This is how you can create a democratic socialist state.

No my system gives the people the ability to keep the central government in check by having local governments hold almost all the power and be directly proportionally elected by the people. Peoples day to day life outside of work isn't affect at all by the central government, they control what they want the local government to be involved in.

Their working life is also in their hands because the capitalists have to answer to a socialist government with local representatives appointed by the local governments. Thus they have to pay fair wages and give good benefits lest they risk the central government getting involved.

People are more free and have less government interference in their life than in America

 

#1. Most people don’t give a rat’s tail about politics. They are mostly uninformed and apathetic. The system doesn’t work if the people don’t care.

#2. Even if your local government has the power you invasion, what’s to stop it from acting like the dictators in the central government.

#3. The United States, under the Articles of Confederation, had a system similar to the one you in vision. It was a disaster. Each state went off in its own direction and in some cases competed with each other.

 

LOL! Lefties will never want that. They keep crying for the nanny state.

 

Hard pass on communism. Good delivery, though. I'll give you that.

 

The biggest problem with our system is WE THE PEOPLE.

Nothing will change until we embrace one other and demand honesty and accountability of those we hire to manage our concerns..

 

Health insurance costs so much because of government regulations. We're supposed to believe the government is going to fix that with more regulations?

 

Define "local government".

 

The extent to which corrupt officials "dominate all aspects of its citizens lives" is entirely up to the citizens. We have the right to vote (when Repubs aren't taking it away), the right to protest, the ability to set the public dialogue, the right to run for office.

 

Health costs in countries with socialized medical care are lower because of greater regulation. The same could be true here too.

 

Not under the system proposed in the OP....

 

Right, just like Amtrak?

Healthcare in countries where the government runs the system is substandard in most cases.

If you want to look at a good argument against government run healthcare, just look at the VA hospital system. Is that the healthcare standard you want? Be honest.

 

I'm still waiting on a definition of "local government" but I'm going to bet it means giving all that power to major cities, already run by Communist Democrats.

 

Local government like Switzerland, a bunch of municipal governments I'd make the average size of 600 miles squared. All municipalities being either Urban, Subarian or Rural.

 

Yes yes — if hospitals and doctors don’t have any regulations they would absolutely do the right thing and not skirt public safety to make a few extra dollars.

We don’t ever have any examples showing how completely ridiculous this argument is. Government didn’t have to step in to force insurers to cover people with preexisting conditions. They didn’t have to step in to force hospitals to end surprise billing. They didn’t have to step in to force them to advertise and make available their pricing structure.

The public sector and low government involvement works well when you have competition — there is no competition when you are dying or unable to have another alternative.

Care to explain how other nations are able to provide a higher level of basic care, at lower cost and with more government regulation and involvement?

 

Some are intellectually interesting; others are totally impractical if not inane. But I can't see any pathway to socialism.

 

No they don't.

 

You're wrong.

 

I agree, the post, and the idea, is pretty bad. However I give the OP credit for trying to think of new ideas. This forum is littered with posts of him trying to generate new ideas and governing. Having participated in a few of those threads, yeah the ideas are pretty bad, but I don't criticize the idea of trying to think of something.

The problem of course is a Chesterton's fence type of issue. He doesn't really understand why things are the way they are other than a result of ancient stupidity, so he thinks it's easy to whip out a reform and fix things right up.

 

Life says your wrong.

 

Why are employees subject to being "taken advantage of" in the current system?

 

You said that many suppliers don't compete for people's business. You offered no argument other than "no they don't". That makes you wrong.

 

They don't compete, they cooperate.

 

That's quite a claim. Too bad you provide no support for it.

 

Everyday working at gas stations they adjust their prices to always be within 5 cents of each other.

 

And that's supposed to prove that a gas station is not competing against other businesses for customers?