I'm well aware of the Bernie bro perspective, rhetoric, and psychological composition. But it's dogma predicated on irrational beliefs (awfulization of the rich as well as their current "poor" circumstances that are disproportionate to reality, beliefs that other people MUST do or believe xyz, beliefs that things should go their way because they want them to, etc), but they have very little substance or logic in the real world. If Bernie tried to tax the super rich the way he wants to, they would just leave the country. Buy an island or something.
I don't even know how to respond to the "dogma predicated on irrational beliefs" crap.
If you think I'm villainizing people for being wealthy, then try reading more carefully because you're inserting something between the lines of what I'm saying. If you want to take advantage of the big people machine around you (the infrastructure that provides the human labor of others) and use your wealth to generate more wealth (to own the means of production, and use the labor of others to generate wealth for yourself), then you have to take some responsibility for the big people machine you are
using. I'm not villainizing wealth, but I am villainizing people who want access to
use the big people machine (to generate as much wealth for themselves as possible) whilst claiming they have fuck all responsibility to keep the big people machine running humanely.
(I know you've previously stated you have a problem considering the "big people machine" important when discussing these things - something about how it's unreasonable to try to account for how anything effects the big people machine/infrastructure of human labor of others, and how it's only reasonable to try to account for how something effects one's self, or something, but honestly. Ignoring this infrastructure problem because it's 'too big' or daunting an issue doesn't make it go away. And so long as you're trapped on the same big rock as the people whose labor makes up the infrastructure of the big people machine, you will have to deal with consequences of what goes wrong within it.)
Don't citizens pay less taxes on wealth generated by U.S. labor than people who aren't citizens? And if they don't, shouldn't they? And if the difference is steep enough, wouldn't that be an effective deterrent to leaving? If people threaten to leave the infrastructure/big people machine because they don't think they should be at all responsible for it, then they shouldn't get to use the big people machine anymore. There's got to be a way to make it so that it ultimately costs less to use the big people machine as a citizen (as opposed to leaving), whilst still paying enough to to make the big people machine humane.
Making it so cheap to use the big people machine that that inequality continues to spiral out of balance (and balloon at the top) just to keep the wealthy people in the country should not be an acceptable alternative. Those mega-wealthy people actually
need the big people machine, and they should be paying for access to it. (Again: not villainizing wealthy people for being wealthy, I'm specifically villainizing the abuse of the big people machine/human labor infrastructure).
And there would go the money he was counting on for all the free stuff- free stuff which would also have to be bundled with an army of administrative employees to sort it all out (poorly and inefficiently) which would also have to be paid for. Taxes would have to increase on everyone to even BEGIN to put anything towards the socialist plan. Businesses that seem rich (my three man buisness pulls in 6 to 7 figures a year for example, but most of that goes towards insurance keeping up with codes/regulations and overhead) are often just doing well enough to keep going. Additional taxes could easily sink them, and definitely discourage more people from starting their own businesses. What seems like a lot of money to the socialist types really isn't.
Just fyi: it's clearly available to keep referring to affordable health care, adequate living wage, etc, as "free stuff", and you'll likely even get reinforcement of this mischaracterization from others who see things exactly like you do (and some "whoop whoop" energy, as if it's making a 'good' point) - but when actually talking to "Bernie Bros" or people outside that particular bubble it just comes across as willful ignorance fed into an echo chamber to amplify whatever makes it 'feel' true. Probably the most important thing to consider hearing here, if you only hear one thing from this, is to realize it isn't about making stuff "free" so much as making it
affordable - college, healthcare, all of it.
I'm not trying to diminish how far we are from being able to easily implement it or how frustrating the inefficiencies can be; I'm just trying to explain that these (particularly affordable healthcare and affordable education) are necessary components of a healthy 'big people machine'. The alternative - ignoring that the big people machine needs any watching over - is to continue dehumanizing the people in the big people machine (blame them for being poor and working hard full time for less than a living wage, to think they don't 'deserve' affordable healthcare or other assistance if they're not "willing" to become their own boss or whatever it is you're trying to say, etc) and reap the consequences of what happens when the "fuck you" attitude gets reflected back. There's a good argument to be had that the growing spate of mass shootings in this country is part of this reflection - but on a less severe level, there's all sorts of ways disenfranchised, angry people feel justified in 'taking' from those who are more fortunate.
Furthermore, I think you're grossly overestimating the toll Democratic Socialism would take on private businesses. The whole point of it is to provide more people with the opportunity to escape the shadow of the oligarch overlords, not put more people into that shadow.
I realize starting your own buisness is a risk, but if you do it based on reality (something people need, not just something you WANT to do) it really isn't much of a risk. In fact it's much more of a long term risk to NOT, if you're stuck in a dead end job and not putting away the kind of money you would need to keep yourself and your family safe in the future. It's hard to get out of ruts- especially comfortable and easy ones that dull us into the illusion of safety (I had a golden handcuffs job for a long time, so I know the feel). But anyone can be brave and better themselves. I wouldn't look down on people for not, but I won't stop encouraging them to try either. And I mean try in a REAL and hard way, not just keep on keeping on while trying to vote for free stuff.
It's just kind of fascinating that you think this^ has more "substance or logic in the real world" than what I wrote.
First of all, if it were true, don't you think it would be the case more often? If it were so easy and the risks weren't so big to completely be one's own boss, wouldn't more people be doing it? The fact that it's so rare kinda proves it's not as feasible as you claim. Granted, not everyone is inherently resourceful enough to know how and arguably that could account for some of it - but don't you think there would be at least a couple of self-help gurus out there cashing in on this if it were really possible to make some tutorial or run some seminar on how
anyone can be their own boss? It's a cash cow, and God only knows there's a demand for it. So why isn't that happening? There might be an occasional self-help book that makes a best seller list, but not in any enduring way. In fact, tutorials/seminars that do make such promises are largely stereotyped as fraudulent cons that only rubes would pay good money for - because historically, they
are mostly fraudulent cons that rubes payed good money for.
Until such a time that an approach to teaching that^ is tried and true enough to consistently yield successful results (not just "I did it, and I tradesman I know did it after seeing my example" - but actual widespread, enduring results across a large population of people and for all occupations), expecting all people to suddenly figure out how to be their own boss in the midst of our society moving in the opposite direction for a long time (with more and more mom and pops going out of business because of behemoths that swoop in with lower prices, and paying mom and pop far less to enable those lower prices) is an unrealistic 'solution' to the big people machine problem.
