The only true ideal for power is that there is none except when handled by all. The US Constitution seemed to have this idea in mind with its intent
Are we talking about the same document granting exclusive political rights to land and/or slave-owning white males or are you a visitor from another dimension?
Do you understand the word “intent”? Do you know the history of founders trying to install this intent, but being forced back by those slave owners? If you do, then I believe we both agree the intent was good and the execution has failed.
The constitution explicitly, openly vests power exclusively in wealthy and/or slave holding men. Are you seriously claiming that wasn’t “intentional”?! Your founding fathers overwhelmingly WERE wealthy slave owning white men, they “extracted” those concessions FROM THEMSELVES.
So you’ll just skip over the historical facts surrounding how the initial document was better intended and the push back was from those who wanted to protect their “property.”
I don’t understand. Make a real argument with a list of supporting facts. If you truly believe what you’re saying then prove it to me. Change my mind. Why is everyone so lazy with their counter arguments. I feel like I need to educate my “opponents” just to feel like we’re having a conversation.
This is some “revolution betrayed” mythology. The founders WERE the slave owners. But even if they what you say was true, that means that their constitution crumbled immediately to the opposition and is unworthy of my respect or consideration
Oh I fully agree it’s not worthy of your respect or consideration. You’ll find most of my downvotes and arguments on here are from people who think this conversation is about China bad, US good. It’s not. My argument is both systems suck.
Okay, well if that’s your argument then you have an uphill battle ahead of you, considering the world-historical surges in life expectancy, literacy, poverty alleviation, education, crime reduction, social mobility and political autonomy brought by the Chinese system, which enjoys an over 90% approval rating among its people.
I think New Zealand has a great example of how historically socialist political organizations have integrated a capitalist economy in a way that still continues to promote the welfare of their people.
Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Switzerland… these are the leaders in this index. How? A high-welfare free market economy.
This is basically capitalism but with high taxes using examples like net wealth tax.
Also, it’s not fair to use a statistic like 90% approval rating. The state controls all the data and media. That’s like trump saying he’s the best that ever lived. Okay, but that’s not actually true!
New Zealand is not socialist, it’s a part of the western empire and subsidizes its safety nets off of the plunder of the global south. Same with the Nordics. They all rely on it. Secondly, the 90% approval rating is fair and valid. Socialist systems need to own their own press, and not allow private capitalists to steer the narrative.
New Zealand has tons of socialist influence and has had many many socialist political organizations influencing their politics for decades.
I know they are not socialist, but it’s am example of a free market economy with that necessary socialist influence. (Although, I think they are starting to crumble since their economy is so attached to foreign nations, it’s pretty unfortunate)
I will say the only way for the people to truly control anything is for them to have a vote on each decision. If they are not voting on the media, they do not control it. It would be amazing if ownership of your government and economy included actual decision making on the individual - collective level.
A small group of leaders can’t relate to their people’s interests on an individual level in a way that perfectly executes their will. It’s impossible.
Are we talking about the same document granting exclusive political rights to land and/or slave-owning white males or are you a visitor from another dimension?
Do you understand the word “intent”? Do you know the history of founders trying to install this intent, but being forced back by those slave owners? If you do, then I believe we both agree the intent was good and the execution has failed.
The constitution explicitly, openly vests power exclusively in wealthy and/or slave holding men. Are you seriously claiming that wasn’t “intentional”?! Your founding fathers overwhelmingly WERE wealthy slave owning white men, they “extracted” those concessions FROM THEMSELVES.
The founders were slave owners
So you’ll just skip over the historical facts surrounding how the initial document was better intended and the push back was from those who wanted to protect their “property.”
I don’t understand. Make a real argument with a list of supporting facts. If you truly believe what you’re saying then prove it to me. Change my mind. Why is everyone so lazy with their counter arguments. I feel like I need to educate my “opponents” just to feel like we’re having a conversation.
Westerners are so arrogant that assume that, if they believe it, it must be true.
I hope you go out like the last bad faith chud that used this catch phrase
Contributing a good faith argument has become too difficult. Engaging insults.
Go back to reddit you insufferable nerd
This is some “revolution betrayed” mythology. The founders WERE the slave owners. But even if they what you say was true, that means that their constitution crumbled immediately to the opposition and is unworthy of my respect or consideration
Oh I fully agree it’s not worthy of your respect or consideration. You’ll find most of my downvotes and arguments on here are from people who think this conversation is about China bad, US good. It’s not. My argument is both systems suck.
Okay, well if that’s your argument then you have an uphill battle ahead of you, considering the world-historical surges in life expectancy, literacy, poverty alleviation, education, crime reduction, social mobility and political autonomy brought by the Chinese system, which enjoys an over 90% approval rating among its people.
I’m glad you bright this up because this one of the markers I would use for a “good” system:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inequality-adjusted_Human_Development_Index
The Inequality Adjusted Human Development Index.
I think New Zealand has a great example of how historically socialist political organizations have integrated a capitalist economy in a way that still continues to promote the welfare of their people.
Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Switzerland… these are the leaders in this index. How? A high-welfare free market economy.
This is basically capitalism but with high taxes using examples like net wealth tax.
Also, it’s not fair to use a statistic like 90% approval rating. The state controls all the data and media. That’s like trump saying he’s the best that ever lived. Okay, but that’s not actually true!
New Zealand is not socialist, it’s a part of the western empire and subsidizes its safety nets off of the plunder of the global south. Same with the Nordics. They all rely on it. Secondly, the 90% approval rating is fair and valid. Socialist systems need to own their own press, and not allow private capitalists to steer the narrative.
New Zealand has tons of socialist influence and has had many many socialist political organizations influencing their politics for decades.
I know they are not socialist, but it’s am example of a free market economy with that necessary socialist influence. (Although, I think they are starting to crumble since their economy is so attached to foreign nations, it’s pretty unfortunate)
I will say the only way for the people to truly control anything is for them to have a vote on each decision. If they are not voting on the media, they do not control it. It would be amazing if ownership of your government and economy included actual decision making on the individual - collective level.
A small group of leaders can’t relate to their people’s interests on an individual level in a way that perfectly executes their will. It’s impossible.
Social programs are not socialism.
The purpose of a system is what it does, not what its marketing department says.
Straw arguments are not unique to Reddit. Guess this site is just people banned from Reddit rather than the evolved form I thought it was. Lame.