That's a mixed bag of nuts.

1. Governments are slow and inefficient, people stop buying inefficient products unless it's a monopoly
2. The best structure for a natural monopoly is a monoploly.
   Monopolies should be regulated but offer Economies of Scale

energy production is a natural monopoly there by privatizing it only will lead to increased costs.

@Biosteelman actually if you look at the evidence taking aside the US, UK and Australia, your more or less completely wrong. In fact the big argument in the US at the moment is the lack of infrastructure that the government is doing. Socialism is not just business, it's schools hospitals and the defence force. Are you claiming that the the US defence force is slow, inefficient badly run monopoly. Compare you health system to say anyone else that has a broad government run Medicare, you can see how the privately run setup is far worse. The people suffer for it and the privileged profit!

@Jammo oh boy we get to get into the weeds.
Socialism isn't government services that provide Welfare, Security, or Equity as that is the government's job.
Yes the military is grossly inefficient. We grossly overpay to achieve the efficiency we have with it.
US has the worst medical...according to you but not according to research, Nobel prizes, people who travel from social medicine countries to the US to receive better treatment. It costs money, yes but it is not the worse by a long shot. It's also not equally good across the board.
Government should expand the current infrastructure but it's not as easy as you might think. The US has a low population density which means bang for the buck infrastructure investments aren't as fruitful here.

P.S. Math says I'm right and so does history. So there's that.

@Biosteelman I don't agree with your description of socialism. I guess your pro business where profit is the imperative and most of Europe and even the UK and Australia do better with socialism as it main priority is people. So I guess even if the military is grossly inefficient if it was run for a profit, China would own America because noone else could afford it and it would be paid for on credit. Or has that been happening already because of the privatised parts already. The maths is definitely stacking up especially if you get sick!

@Jammo please go learn what words mean. Socialism is an economic model that means of production are owned by the people not capitalist. Your example of countries with higher taxes and using that money for social programs isn't socialism. That's the disconnect. You using words wrong. Words have meanings.
P.S. The US leads the world in best rated hospitals , medical research, and Nobel prizes in medicine. (You're welcome)

It’s ok I get blocked a lot for doing stuff like that?

@48thRonin silly, blocking people... if they don't like what I say, either prove me wrong or maybe do a little research & educate yourself (themselves).

Not really. We do not have a voluntary system. Police and fire services have been usurped by people who call themselves govt. While I do not support govt police or fire services, I still pay for them involuntarily and therefore am every bit as entitled to them as everyone else.

Nice try, though.

@BryanLV no one said voluntary so where are you getting that? The point is don't cry you hate socialist programs yet use them every single day.

@Heidi68

I don't have a choice! And actually, they use me and and the rest of us every day. A dam and a bridge are not socialism, its technology.

The rest are forced socialist programs that would be better off handled by the private sector.

@BryanLV oh you mean like health insurance? Please.

@Heidi68

Insurance and the medical field both worked before government stepped in.

Now it sucks, and you want govt to control the entire thing. Yeah that will work out great.

@BryanLV how do you figured it worked? It has never worked - rates are continually going up [even before ACA so don't go there]. People are & have been dying because they can't get or afford healthcare/medications.

Then wisdom isn’t lost on you sir.?

It's hard to break through the propaganda and indoctrination of decades. Before moving to Germany, I was terrified of universal healthcare, but the reality is so much better than what we have here. I loved my doctors and the care we received there.

@GinaMaria The difference is that healthcare providers in countries with universal healthcare do the job because they want to do it and not to be rich.

Good for you. The BS ‘Socialism’ has been labeled with, like Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were worth opposing. But considering Democratic Socialism rebuilt Europe, providing for it’s people many things my nation lacks, it’s time we acknowledge it’s necessity.

@48thRonin That's true, but they do make a healthy living, especially considering that they have no student loans to repay. They also work longer hours (opening their offices as early as 7 am for no-appointment illnesses, and making house calls, when needed) but seem less stressed. My doctor here always looked exhausted, and never had more than 15 minutes to spare in an appointment. It was a stark difference.

@GinaMaria Very very excellent point and I didn’t even think of it that way.??

Imagine a doctor who can think about the patients well being and not what the insurance company will approve. If poor children (all childern) could get flu shots we might be able to reduce flu outbreaks and school closures due to outbreaks.

Next would be to shutdown antivaxers bs.

Both government and private industry are necessary evils but neither should be allowed to have absolute control for the sake of the people.

So therefore I don’t that “ those “ are going to do anything because my point is purely aimed at those who don’t understand how democratic socialism works and has existed for quite some time.
Nothing more nothing less.

@48thRonin

I disagree that govt is necessary. People can voluntarily cooperate for their own best interests.

egalitarian - all individuals are and should be treated equally. Explain how that makes sense in context to the above pictures... Similar type of thought but don't see how it fits.

Your statement is a classic misuse of the English language and yes I do believe in that all things should equal to everyone which is egalitarianism.

I don’t see how classic liberalism applies which means that everyone is entitled to have rights from what I remember. And has nothing to do with examples of democratic socialism.

