Looking forward to "debating" this for the next round of mass shootings!

@StreetlightX I read certain comments on the internet and just stare at them in disbelief and it feels like the screen of my computer becomes some sort of window looking out into a hellish void.

it often creates monopolies — Shushi

As a matter of fact, Capitalism creates oligopolies. Market concentration has increased rapidly over the last 30 years as corporate lobbyists pushed for relaxed anti-trust laws. Oligopolies follow the twisted logic of Capitalism. On one hand they scale production nationally and internationally leading to more product turnover and lower unit cost, faster distribution, a larger labor force to control, and therefore increase capital flow. On the other hand, it is dangerous for a company to actually be a monopoly because it puts them a severe risk should there be a change in demand, an act of God, etc.. If several large companies produce the same type of good, and there is a sudden decrease in demand for that good, then they all bear the burden, and it would be easier to lower prices to remain competitive against the other firms, thereby mitigating loss.

Anyway, Libertarianism is bad political philosophy. Just garbage. Do yourself a favor and start with Rob Larson's Capitalism vs. Freedom and then move on to Amartya Sen's Development as Freedom to rid yourself of the silly liberty vs. Government crap.

The argument is that the states exist as a fundamental political unit of organization making up the US — Marchesk

This isn't even an argument!

Marx skewered the arguments typified in the original post over 150 years ago. "Freedom, Equality, Property and Bentham" sound wonderful in abstract theory, but go underneath mere appearance - particularly within, in Marx's time, "Dark Satanic Mills", and in our time "communist governments", these libertarian arguments quickly fall apart.

Why are these people convinced that they're living under capitalism to begin with? Why not any other "ism" that one might throw around? Such views don't pop into existence out of thin air. You don't have to read the works of academics to be influenced by views that originate in the works of academics, so much should be fairly obvious. — Constrained Maximizer

This is tortured reasoning. You just refuse to accept the fact that low income adults are capable of understanding how the socio-economic system they live in doesn't work in their favor.

You mean the completely unverifiable claim about Sanders' network of donors? You will excuse me if I don't find "Bernie said so" terribly convincing. — Constrained Maximizer

Individual donations made to presidential campaigns are required to be reported to the FEC, idiot.

Are we playing let's ignore history because we don't like the current party in power? — Marchesk

I made it clear that the Senate is set up to be ludicrously undemocratic, and not reflective of the voting population. Has nothing to do with the fact that Republicans currently control it. You simply don't have a sound argument justifying it's modern day existence, because there is none.

Are we playing the jack off to the founding fathers game?

This is of course not what I said. The fact that I said "misled by arguments" and not "progenitors of such arguments" makes it clear that I am not talking solely about ivory tower academics. — Constrained Maximizer

Do you sincerely believe that adults making less than $30K annually are reading arguments laid out in the works of academics? Or do you think they are able to understand their own material conditions and see how Capitalism doesn't work in their favor? And what of Sanders' wide network of donors who live across America. Not going to let you circumvent that one.

The inability to even grasp that we're talking about rival views calls into question the validity of an answer given by someone who harbors said inability. — Constrained Maximizer

I've heard drunks ramble more cogently than this sentence.

That respondents don't view capitalism and socialism in "either-or terms", despite the fact that these are clearly incompatible economic models, might tell you something about the validity of such results. — Constrained Maximizer

That fact isn't relevant to your original claim. You claimed that Capitalism is an "obviously desirable thing", and that those who oppose or "vehemently oppose" it are exclusively out-of-touch academics perched within their ivory towers. As I've shown, that's simply not true. There is sustained criticism and skepticism of Capitalism that exists across incomes and demographics.

Capitalism is such an obviously desirable thing that, barring having been woefully misled by a plethora of bad arguments popular within academic circles, it's quite difficult to see just why anyone would oppose it, let alone vehemently oppose it. Those who devise unreasonable conceptions of 'justice' and bark orders at their fellows from their academic ivory tower would do well to at least not have the audacity to accuse anyone else of being far removed from the "common man" or of supporting the cause of "the few". — Constrained Maximizer

Weird you say that since Socialism is viewed more positively and Capitalism more negatively by adults with family income less than $30K than Adults with a family income of more than $30K. So much for being removed from the "common man". Also weird how Bernie Sanders has the largest number of individual donors who live all across the United States.

The father of the constitution, Madison, would disagree. He offers multiple valid justifications for the senate in The Federalist Papers 62 and 63. — Reshuffle

oh ok

Pretty unbelievable that anyone can defend free market Capitalism in the year two thousand nineteen

The US government was never meant to be entirely democratic. It's a representative republic with a Constitution and an unelected Judicial Branch. — Marchesk

Of course it was never meant to be entirely democratic as it was constructed by slave-owners who subsequently only allowed property owning white men to vote. With time, we extended suffrage. When a state with 500K people has the same representative power as a state with 11M that's extremely undemocratic and should be abolished. There is no valid justification for the existence of the Senate. What does it even mean to "represent the states" as opposed to "the people"? Does land have a say in policy?

