No, it's not non sequitur, unless you refuse to acknowledge the connection between economic and social freedom. Socialists like to pretend that connection does not exist. So, I can understand why the connection between socialism and gulags is completely lost to you.This is essentially a non-sequitur. Soviet gulags have no innate connection to the practice of Socialism. Let me give you a little example of how your logic works: Pinochet was a capitalist. Pinochet imprisoned opposition and had them tortured. There for, all governments that practice capitalism must imprison dissenters and torture them.
Do you see how that is false? Do you recognize that this is the logic you are using?
Social security is just as a bad. I know I'm never going to get the money out of it that I was forced to put in.Hah, if you say so... what about Social Security?
Really? That's not what I've heard from the people I know that actually live there, people who grew up in the Soviet bloc without heat, waiting in lines for food, etc.Well, economically, much of those countries around Russia fell into greater poverty and debt than they had ever known as a part of the USSR. Russia itself was wracked with mafia style corruption that many felt was actually more harmful than the government corruption had been (this is part of the reason that mr. Putin gained popularity. He put his fist down on much of the turbulent business).
The Soviet government was corrupt long before capitalism was implemented.What do you mean by this?
The US is a republic.This is a completely uneducated assessment. The systems I propose are actually Democratic in nature... more Democratic than anything the USA is doing right now. Nor is it collectivist in the way that you are connoting. It's a system where everyone gets a say, not one where everyone obeys.
I'd like to see your socialist system where people can disobey and it still works.
Societies formed because of voluntary cooperation, not coercion.And in fact, large groups can interact without physical threat. Why do you think societies ever appear in the first place?
What do you say about countries like the USA, anyhow? It may not be collectivist, but it is still shockingly coordinated for a nation of hundreds of millions of people spanning thousands of miles. How did this happen?
I knew I'd see something like this eventually. The masses are stupid, so the masses should obey the intellectual elites!And how could things be done any other way? Humanity has an exploding population with a limited range of resources and hospitable territory. Humans cannot afford to live in small factions clustered together like that. It will be violently anarchic. It will be tribal warfare.
Why do you think people stopped living that way?
Because order grants a better life than chaos. Even submitting to a despot is better than being raped by roving bandits day in and day out.
Humans are tribal. That's the only scale where socialism works. It doesn't work on a large scale because, while individuals are willing to give up resources to those they know and care about, they're not nearly as willing to give up those same resources to those they don't know. We don't have tribal lifestyles anymore and that's why socialism fails. That's why it has to be implemented at gun point by strongmen.You need to study sociology, anthropology, and evolutionary psychology.
Human beings are a socialism species. We more complexly and deeply social than most. On top of that, an individual can find a lot of personal interest cooperating in a legal society. We return to my point about order and chaos, and despots and bandits.
The pay-offs would be great if that was mankind's nature, but it's not.There are pay-offs to collective action. Read some of Mancur Olson's work.
I didn't say that you liked China. I asked what you liked about China.First of all, you immediately made a huge error in stating that I like China, when I put so much effort into assuring that I believe it has made certain progressions, while still feeling that it is backwards in many ways.
You cannot divorce economic freedom from social freedom.You are also focusing on more civil and governmental matters than what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about those things, I'm talking about socio-economics. There was never any point that I advocated things like forcing abortions.
China has improved quite a bit since it started to implement a little bit of capitalism into the economy.The immigration issue is very complicated. It has to do with wealth, public relations, national policies, culture, and a lot of other things, some that are affected by socialism and capitalism, and others that have nothing to do with it at all (I would say the majority). Anyway, you're probably going to see that slow down anyway. The USA's PR is at an all time low, it's a declining power, and China is currently the number one cause of declining poverty in the world (I shit you not. They are going up, up, up). While much of China's practices are horrible, I think that as it's wealth improves, it will have a real opportunity to better itself.
In my most wildly optimistic dreams, I'd want China to start converting to the sort of policies I promote, but I don't think it's very likely.
Go ahead and put me on ignore then, Dad.Now I want you to think good and hard about what I said, and try and hard to develop your responses to this post, because frankly, your mannerism so far has been ignorant, incomprehensive, and tactless.
If you don't improve your style fast, I'm just going to put you on ignore so I can focus on higher caliber people, like ygolo.