America has NEVER BEEN at its best
So you don't think there was a time when it happened to be at it's best relative to other points in it's history ? Does that mean it was always the same? That can't be, because you literally just said it has been better than it is now.
O.K. I respect your opinion.
No, you still don't get it. There are no opinions when you're dealing with the Fact Machine, only Facts.
"Social democracy is a political, social and economic philosophy that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and a capitalist mixed economy." -wikipedia
"Democratic socialism is a term used to refer to the socialist political philosophy which advocates political democracy alongside a socially owned economy, with an emphasis on workers' self-management" -wikipedia
One of them is clearly capitalism with socialist elements, and the other is clearly full socialism.
States have a large roll in democracy.
Do you think states are necessary for democracy to exist? Have you considered the concept of work-place democracy?
In capitalism, it would be management of a department or branch of a company. The branch has different needs than other branches, so it has to be managed differently, but, still under the main company's policies.
Sure, that is well enough. But that is in capitalism specifically, and you just so happen to LIKE capitalism for some odd reason. Socialists tend to dislike both capitalism AND the state.
THAT is what the founders (IMO), wanted
They wanted what they saw as the closest realistic thing to a "free market".
YOUR definition of democratic socialism doesn't resemble mine.
My definition is objectively correct. A democratic SOCIALIST is a socialist, what you are is a social democrat.
I'm NOT FOR your kind!
You're not a democratic socialist is what you are saying. Nom is a democratic socialist (the real definition of it) so you are saying you don't like Nom's preferred system. I am not exactly a "democratic socialist" (I would call it technocratic anarcho-socialist or something) so when you say "my kind" you mean "my definition" which I derive from history and from the dictionary, not from one American politician who happened to call their self a socialist despite being in favor of a market economy.
Many people take a theory and look at it different ways.
That doesn't mean there isn't a wrong way to look at it. There is a difference between having a different point of view on a theory and misinterpreting what the theory even is.
we just have to take the parts that preserve what the founders wanted …. "Government of, by and FOR the PEOPLE!"
Nom hates the founding fathers. That "of, by and FOR the PEOPLE!" shit is nothing but words. What they wanted was a government, of, by, and for the wealthy (aka capitalism).
I think
Everything you have ever said debunks that idea.
Truth is, I have NO fucking idea what a "resource" is.
No shit.
You don't either
Resources are things that can be used, to put it simply.
Where I live, I can't spend "resources" at my local grocery
You go to the grocery to get resources like food in the first place you absolute fucking waste of matter. Even money is a type of resource, it is a resource used to represent the value of resources so that you can exchange it for resources.
I've asked you time and time again to explain how your "resource based economy" works on the ground
How does capitalism work? If you were intellectually honest, you would see that is not a question that can be concisely answered because there are many complicated factors to an economic system "working". You AREN'T intellectually honest though, so your answer would be something like this: "It's SIMPLE, capitalism WORKS because people have been trading for eternity". This is essentially the answer you gave before, and if you had an IQ over 0 you would know that two primitive tribes trading 30 goats for 100 wolf skins is not "capitalism".
it DOESN'T work on the ground
It's never even been attempted before and it isn't even something that can be "attempted" because it is a gradually arising thing, not something that you can just decide to implement. RBE isn't even relevant to the topic at hand though, you are literally just deflecting because you dug yourself into a hole when it comes to what we were actually debating about.
I believe I'M the one who suggested "money" is NOT the only medium of exchange
What you claimed was that trade/exchange cannot happen without money you jackass.
believe I'M the one who suggested that money COULD be a goat..
You are talking about using goats as currency aka money, in that very sentence you admitted it. You're just so fucking stupid.
But, when you talk about "money", you're talking about paper.
You don't know what I'm talking about because you can't comprehend things very well.
I, on the other hand, am talking about ACTUAL money..
What you are talking about is absolute mindless nonsense. I am talking about a symbolic value-equivalent commodity.
You claim that trade existed WITHOUT a medium of exchange.
I claimed no such thing. I merely insinuated the FACT that money hasn't always existed by claiming it was "invented" (a better term might be "contrived"). Trade can exist without a medium of exchange you absolute stupid fuck, and money is not the only type of medium of exchange. If you just trade two items directly without any form of symbolic value system or currency then you are exchanging without a medium of exchange.
"A medium of exchange is an intermediary instrument or system used to facilitate the sale, purchase or trade of goods between parties. For a system to function as a medium of exchange, it must represent a standard of value." - Investopedia
If you simply trade an item for another (as people did before money was invented/contrived and they still often do) then there is no "medium of exchange". There is just two people agreeing that what they are exchanging is worth the trade for both parties.
Look.. I can't explain money to somebody who thinks people will work for "resources"
That's literally what you're working for when you work for money you subhuman object. Would you work for money if you couldn't use it to obtain goods and services? You're literally not a person.
Uhhh, yes you are.. IF money IS a simply a medium of exchange, and it DIDN'T exist prior to 5,000 years ago, then exchanging goods and services would be IMPOSSIBLE
You are literally so stupid that I cojnsider you an object that isn't sentient. Exchange obviously existed before money, it's called trade. Damn you are stupid.
It was the dawn of reality.
That was what I thought you would say when I looked up the etymology on wikipedia.
the answer, genuinely, is that 'nothing' did.
Nothing spawned purely random virtual "somethingness units" that popped in and out of existence simultaneously and randomly in every which way and in no way at all which eventually led to a sentient simulation machine with some hot knockers spawning from it and transforming random somethingness nuggets into strings of code. That is a lot for one to wrap their mind around and sounds an awful lot like the standard model minus the hot boobs and the god they belong to.
something simulated within it and that thing happened to be a conscious entity named Fiora
So even Fiora is "simulated". You are implying heavily that "something" is as good as "nothing" in many ways, how can we experience existence as sentient beings at all if it is literally a virtual shadow of nothingness?
You are the one who came in here and attacked Alfie and I in the same post.
Yes, because you are an utter piece of shit and you are only squirting jizz all over Al because he says things you agree with a lot, even though he's actually a dipshit who only knows surface level politics and not the deeper and broader nature of things. The problem is he only debates about things like abortion, gun legislation etc. Mainline issues. If you go deeper than the boring, surface level "hot button" issues and truly discuss the big picture he is exposed as a clueless twit.