All this ranting underscores that none of you, apparently, has any understanding of the history of the writing of the US Constitution. Interesting fact: the USA is the oldest continuous (with some minor qualifications) form of government on the planet. Is the Constitution perfect? No one pretends it is. But it is a constitution, not a mathematical treatise. That is, it is neither for once and for all all right or all wrong, but it does provide for its own correction and adjustment.

And no one speaking other than informally supposes that the US is a democracy. The Athenians tried that and found it problematic. The US is a federal republic with a representative form of government - which includes the presidential election. Most folks castigate the electoral college - but understand neither it nor its purpose. It exists to negative the popular vote, should the populace elect a bad man. We did, and they didn't. So it's not their purpose that's a defect, but their practice! — tim wood

Absolute jabberwocky.

The Senate is an extremely undemocratic system and we should get rid of it

Get rid of guns you morons

Constructing a complex socio-politico-economical system that substantively affects human lives from the fiat of two abstract principles is the modus operandi of Libertarianism. Impossible to take seriously.

I appreciate the optimism. I know who I’m going to vote for (not Biden) but will vote for Biden if he’s the nominee. It’s still very early. — Noah Te Stroete

It's not optimism; I have no idea how any of the Democratic candidates will actual fair against Trump when it comes down to election day, and anyone who says otherwise is full of shit. I'm just pointing out how inane it is to argue, at this point in time, that the Democrats will need to nominate a moderate in order to beat Trump, when current polling suggests otherwise. My point is that people should just vote for who they think will be best for America, as oppose to voting for who they think is "most electable" or who can "beat Trump". No one thought Trump was going to get the nominee, and at this point in time relative to the 2016 election, Trump was polling low single digits. Even Obama didn't pull ahead of Hilary until several months prior to the Primary. So no one actually knows. Just vote for who you think will offer the greatest material interests for Americans.

There are 50 state elections. How much of the Dems support is coming from CA and NY? It’s the polls in the battleground states that we should be looking at — Noah Te Stroete

Sure, but that outcome isn't true of several key states that Trump previously won including Pennsylvania, Michigan, Indiana, etc. So while Ohio may currently be edging slightly towards Trump outside of a Biden nomination, what's being indicated by Trump's consistently low approval rating is a tepid response at the polls particularity within swing states, as also exemplified by the Blue Wave of 2018.

Those are national polls. On MSNBC tonight, a poll showed that the only candidate who was ahead of Trump in Ohio was Biden. They say that as Ohio goes so goes the country (or at least a Republican hasn’t won the electoral college in the modern era without winning Ohio) — Noah Te Stroete

The nation elects the president, not Ohio.

All serious Democratic candidates are polling higher 1:1 against Trump, so I don't understand why ideological position matters at this juncture. At best, what is needed is a candidate with an ideologically coherent and forward-looking politics to inspire and spur the base, and Warren/Sanders are in the best position to do that, particularly given that they are favorites among younger voters who (at least Millennials) will be the largest demographic in America, surpassing older and more conservative Boomers. I also thought this article was a great read and captures that sentiment well.

If you want to feel happy for a fleeting hour or so watch this excellent debate regarding Greek vs. Rome and which culture modernity is more indebted to between Mary Beard and Boris Johnson. Boris ends up looking like an undergrad compared to the magisterial expertise of Mary.

Just Google Osita Nwanevu and New Yorker and read his most recent article

Good article on how (White) Nationalism is becoming an ad hoc conservative intellectualism as a response to Trump.

To argue about getting the moderates or a democratic candidate getting the Trump voters is theoretically logical, but in real terms I wouldn't be so sure. — ssu

I didn't argue this. You said that "no one is telling in either of the two parties to be more moderate." I pointed out how this is not true. That's it.

NO ONE is telling in either of the two parties to be more moderate. That (being moderate) is seen as a losing strategy. — ssu

Except for not one, not two, not three, but at least four, regular NYT Op-Ed columnists written just in the last month or so (and in fact both Bret Stephens and David Brooks had to write immediate follow ups that were just as bad as their originals). Similar articles have been written about in the Washington Post and The Atlantic. This is a fairly wide-spread talking point among a small segment of well-to-do Centrists who despise the GOP's reactionary social views, but (even more so) abhor the Democrat's leftward critique of Capitalism, and Never Trump Republicans, who like most of Trump's policies but believe he's too unrefined and outspoken. Neither should have any say in what direction the Democrats should move towards, given the state of their own houses.

lol you said I was a "fucking media puppet" so here is a reminder for you to put your pants on first tomorrow morning and then your shoes. Seems like you need to hear that every day.

