Why is socialism becoming increasingly popular in the United States?

The one the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional:

US Supreme Court blocks Biden's workplace vaccine mandate
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59989476

Joe Biden is a Faux Choice hypocrite, so are the rest of the hypocrites who aren't consistent about the right to self-proprietorship.

 

The choice was weekly testing or vaccination. It's pretty simple for the employer to arrange a test.

We're talking about a regulation going too far. Congress could turn around and legislate the same thing.

 

Biden did an "end-run around the Constitution" in order to strip individuals of their right to choose for themselves - vax, test or neither one - and issued a mandate that ordered them to get vaxed or tested.



Worse yet, he stripped people of their self-proprietorship based on the lie that the vax halted the spread of the virus:

“The bottom line: we’re going to protect vaccinated workers from unvaccinated co-workers. We’re going to reduce the spread of Covid-19 by increasing the share of the workforce that is vaccinated in businesses all across America.”

Bottom line: A politically motivated stunt intended to pacify the petty tyrants in his base and shore up his approval ratings. Utterly despicable.

We're talking about stripping people of their right to self-proprietorship and Congress wisely chose not to legislate such a mandate.

 

OK, 2 people.
Insignificant in the scheme of over 300M people.

 

BLM is a Far Left "activist" group - it is not 300M people.

 

Does BLM even exist anymore?
Are they pertinent in anything anymore?

Or is this about the past?

 

Yes, it still exists, and BLM is part of a broader coalition of like-minded groups.

It's about your fanciful claims that 1) only Trumpeteers talk about Marxism and 2) the concept (Marxism) doesn't exist in USA.

No doubt, the proles at the CPUSA would take issue with that, too:

https://www.cpusa.org

 

Why are you upset about a noninvasive test? I can see a concern about the vaccine even though I wasn't worried for myself.

Despicable? Perhaps. But the point remains that no one would be forced to get vaccinated.

Your claim the vaccines don't slow transmission is wrong. Prevent infection? No.

 

You're completely missing or avoiding the point.

What I oppose is the government stripping people of their right to self-proprietorship. The decision to get vaccinated, get tested or get neither is the individual's choice to make, not Joe Biden's/the government's.

The question is why aren't you oppose this - because you're a Democrat/Biden supporter?

To say this leaves people a "choice" and their right to self-proprietorship intact is like saying the ruling overturning Roe v. Wade leaves women a "choice" and their right to self-proprietorship intact because they can still refrain from sex or take contraception or an abortifacient.

That's BS, isn't it, and it's BS because the government (or voters) are making your choices for you instead of respecting your right to make your choices for yourself.

The intent was to force people to get vaccinated, but again that's beside the point. The point is Biden stripped us of the right to choose for ourselves. He tried to force us to get vaccinated or take a test while taking away the choice of doing neither - all based on the lie that the vaccine prevented the halt of the virus. The only reason we retained our right to choose is because the Supreme Court struck down Biden's attempt to take that right away from us.

My claim is the vaccine does not halt the spread of the virus from one individual to the next. The manufacturers and the science that people were supposed to be following instead of their politics support my claim.

 

I don't buy your line about getting tested because the test not invasive. As I said, I wasn't worried about the vaccine for myself, but I do have concerns about mandating it.

I don't oppose it because testing is an alternative. My support for Biden is a result of Republicans running Trump.

Faulty parallelism. Having to take a simple, painless test in no way compares to not having access to abortion.

I doubt the case turned on your issue.

It slows the spread of the virus by providing individuals with some protection. The shot presently provides some protection for a couple on months.

If your claim is the vaccines do nothing to protect users against infection, it's contrary to the best evidence.

 

Because fewer and fewer people understand or have knowledge of basic economics, and it's an easy sell by politicians to give away something that isn't theres.

 

Monetary socialism in the form of central banking and the nationalization of money has created this problem. It will only get worse with further nationalization.

Speaking of economics. You believe yourself to be educated. What is a cogent theory of socialist wealth creation?

 

Lacking any cogent theory of wealth creation and undermining every pillar of capitalist wealth creation, it is inevitable that socialists will continually escalate authoritarian tactics to prevent people from running back to capitalist enterprise so as not to devolve into subsistence-level poverty.

 

Empty speculation.

