All information taken from the official website of the Democratic Socialists of America.
If Democratic Socialists dominated the country:
-They would abolish the profit motive, “democratize” (meaning nationalize/socialize) the means of production, and rely on centralized economic planning.
“We are socialists because we reject an economic order based on private profit...”
“We are socialists because we share a vision of a humane social order based on popular control of resources and production, economic planning, equitable distribution”
This is not a center-left movement, but admittedly a radical left movement.
“DSA made an ethical contribution to the broader American Left by being one of the few radical organizations born out of a merger rather than a split.”
Take a second look Al and excon. A DSA victory would be indistinguishable from Communism. Like other tyrannies in history, being voted in wouldn’t make them better.
Nom was offended at my defense of the concept of sales.DW seems furious at the idea of working for pay.Both are quick to tell us that all of the US is Right Wing. I have never seen a Leftist business person. If sales and wages are a problem, what do Leftists business people do? Or is all business activity enherently Right wing?
Why should a materialist Atheist care about a world that cannot ever be experienced or detected in any way? If the end of your life is the end of your universe, why not act only in your short term self interest?
Adam Liptak for the NYT explains how the Right used to interpret
the 1st Amendment very narrowly so that they could oppress your
freedom, but now the Right has adopted a more Libertarian view of the 1st
Amendment, which is a problem. Now that the Left is doing more to oppress your freedoms,
Liptak shows that the views of speech once held by an oppressive Right, are being adopted by the modern oppressive Left. When the Left wants to oppress your
free expression, they call the Constitution a “win” for the Right. Rather than taking
issue with their own oppressive ways, they take issue with your 1st
This article isn’t an opinion piece by Liptak. It’s NYT front page
news complete with a host of quotes from law professors against the 1st
Amendment. Are you with them? Should the government be able to shut you up; or
should your speech be protected?
Operating a motor vehicle is the most dangerous thing most of us do, and we do it all the time. That risk is exponentially increased when on a motorcycle. Most states don’t even require helmets for adult riders over 20.Most gun deaths are suicides. But owning a motorcycle makes you far more likely to kill yourself on accident than owning a gun is to kill yourself on purpose. If you are for banning guns, you must also want to ban motorcycles. If you are consistent.
-There were 231,991 deaths in 2016. 16.6% were gun related.
-There were 38,658 gun deaths in 2016.
gun deaths were suicides (59%).
-14,415 gun deaths were homicides
-Of the gun homicides:
of the victims were male (85%)
- 8,434 of the victims
were black (58.5%)
- 5,560 of the victims
were white (38.6%)
-1,325 of the
victims were under 18 years of age (9%)
- There were 4,947 non-firearm homicides in 2016.
- There were 22,027 non-firearm suicides in 2016.
-There were 161,374 unintentional deaths in 2016. That’s 69.5%
of all deaths
were from drug poisoning (34%)
were from motor vehicles (25%)
were from falls (21.5%)
were from firearms (0.3%)
-Of the 987 people shot and killed by police in 2017:
-223 were black (22.6%)
-940 were male (95%)
-162 were in California. The most
of any state.https://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/dataRestriction_inj.htmlhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/national/police-shootings-2018/?utm_term=.d5085db51ce6 (There's a link to 2017 on this page but I ran out of free access before I got the 2017 link)
Imagine a magical scenario wherein everyone in the world gets the ability to kill anyone else immediately and surely by simply looking at the target and thinking some specific magical words while having intent. What would happen to the world? Also imagine that when a person kills in this manner, their action and the identity of the victim are known to all others on sight. Meaning anyone who sees you will immidiately know what you did and to whom. How would this change what happens to the world?
Would you support a technology that makes it almost impossible to break traffic laws? Start with RFID chips in speed signs that communicate with cars on the road to make it impossible to accelerate beyond the speed limit. The same technology can force a steady and orderly stop at stop signs and lights. Add in a steering wheel that detects blood alcohol content over .1 and that covers most of the most dangerous forms of traffic violations.