

Not to pile on, but regarding being fine, jailed for using the wrong pronoun. I see this fallacy a lot, where people read something, somewhere, and then believe something. I work in research. All information is not equal. When you are writing a paper, you are to quote original sources (say, the government website) rather than a blog that might have a political agenda. A lot of trouble can be avoided, if people just read the original sources rather than what are really opinion pieces. Not that opinion pieces don't have their place and value. but if you are trying to determine a fact (will I get fined if I accidently call someone the wrong pronoun) it is best to look at the original source, such as the law. And as far as well, someone can misinterprete the law, isn't that theoretically true for all laws? Why make something into something it isn't?

Elizabeth Warren claiming to have 1/32 American Indian heritage does not harm anyone. Has she tried to join a tribe? Get American indian discounts or benefits? Why do you all care so much?  Republicans by calling her Pocahantas and Fauxahantas, have brought up her heritage many orders of magnitude more than she has, ever. Conservatives have a bigger obsession about it than she does. And the fact is, there are many people in the US who have some fraction of American Indian and/or African American heritage. One of my best friends does. The the longer your family has been in this country, (think mayflower era) the MORE likely you have some of that heritage in your background. She may not be able to prove it. Many census records during those times were whitewashed, usually by the people themselves because it was socially and sometimes even legally impermissible to have those unions. It affected your social and possibly economic standing to advertise it. Maybe read up on history before you make snap judgments.   

The relationship between colonists and Native peoples was very complex and changed over time. Here is a snip from wikipedia.

"From 1835-1837 the Cherokees living in what is now Arkansas and Oklahoma were joined by thousands of Cherokees who moved under the terms of the treaty of New Echota, signed on 29 December 1835. The Old Settlers Roll of 1851 and the Drennen Payment Roll of 1851 are the best sources of the names of people who voluntarily moved west. They are both reproduced on the Old Setters Roll (FHL book 970.3 C424wa) and their heirs who received a payment resulting from a decision of the U.S. Court of Claims of 6 June 1893. The payment roll has been microfilmed by the Fort Worth Branch of the National Archives (control number 7RA34) (Family History Library film 830420) and an index to the roll is available as National Archives Microfilm Publication T985 (Family History Library film 830419).

Most Cherokees, however, refused to relocate because to do so would mean the government could confiscate any land in their possession. These Cherokees were forcibly moved by the Federal government in 1838-1839 in what has come to be called the Trail of Tears. There is no consolidated list of all the people on the Trail of Tears (or their descendants), but the national Archives in Washington, D.C. does have numerous muster rolls prepared by the military officers in charge of the removal parties. Robert S. Cotterill's The Southern Indians (Family History Library book 970.1 C828s) is an excellent source of information about the Five Civilized Tribes before removal. Also, the numerious footnotes to the various books by Grant Foreman are a source of valuable information about the tribes both before and after removal. One excellent source by Grant Foreman is The Five Civilized Tribes: Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, Seminole (Family History Library book 970.1 F761f)."