Democrats drift into Marxism. Why?

[ImmortalFlame]

I see you have a love for extreme scenerios. Ill happily entertain you with that. ;0]

Sure. Under conditions it accommodates all involved in an peaceful and amicable manner, mutual consent and allows equal interaction with respect between races upon visiting.

So you're okay with a state forcing out all of its black citizens and denying black people entry, as long as they're nice about it.

Interesting.

Here's just such an example.. ..

Black students demand segregated spaces from white students | The College Fix

Black Americans are leaving their homes to start their own all-Black communities

Should those black students and black residents at their request, have the legal right to gather with others in a location who share their skin color in a safe space?

That depends whether or not these spaces deny freedom of movement or the freedom of association of others. Membership to particular groups isn't really a public function, so the membership can be determined by those in the group. If, on the other hand, these communities specifically forbid or disallowed non-black students or citizens from interacting with or entering the spaces in any way, that should not be a legal right as it infringes upon free movement and the freedom of association of other people.

I also find it interesting that you pull up two examples of black groups doing this rather than the swathes of movements that desire to, say, turn certain states into ethno-states - which is actually closer to what I was talking about. The fact that you find this at all comparable is fascinating.

I fully support both white and black folks among other applicable designations to enjoy a privately owned area of their choosing to live out their lives as they see fit in a state that will allow it and many already do.

I'm asking about states, not privately owned areas. The two are completely different.

Segregation isn't nessessarily racism you know

It is if it's along racial lines, yes.

and most states already have ongoing legal mechanisms involving segregation anyways.

Such as...?

It would certainly make an interesting topic as well all in its own, but to stay on topic, yea, I support states rights over a single centralized federal government.

So do you support a state's rights to racially segregate or cleanse its citizens?

 

[SkepticThinker]

No. Its all about instituting command and control over the populace.

What do you think they do? Drive to the ocean and chuck all the bags in the water?

They contaminate ground soil with improperly disposed of chemicals and the people who live in the surrounding areas all die from horrible cancers.
You know, fun stuff like that.
Hinkley groundwater contamination - Wikipedia

 

[Alien826]

Federal government provides no place for a person to turn to or a place to run to if it declares something illegal.

States have variety. If something is declared illegal in one state, a person can freely choose a state where it's still legal.

OK, I wondered if that might be an answer. So both governments are bad, I get it.

On a practical note though, moving isn't easy. You will have a house sale and purchase (expensive), the possibility that you won't find as good a job, you might be moving away from family, and so on. So in practical terms you might be stuck there anyway.

 

[Alien826]

Supposedly local governments have smaller budgets, so they will work harder not to waste it. Or so the argument goes.

And State Governments can't "print money" the way the Federal Government can. But there seems to be a lot more to it than that, based on the emotional attachment to "States' rights". Is it possibly local cultures?

 

[Twilight Hue]

So you're okay with a state forcing out all of its black citizens and denying black people entry, as long as they're nice about it.

Interesting.


That depends whether or not these spaces deny freedom of movement or the freedom of association of others. Membership to particular groups isn't really a public function, so the membership can be determined by those in the group. If, on the other hand, these communities specifically forbid or disallowed non-black students or citizens from interacting with or entering the spaces in any way, that should not be a legal right as it infringes upon free movement and the freedom of association of other people.

I also find it interesting that you pull up two examples of black groups doing this rather than the swathes of movements that desire to, say, turn certain states into ethno-states - which is actually closer to what I was talking about. The fact that you find this at all comparable is fascinating.


I'm asking about states, not privately owned areas. The two are completely different.


It is if it's along racial lines, yes.


Such as...?


So do you support a state's rights to racially segregate or cleanse its citizens?

Your not paying attention.

I never mentioned forced expulsion. Plus I used black folks who just want to be with each other as a community because your query was a loaded question expecting me to reference only whites.

As far as states go, I'm referring to what is legally allowed and what isn't for its citizens. No state, even within the Confederacy ever expulsed black folks even after the Civil war. There was segregation however, that isn't denied nor the violence of racism which hadn't always been synonymous with segregation as you might think in spite of trying to twist racism with forced segregation as opposed to voluntary segregation.

It it's sovereignty within a state your looking for, then you just need to look no further than Indigenous nations, where no non native is regarded as a recognized resident there.

 

[Sand Dancer]

And State Governments can't "print money" the way the Federal Government can. But there seems to be a lot more to it than that, based on the emotional attachment to "States' rights". Is it possibly local cultures?

There are different views on the motivation for states' rights. I presented one argument, and IMO it's the most practical. Emotional arguments seem elitist to me.

 

[Twilight Hue]

And State Governments can't "print money" the way the Federal Government can. But there seems to be a lot more to it than that, based on the emotional attachment to "States' rights". Is it possibly local cultures?

I found an interesting fact. The federal reserve, which prints the nations money is not actually a government agency. It's essentially owned and run by bankers.


Is the Federal Reserve a privately owned corporation? – Education

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Your not paying attention.

I never mentioned forced expulsion.

I brought up an example of a state engaging in segregation. Do you not understand how that can imply the state expelling certain people from it? Perhaps I should have been more specific.

Plus I used black folks who just want to be with each other as a community because your query was a loaded question expecting me to reference only whites.

I didn't mention white people in my query, and there was nothing loaded about it.