I curious , if you were president, what would you do with the border issue? — halo

Throw everyone in ICE and CBP in jail and let the immigrants in the concentration camps live in their homes. Easy.

No: I'm not saying to embrace their talking points, in saying they shouldn't play into them. In particular, consider Medicare For All. IMO it has near zero chance of passing, but even if it could - it's too big, and too soon. We absolutely need a public option- that should be campaigned for. If successful, it will eventually crowd out the private options. IMO this is smart policy, and smarter politically. — Relativist

Incidentally, here is Buttigieg saying exactly what I've been saying.

The questions and set of answers are very clearly presented in each of the polls I've provided, all of which have been from PEW Research which is a very reputable fact tank that is used by both liberal and conservative commentators. Sorry that they aren't providing you with the answers you want to see or the answers provided to you by your (assuming they are real) clearly idiotic family/friends/acquaintances, but there's no need to whine about it

Well Maw. The bit about legal immigrants having issues with those who enter illegally is real. Neither your opinion nor the polls matter. You should talk to real people in real places a bit more. — creativesoul

Outside of the fact that I simply don't believe for an instant that you are anyone here has "interviewed" immigrants on their views of undocumented immigration, why do polls not matter? Are they not reflective of "real people" responding? Seems that majority of Americans are sympathetic to undocumented immigrants, even fairly split among conservatives.

Actual minorities speaking in favor of Trump vs. surveys and polls saying otherwise — creativesoul

You do realize that @halo is a random person on the internet, right? And who do you think takes these surveys and polls if not "actual immigrants"? 69% of Latinos voted Democrat in the 2018 midterm vs. 29% who voted GOP.

I was traveling around Texas speaking to some Mexicans and they all were saying how much they love Trump! Every single one! They said to me, we came into this country legally, so those that don't come into this country legally should be placed in concentration camps, be placed in cells made to fit 25 with 100 other people and have their children separated from them. It's only fair, they tell me, to force these immigrants, even if they are seeking asylum which is legal, to be denied bathroom breaks, a bed to sleep in, showers, or full hot meals. This is simply a reasonable response to illegal immigrants, I am constantly being told this by Mexicans at the southern border even though the majority of immigrants are coming from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. Fortunately as a third generation American myself, I tell them, there were basically no immigration laws imposed for my great-grandparents, as long as they didn't have the bubonic plague or some shit.

Most mexicans I meet in So Cal are Trump supporters, pro border security and frankly less likely to embrace homosexuality and gender blah blah.. — halo

The cubans in miami where i’m from are passionately free market republicans — halo

Most mexicans I meet in So Cal — halo

The cubans in miami — halo

The media cherry picks what they show you. — halo

You are not get a good sample. — halo

hmm ok well here's a good sample showing most Latinos lean liberal/Dem

I wouldn't necessarily say rural since they are undeniable megachurches in areas such as California that are solidly pro-Trump. Not to mention the fact that California is the breeding ground for modern day "Intellectual Conservationism" (f course, all that becomes moot given that California is a decidedly blue state). The Democratic nominees should absolutely go to rural areas not only because there are Independents and Democrats that live in such areas, but most importantly because they are contenders for the Presidency and should therefore reach out people across the country. My issue is strictly in regards to reaching out to Trump supporters as a prominent political strategy as a necessary path towards election.

For some reason I thought you were a Trump supporter — Noah Te Stroete

my response

Yeah, people can be manipulated quite easily by authority figures. If they hear a leader with a strong personality frame something a certain way... — Noah Te Stroete

It has nothing to do with manipulation. If the public approval for Medicare goes down because of a specific concern viz., that people will lose their employee-based health coverage, then it can be addressed by the fact that people routinely lose their employee-based coverage quite often and that Medicare For All is the only way to ensure permanent coverage. It's a straightforward, and accurate response.

I’m just pointing out that the actual approval of Medicare-for-all is much lower (a minority of around 30%) when it is actually understood what that entails. — Noah Te Stroete

Sure, but as I point out clarification and framing can shift this approval. So as I said, the way to confront this issue for voters is to say, well actually you and other people can lose your employee-based insurance if you change jobs, if you are let go from a job or fired, and the only way to secure permanent healthcare regardless of your employment situation is through Medicare for All.

As for the 70% agreeing with Medicare-for-all, the approval drops to a minority when followed up with the caveat that they would lose their employer-based insurance. — Noah Te Stroete

Easy problem to confront given that the average person holds ~11 different jobs by the time they are 50, meaning that - assuming each employer actually provides health insurance - a person loses their employer-based insurance 11 times. People lose their employer-based insurance whenever they change jobs or if they are let go/fired.

Also to all everyone saying working class people love Trump or are conservative etc. no, sorry this isn't 1953. Working class doesn't equal white or white Christian. Many working class people are ethnic minorities who solidly vote Blue. Instead of saying "working class" just say white Christians.