 

Nonsense. Almost all of the money we use is debt money created by private commercial banks when they lend, not fiat money issued by the central bank or Treasury. The problem with our modern debt-money monetary system -- and it is a serious one -- is the positive feedback loop inherent in fractional reserve banking, which legally entitles private commercial banks to increase the money supply by lending in order to create interest income for themselves. Central banks were established to stop that positive feedback loop from getting out of control, at which task they have not been very successful.

No, it would be much better if all additional money were issued by the Treasury debt- and interest-free, and private banks had to have 100% reserves.

I am -- but in economics, mostly self-educated.

I don't know how cogent you would call it, but socialists believe the owners of producer goods like factories, whom they call, "capitalists," are superfluous to the production process. Socialists note that large modern corporations are actually run by salaried professional managers, not the old-fashioned entrepreneur-owners of the 18th and 19th centuries. Under socialism, salaried professional managers would perform the functions formerly performed by factory owners. Investments in producer goods would be allocated by such managers in pursuit of some idea of social good rather than by private investors seeking profits. Some socialists -- mainly those who have never worked in a factory or at any other competitive private employment -- think that the workers in the factories would make such decisions by some sort of democratic process, but most are not that naive.

The problem with this notion, of course, is that the free private market aligns the capitalist's interest in profit with the consumer's interest in satisfying his desires -- Smith's Invisible Hand -- while socialist production does not. Without the free market profit motive, salaried professional managers would -- not always, but often, and increasingly -- try to use their authority over the means of production to satisfy their own desires rather than seek the public benefit, and this is no less the case if the workers themselves are in charge. If we look at the history of socialism, early on, professional managers and workers' committees often do try to do a good job and seek the public good. But over time, such honest and competent management is replaced by incompetent and dishonest political operators who nevertheless know how to work the system for their own benefit. There are many tragic stories of honest, competent managers in socialist systems who heroically try their best to make it work, but inevitably end up in the gulag, or dead.

 

You don't "buy my line" because you're Faux Choice. This issue isn't the nature of the test, this issue is the right to make your own choices concerning your own healthcare and not having those choices imposed on you by government.

Wrong. They both involve the right to self-proprietorship, bodily autonomy and the right to make you own HC decisions for yourself.

The vaccine can prevent serious illness and death but it does not prevent transmission of the virus. That's why people who have been vaccinated can catch and spread the virus.

 

I don't consider a noninvasive test, in this case a test for covid, as interfering with your personal healthcare decisions. I agree that people who don't want the vaccine have genuine concerns.

I think you're barking up the wrong tree with this one. People who might sympathize or identify with your concern about vaccines are not overly inclined to go to the wall over a noninvasive test.

Even the most recent vaccine reduces the chance of transmission for a couple of months.

 

Good grief. There was no forced vaccination when the alternative was a noninvasive test.

We can debate if passing legislation to implement a vaccination or testing policy is a good idea, politically and economically regardless of whether current legislation can be used to effect that end. I don't think forcing every business over a certain size to implement vaccination or testing makes sense.

 

Amazing.

Robbing people of their right to make their own HC choices and decisions for themselves is the ultimate in government interference.

I couldn't care less what Faux Choice hypocrites think, Langley. It's because of people like them that our right to self-proprietorship is being constantly attacked and eroded.

 

The alternative was a forced test. People were being deprived of the alternative/choice of opting out of both.

No thanks to Biden, the Supreme Court struck down his unconstitutional attempt to force the general public to do one or the other.

 

The "Faux Choice hypocrites" vote and I think there's more of them than there is of you.

 

There is nothing to the test. I don't see why it bothers you so much.

 

I figured that you'd come up empty. You want people to conform to a set of subjective moral prescriptions even though the result would be an economic disaster. You lack the fundamental, scientific answer to the problem of wealth creation (and economic calculation, to boot), but you won't let science get in your way! What's most important is controlling the behavior of people.

That's the kind of answer I would expect from a Flat Earther when asked to explain the sunrise. Socialism is to economics what Flat Earth theory is to science. And both are very much like a religion.

 

No no! YOU came up empty when all you had was your own beliefs, opinions, and fears about something you don't understand.

No I don't. Where do you get that? ...-Mises? Ayn Rand?

Don't pose generalities. Go ahead and ask me a specific question or situation about your choice of some need to create wealth under a socialist system.

"How would you populate a Mars colony?" LOL!!!! Gimme a break.