As far as states go, I'm referring to what is legally allowed and what isn't for its citizens. No state, even within the Confederacy ever expulsed black folks even after the Civil war. There was segregation however, that isn't denied nor the violence of racism which hadn't always been synonymous with segregation as you might think in spite of trying to twist racism with forced segregation as opposed to voluntary segregation.

None of this had anything to do with what I asked. And what in the world is "voluntary segregation"? How do you "volunteer" to live in a country where - simply because of the manner of your birth - you are subject to segregation?

It it's sovereignty within a state your looking for, then you just need to look no further than Indigenous nations, where no non native is regarded as a recognized resident there.

Which, again, has nothing to do with the hypotheticals I presented you with.

Again, I presented you with a basic query about states enacting a policy, and whether you would support their right to enact this policy in certain circumstances. In response, you brought up two examples of small, isolated black communities wanting to separate themselves. When pushed further, you're now talking about indigenous nations. I find it really interesting that your reaction, when presented with the possibility of the concept of states rights harming minority groups (without me specifying any particular group) you immediately jump to "Well, [non-white minority group] did [very specific and isolated example of social separation]!".

It's almost as if you're trying to downplay certain kinds of overt, state-sponsored oppression by trying to draw parallels between it and isolated examples of minority groups doing something vaguely similar.

I mean, imagine if you asked me if I thought states should have the right to build death camps and gas their citizens, and in response I went "Well, it is a complex issue. For example, look at this example of a group of Jewish people who attacked these protesters and called for them to be arrested. I think we should consider these things carefully."

 

[Twilight Hue]

I didn't mention white people in my query, and there was nothing loaded about it.


".

This was your exact quote earlier...

"So you're okay with a state forcing out all of its black citizens and denying black people entry, as long as they're nice about it"

So tell me. If it wasn't white people your implying, then who are you referring to?

.

 

[Valjean]

Supposedly local governments have smaller budgets, so they will work harder not to waste it. Or so the argument goes.

States policies can be more self-centered and short term than federal policies, which can focus more on the national and long-term interest.
Left to the states, many National Parks would be turned into housing developments, built with wood from the National Forests. Mines and local industries would be allowed to operate with little regulation, as long as they generated an immediate profit for the local owner class.
States will also pander to local sentiments, religious and social values, prejudices, &c -- which may not be in the best interest, overall.

Giving each state carte blanch to organize their own society and craft their own laws would not be conducive to a United States. You could end up with 50 houses divided against themselves.

 

[Valjean]

Hmmm, interesting discussion. Here's my view.

All political systems tend to founder on the rocks of human nature. If everyone were to be what humans at their best sometimes aspire to, it wouldn't matter what the political system was. The people would make it work. Unchecked Capitalism is like a diesel engine without a governor. It eventually destroys itself. Pure socialism/communism/pick your word relies on people behaving well and that soon fails because they don't.

Both systems have their good and bad points, and when I look round the world the most successful political systems seem to have adopted (or at least tried to adopt) the best features of both. Examples - If you want a better, cheaper, mousetrap, Capitalism is your guy. Some things like healthcare are better done centrally. Pick Socialism for those. Always attempt to control the worst features of both. Capitalism tends to enrich the few at the expense of the many. Socialism can create endless bureaucracy and stifle innovation.

Until a perfect strain of human emerges, we do the best we can.

Good points. I say: socialize The Commons, and let private business handle the rest.

"The Commons" are those essential services that apply to the whole society, and are relied on by everyone, such as police, fire, healthcare, education, infrastructure, &c. These can be publicly owned, operated transparently, and offered at-cost.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

This was your exact quote earlier...

"So you're okay with a state forcing out all of its black citizens and denying black people entry, as long as they're nice about it"

So tell me. If it wasn't white people your implying, then who are you referring to?

.

Except that wasn't in my initial query, it was the conclusion drawn from your response to my query. If it helps, you can change "black" to literally any race or group.

 

[Alien826]

I found an interesting fact. The federal reserve, which prints the nations money is not actually a government agency. It's essentially owned and run by bankers.


Is the Federal Reserve a privately owned corporation? – Education

Umm, yes and no. It's kind of independent like a bank but reports to Congress. Any excess money (profit) is returned to the Treasury. This from your link, btw.

That's certainly interesting, thanks for the link.

 

[Alien826]

Good points. I say: socialize The Commons, and let private business handle the rest.

"The Commons" are those essential services that apply to the whole society, and are relied on by everyone, such as police, fire, healthcare, education, infrastructure, &c. These can be publicly owned, operated transparently, and offered at-cost.

Yes. The private sector will still need some control of course. How much is a balancing act.

 

[Sand Dancer]

States policies can be more self-centered and short term than federal policies, which can focus more on the national and long-term interest.
Left to the states, many National Parks would be turned into housing developments, built with wood from the National Forests. Mines and local industries would be allowed to operate with little regulation, as long as they generated an immediate profit for the local owner class.
States will also pander to local sentiments, religious and social values, prejudices, &c -- which may not be in the best interest, overall.

Giving each state carte blanch to organize their own society and craft their own laws would not be conducive to a United States. You could end up with 50 houses divided against themselves.

Good points. Thank you.

 

[Valjean]

There is no "Radical Left." America was much more "Left" from 1933 to1980 than anything you see today. Nixon and Reagan would be considered radical socialists by today's GOP standards.

Interesting video, <3 minutes:

All the social progress that "Made America Great" was initiated by the Left -- and strongly opposed by the Right.
America's 'golden' postwar age of growth and prosperity was the result of the big government, high taxes, and the regulation Republicans currently oppose.