Coercive Capitalism vs. Voluntary Socialism

Would you like me to start with an entry in the Urban dictionary.

Why is critical reasoning not enough for those of your point of view?

 

You are still missing the point, can you explain the process by which government and a public sector is a form of socialism in one economy, but only those without a rational argument, plead specially regarding a limited definition of socialism, claim that a public sector is somehow different, but still distinct from the private sector.

Socialism is socialism and government is socialism because it can bailout capitalism so well for the wealthiest.

 

Socialism creates government through a social contract.

 

have you read Article 1 of our own supreme law of the land?

 

No. the urban dictionary is not an authority on anything. Please us Websters or the OED

You are not capable of critical reasoning. You repeat terms you do not understand like a demented crack smoking parrot with tourettes.

 

Our social contract was created by democracy. Most socialist nations have had no such social contract.

 

I just did. Evidently way over your head and level of comprehension.

 

The Social contract predates Democracy.

 

The economic foundation of a nation has absolutely nothing to do with the necessity for a social contract. We live in the United States with (crony) capitalism that is also based upon a social contract. The problem for socialism is that the social contract does not protect the Right of Property of the Person but then again, neither does our social contract that allows government interventionism in the economy to determine outcomes (i.e. crony capitalism) which also violates the Right of Property of the Person.

 

True.

You live in the USA.

As far as capitalism is concerned the USA is not a crony capitalist system. It is fairly free and open

The social contract is a concept by which the Government takes a monopoly over the right to enforce the law in return for actually enforcing the law. If you have a legal right to the property then the government will enforce it (in theory at least)

It really has nothing to do with economic policy.

 

Actually it is because the US government provides favoritism for "corporations" over the "self-employed" as well as providing favoritism for "investors" over "workers" in our tax codes where "corporations" and "investors" are typically taxed at less than 1/2 the tax burden relative to income when compared to the tax burden relative to income imposed on the "self-employed" and "workers" in America respectively. These different tax burdens are rationalized based upon the intent of the US government to effect economic outcomes.

That is crony capitalism (i.e. crony capitalism is based upon favoritism by government of one group over another that changes the economic outcomes).

 

You may be confusing totalitarian regimes with socialist regimes.

- - - Updated - - -

can you re-state your allegedly good argument, in a more concise manner?

can you explain the process by which government and a public sector is a form of socialism in one economy,

but only those without a rational argument, plead specially regarding a limited definition of socialism, and claim that a public sector is somehow different, but still distinct from the private sector and somehow an externality (force) that doesn't need to be accounted for in their specially pleaded, line of reasoning.

Government must be socialism because it is so in a command economy.

 

The social contract defines how our form of socialism will interact with capitalism.

 

Nope. They are frequently one in the same

 

In this case, the distinction is a social contract that constitutes a government.

 

A "social" contract doesn't imply "socialism", silly. And the history of socialism doesn't imply a social contract.

Hve you found that link yet? To any published source that defines government as socialism? You took the time to cite from the Federalist papers that DIDNT support your assertions, how about a source that does so? Don't be shy.

 

How do you believe socialism may start, if not with a social contract?

 

Usually dictated by those in power. Find that source yet?

 

How do you believe social powers are distributed, if not by socialism?

 

Any which way but loose, and certainly not by socialism.

 

In our republic, they are distributed by socialism via a social contract.

 

Wrong! We do have what many call a social contract, but it does not suggest, infer or imply socialism in any way shape or form.

 

Of course it does, simply because it is not a capital contract.