Parks and Houses for the People

Take the health care policy that's already in existence for all Federal employees, and extend it to all US citizens.

The Federal government already has agreements with health insurance companies providing a wide range of options across the country. Why not just extend those agreements to cover everyone, not just Federal employees?

Each one of the options you've laid out has been disingenuously labeled with some form of "scary socialism" (i.e. "communism").

So you're making my point here. I actually believe in the spirit of the options that you recounted. In my view, they can be part of a sane capitalism. But, they are characterized as, let's say, "too-socialist". I further believe that the alternative to these is positioned as laissez-faire capitalism without bounds.

So if you'd read my statement closely--the language I chose--you might have grokked my position. But my point was not to state a position, instead encouraging that there are reasonable discussions to be had that don't fall into the standard binary trap.

EDIT: You didn't miss my point. I failed to make it clearly. See my edit in the original comment.

No.

No, a proper application would be:

If we could spark an earnest discussion about how to move towards abolition of slavery peacefully, we could avoid having to fight a war that kills a million people and does not improve the actual material condition of the slaves at all, not to mention leading to another century of Jim Crow laws.

But it was already too late in 1860 to have that kind of discussion. It should have happened in the 1820s or 1830s, when many Southern states were indeed considering abolishing slavery--until the fiery no-compromise rhetoric of abolitionists swung the South the other way. The Virginia state legislature had a bill abolishing slavery in 1831 that was close to passing--until copies of William Lloyd Garrison's pamphlet containing copies of his "no moderation" speech arrived and were read by the members.

This isn't both sideism. It's a simple observation on the state of things. Now this state could be propagated by one side, and I could certainly name which side I think it is. Then what? Are we any closer to the earnest discussion I proposed? Or have I just propagated the narrative I'm critiquing that prevents that discussion?

So, my point was deliberately meta--a commentary on the logjam that has prevented solutions to the problem stated by my parent. Did you have an actual response to that? Or are you just in a bad mood?

Because, I then proposed we need a discussion around creating a version of capitalism that is sane (which I am happy to define, but that wasn't my point). You are either claiming that's morally tantamount to a pro slavery argument or you're being deliberately disingenuous.

EDIT: My original comment could've been clearer. Please see "EDIT" there. That's my bad. But your slavery comment is still out of line.

So, with this in mind, the idea that we should diminish government begs the question, "and replace it with what?" Because via massive wealth, control of resources, and other power someone will "rule over us". We see this now with money in politics. They've already chipped away much of the people's claim to government.

Still, democratic governments are our collective opportunity to be the ones who rule over ourselves. In that light, having a government that provides the basic neccessities that allow for liberty and the pursuit of happiness should not be considered scary. And, it does not come at the expense of freedom, as some claim. The contrary, actually.

So, these arguments about social support being communist, scary, or somehow antithetical to capitalism are misguided. Likewise, when we point out problems with government, such as unjust deaths, etc, these are problems with implementation that need correction. But, some use them as an argument that the government has too much power. The danger of conflating these is that it can lead to people advocating against their own best interests and diminishing their own voices.

This is not to say the government should have unlimited power, or even that it doesn't currently have too much power in some cases. Instead, it's to separate the issues. For instance, in all cases where the govt doesn't live up to expectations, is it because it has too much power? Or, is it sometimes the case that it's simply working for too few people or poorly implemented?

In any case, I agree that we need new metrics for assessing the value of businesses. A system that places only profits at its center will invariably depart from the broader social good.