Why "Democratic" Socialism Doesn't Work...

[_EAllusion]

EAllusion do you consider John Stossel a libertarian?

Yeah, he's libertarian.

He's good on some points, but is unfortunately is also prone to sketchy journalism. But they can't all be winners, right?

[_EAllusion]

I've read a few different papers that peg the population that can be reasonably described as libertarian in the US at around 10-25% depending on how narrowly you define the term.

The number of people who vote explicitly libertarian is relatively small, but the number of people who are libertarian in ideological outlook is considerable. The number of people who self-identify as "libertarian" or "progressive" is near identical. The range of people who fall into "libertarian" or "liberal" views is also very close.

538 sums up this notion here:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ther ... ian-views/

This is a sizeable population to appeal to. That major parties do not do a good job appealing to them is not at all obvious as an intelligent vote-getting strategy.

[_moksha]

A libertarian paradise (anarchy) in the US would be very short-lived inevitably replaced with something far worse than before.

[_EAllusion]

A libertarian paradise (anarchy) in the US would be very short-lived inevitably replaced with something far worse than before.

Very few libertarians are anarchists and those that are want a type of anarchy that looks quite different from what people expect as it involves a variety of things we'd normally think of as government. Anarcho-capitalists are to libertarianism what an anarchist like Chomsky is to progressive politics. It's a part of it, but relatively small and not quite what you might think it is until you understand it further. Interestingly, I doubt you would assert that a progressivist paradise is anarchy, which no doubt will descend into rule by biker gangs followed by Canadian invasion.

I'm continually amazed at how liberals turn into the equivalent of some slack-jawed conservative supposing that Obama is a Muslim sleeper agent when the subject of libertarianism comes up. Apparently supporting low taxes and gay marriage is just mind-boggling.

[_Doctor Steuss]

These arguments are so misleading.

Snow plows are one of the key "socialist" victories that Sanders was proud of as Mayor. If LDSFaqs -- being the lighthouse of ethics and morality that he is -- is going to harangue democratic socialism (a term he had likely never heard prior to Sanders), then he should likely avoid the thing that Sanders felt was so much of a significant socialist victory as to make it enough of a central talking point that it was included in the "first mention" he ever received on national public radio.

[_EAllusion]

These arguments are so misleading.

Snow plows are one of the key "socialist" victories that Sanders was proud of as Mayor. If LDSFaqs -- being the lighthouse of ethics and morality that he is -- is going to harangue democratic socialism (a term he had likely never heard prior to Sanders), then he should likely avoid the thing that Sanders felt was so much of a significant socialist victory as to make it enough of a central talking point that it was included in the "first mention" he ever received on national public radio.

If you oppose subjugation of women so much, then maybe you should stop using petrochemicals like gasoline, as their purchase funds just that. I guess you really don't oppose subjugation of women though.

When the government taxes people to pay for a service that crowds out private alternatives entirely or partially, taking advantage of what the government is providing doesn't mean you are a hypocrite or secretly agree with it. It means you are limited by your options forced upon you by the government and/or are able to act in rational self-interest.

If the government took over the sugar industry, it wouldn't mean you would have to avoid eating all sugar lest you be a hypocrite for opposing the takeover.

[_Doctor Steuss]

When the government taxes people to pay for a service that crowds out private alternatives entirely or partially, taking advantage of what the government is providing doesn't mean you are a hypocrite or secretly agree with it. It means you are limited by your options forced upon you by the government and/or are able to act in rational self-interest.

So, it is your contention that LDSfaqs would gladly pay a private alternative service to plow only the streets that he uses, if such an option wasn't negated by the government monopoly on public street snow removal?

[_EAllusion]

So, it is your contention that LDSfaqs would gladly pay a private alternative service to plow only the streets that he uses, if such an option wasn't negated by the government monopoly on public street snow removal?

You are aware that governments don't plow the streets everywhere, right? I'm not sure if you are aware that it is not the case that the only alternative to public snow removal is people paying personally for the streets that just they use being plowed. Usually what happens is people voluntarily pool their resources and pay a fee that gets both roads they use and roads they might not use plowed. That's how cooperatives work. That's how the snow gets removed from the alley behind my house even though I don't use 1/10th of the the alleys in my neighborhood.

Is this what ldsfaqs would prefer? Probably. He's probably prefer that even if he couldn't personally afford to participate because sometimes people oppose things that it is only rational for them to take advantage of if it exists.

[_Doctor Steuss]

You are aware that governments don't plow the streets everywhere, right?

I assumed they would only plow public streets (kind of like how my neighborhood is all private streets, so any pavement, sidewalks, light posts, etc. maintenance is on the community's dime, and not handled by the city/county). But, I live in desert, so in retrospect I shouldn’t be making assumptions about something so foreign to me that it might as well be fiction.

[_EAllusion]

I'd add further it's not only a pure government monopoly on a service like plowing that can distort the market. If the government builds roads to far-flung places and socializes the costs of maintaining snow removal for those roads, this changes where people choose to live since they do not see the true cost of their choices. If those costs were instead burdened more personally in cooperatives, then people would be more likely to cluster together due to cost-sharing and economy of scale. Whether or not this is a good thing is a separate matter, but government effects start before snow hits the roads each winter.