Democratic socialism pretty much means that through government or by vote conducted citizens the creation of certain duties as well as those who will perform them and the budgets to pay for them are created.

Which in the case of capitalism all of these services would be provided by private industry and us the citizens would have to pay out of our pockets to have them.

Which in some countries if you don’t pay the fire department and your house is burning they’ll watch your house burn down and spray water on your neighbors.

Or in the case of socialism itself the ruling government decides what kind and how much of these services that they’ll provide.

@48thRonin, @JazznBlues My objective is to refute the validity of the phobia (irrational fear) of "capitalism". What we need to fear are crony capitalism and runaway plutocracy, which is currently happening in the U.S.
A healthy economy and society incorporates the best aspects of both socialism and capitalism.

@PBuck0145 you just defined social democracy of which I'm a huge fan.

@PBuck0145
Ok then you should’ve just said that.
Capitalism in itself is a necessary evil because we need for people to have viable incomes as well as trade to support our GDP.

Even Bernie acknowledges that it’s just that they the corporations and those who own them shouldn’t be in control of our government nor should they be allowed to hoard all of the wealth.

But the point that I was making is that people say that there’s no such thing as democratic socialism but in fact it’s existed for quite some time and these are simply examples of that.

@JazznBlues Please explain the taboo about acknowledging the capitalistic component of the SD ideology.

@PBuck0145 your original comment
"This is egalitarian, classical liberal capitalism."
Seems longhand for social democracy without mentioning social or democracy. That was my issue. Mentioning egalitarian in the same sentence gave a communist feel to it. My hang-up about politics is that we should be very precise about what we're talking about, so nothing is misconstrued. A fine example would be confusing social democracy with Democratic socialism, two very similar sounding things with different meanings.

Like this?

@Haemish1 I believe that Star Trek is the ultimate capitalism. The economy of abundance. Which is Capitalism.

Holy shit no one has said anything about destroying or removing capitalism. And no one has said that it’ll be forbidden to start a business own or start a damn business.

But hey it is and willing still be a free country despite whet the media and the other corporatists propagandist. Just saying

@48thRonin You obviously do not understand what democracy and socialism do to private property.

Think it through. Maybe then you will comprehend why lovers of liberty just jump to the end conclusion.

@BryanLV

Bryan you are the one who is lacking understanding.

[verywellmind.com]

@t1nick Name one socialist society that created surpluses and prosperity for its people.

Please educate my lack of understanding instead of just giving opinions minus information.

@t1nick

[verywellmind.com]

@BryanLV
There’s a distinction to be made between socialism and democratic socialism that seems to escape you.

@BryanLV

I am fully aware of cognitive dissonance. You flail at a windmill called "Socialism" without giving acknowledgement to the distinction between types of Socialism and to the European Nations that have made it work to the advantage of its citizens

Just as their are multiple styles of Socialism, there are multiple forms of Capitalism. We are presently living and operating in a predatory / cannibalistic version of capitalism. It is ultimately disfunctional and will consume itself. Capitalism does not need to follow this form. The Robber Barons of the 1920's tried and brought us the Great Depression. We practiced his immediately prior to 2016 and we got the Great Recession.

There is a more moderate level that reflects a more organic / evolutionary model which is long term thinking and benefits all. Not just those with access to capital and resources.

@t1nick, @Haemish1, @BryanLV Please don't necropost, this thread is from back in March. If you want to talk about socialism/capitalism/democratic socialism/social democracy/cognitive dissonance/literally anything else, please start a new post.

In fact, F*** this shit I'll do it myself.

[agnostic.com]

@Happy_Killbot

I had no idea this post was old. I assumed it was just the same topic making the rounds again. Yawn...Glaf see you're still out there.

Necropost, what a quaint concept.

@t1nick, @Happy_Killbot

Necropost. I like that!

@Haemish1 Not at all. They are the same thing and lead to the same things. Tyrannical government leading to poverty and authoritarianism. Whether that be mob rule majority or a monarch. Its still a boot on the neck of the individual.

@BryanLV
Just as oligarchy is in a capitalist system.

Oh so when are you moving to a 3rd world communist country because that’s what you’re telling me.

We already have forms of “ democratic socialism “ and for decades now?
No one is proposing that we’re getting rid of capitalism because who else is going to pay for rebuilding our infrastructure?

@48thRonin if we democratically vote for bread lines then it can’t be wrong!

@RodLisht You know your propaganda well sir.
It’s all you know

@48thRonin

@RodLisht That is so beautiful Comrade.
It brings tears to eyes.

You don't think other systems do not rely on capital. Yet they are not capitalists. Yout argument is specious.

@t1nick Capital in economics presupposes individual ownership. Socialism denotes no private ownership of capital.

Capital and socialism have proven to be mutually exclusive historically.

@BryanLV

Ummm nope would be my guess

Your definition.
Webster’s definition

@48thRonin

I noticed the definition you posted left out the definition.

@BryanLV ok dude whatever ????