Originally posted by robbie carrobie
This is brilliant and ultimately what socialism is all about and yes it will work. I have seen it happen in Scotland in a very small scale, for example a local leisure facility which has a gymnasium and a swimming pool, sauna, steam room et has a cafe on the ground floor, government run by the local authority, not only is the cafe highly profitable ...[text shortened]... e to provide more public services. Why this model cannot work on a national level I cannot say.

And I saw a commune in California work as well so that means it must work for a nation that will run its business like it does the post office and runs trillion dollar deficits every year.

Where do you people come from? What are you smoking? 🙄

Originally posted by Teinosuke
But according to my proposal, the government isn't going to nationalise these businesses by force. It's going to try to buy them out on the open market. Those who run the businesses will choose to sell if they judge it to be in their individual interest. Their staff can indeed keep their jobs and their income; or they can seek other work, as they may prefer.

Politicians are only interested in the campaign money that can be generated from corporate America. So can these businesses still throw money at them? If not, then your whole plan is damned to nothingness.

After all, politicians don't produce anything. All they do is leach off those who do. Socialism fails because politicians are not business people, which is why you are saying they need to "outsource" everything. This is why China moved away from that model.

I think perhaps Hitler had the best system. He simply sat down those in industry and told them what he expected from them rather than trying to run their business for them. His motto was, why nationalize industry when you can nationalize the people? This is the best method for the centralized planning model. Of course, I don't believe in the centralized planning model, but power and corruption rule in this world it seems.

Originally posted by whodey
And I saw a commune in California work as well so that means it must work for a nation that will run its business like it does the post office and runs trillion dollar deficits every year.

Where do you people come from? What are you smoking? 🙄

what are you talking about? how can a business that is highly profitable run trillions of dollars of debt? You have still failed to say why it would not work, nationally.

Originally posted by whodey
After all, politicians don't produce anything.

A gardener, an architect and a politician were arguing about whose was the oldest profession. The gardener said that his was the oldest, since God had created the Garden of Eden.

"But before that," the architect said, "God was the first architect, who built the universe out of chaos."

"Ah," said the politician, "but who do you think created the chaos?"

Originally posted by whodey
Socialism fails because politicians are not business people, which is why you are saying they need to "outsource" everything. This is why China moved away from that model.

Well exactly, so you are saying a system based on outsourcing would work. So what's the problem?

Originally posted by Teinosuke
Well exactly, so you are saying a system based on outsourcing would work. So what's the problem?

Would you let Al Capone be in charge of outsourcing?

Here is a sitting president that uses the power of the IRS to attack his political adversaries, the same organization that is charge of their health care.

Here is a sitting president that uses his power to intimidate the "free press" by spying on them 24/7, along with all law abiding citizens. Then those that are deemed "terrorists" are snuffed out by drones from above.

There are no more checks and balances in the system. Why on earth would I empower them any further?

Originally posted by whodey
Would you let Al Capone be in charge of outsourcing?

There are no more checks and balances in the system. Why on earth would I empower them any further?

Well, gosh, I rather assumed the voters would be in charge of outsourcing... And the scheme serves to disempower the government by rendering its income dependent on the voluntary purchases of its citizens.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

What do you actually think of the proposal I (somewhat whimsically) advanced at the beginning of this thread? Could it possibly work?

Originally posted by Teinosuke
What do you actually think of the proposal I (somewhat whimsically) advanced at the beginning of this thread? Could it possibly work?

There is no business the government can be in without putting legitimate private enterprises out of business. With natural resources they already clip the ticket heavily, better for them to let professionals operate the mines and then just impose duties, or taxes, or fines on whatever is being mined, risk free.

Originally posted by Wajoma
There is no business the government can be in without putting legitimate private enterprises out of business. With natural resources they already clip the ticket heavily, better for them to let professionals operate the mines and then just impose duties, or taxes, or fines on whatever is being mined, risk free.

My proposal advocates the government becoming a legitimate business in its own right. If it drives private enterprises out of business, that will be because it wins the competition on the open market. Do you have a moral objection to that?

(I kind of imagined my proposal would appeal to this site's libertarian contingent, as it could be interpreted as a proposal to privatise the government!)

Originally posted by Teinosuke
My proposal advocates the government becoming a legitimate business in its own right. If it drives private enterprises out of business, that will be because it wins the competition on the open market. Do you have a moral objection to that?

(I kind of imagined my proposal would appeal to this site's libertarian contingent, as it could be interpreted as a proposal to privatise the government!)

I don't see how that might work T, the business would need to be totally independent to ensure there were special favors granted over a private business. Essentially it would be a private business that 'taxes' itself at 100%, I don't see it as being very enduring, but good luck to anyone that wants to run a business like that.

Originally posted by Wajoma
I don't see how that might work T, the business would need to be totally independent to ensure there were special favors granted over a private business. Essentially it would be a private business that 'taxes' itself at 100%, I don't see it as being very enduring, but good luck to anyone that wants to run a business like that.

Well, I referred to these businesses throughout as "state franchises". They wouldn't be taxed 100%, because obviously the people running it would have to get some reward, and I surmise that for most participants the rewards would not need to be hugely different from in a private company (since the salaries would be set on the opening market). Basically, the main difference in my scheme is that the surplus revenue goes to the state rather than to shareholders (because the state would, essentially, be the shareholder).

I see that the question of independence is a thornier one, however.

Originally posted by Teinosuke
Well, gosh, I rather assumed the voters would be in charge of outsourcing... And the scheme serves to disempower the government by rendering its income dependent on the voluntary purchases of its citizens.

The voters are as much in charge of outsourcing as they are of their own health care. So they were lied to. (Shrug) Oh well, grab your ankles an like it as they lose coverage and have their premiums go up. So FDR set up Social Security so that the government could steal from it and leave worthless IOU's. (Shrug) Oh well, them is the breaks. So the voters don't like their government being in multiple wars overseas. (Shrug) Oh well, how about adding Libya to your list and potentially Syrian and Iran?

I'm sorry, what is this about the voters being in charge again?

After TARP, it should be painfully obvious to everyone that private corporations are not all that private. After all, once they go under the tax payers are their insurance policy. How on earth could they be private? And I thought that they were suppose to turn a profit? (Shrug) Oh well, it sucks to be a tax payer.

Originally posted by whodey
The voters are as much in charge of outsourcing as they are of their own health care. So they were lied to. (Shrug) Oh well, grab your ankles an like it as they lose coverage and have their premiums go up. So FDR set up Social Security so that the government could steal from it and leave worthless IOU's. (Shrug) Oh well, them is the breaks. So the vote ...[text shortened]... thought that they were suppose to turn a profit? (Shrug) Oh well, it sucks to be a tax payer.

Well, indeed, governments can ignore the will of the voters once in office. That's why it could be important to subject them to the kind of constant checks and balances that my proposal offers. Ultimately, under my scheme, government revenue would become dependent on the individual purchasing decisions of citizens. If you didn't approve of the government, you could choose not to support the state franchises. Diehard libertarians could choose always to buy from private competitors; socialists might always shop at the public franchises. But in the normal course of things, citizens might choose to express approval or disapproval of the government in terms of where they shopped. Every buying decision would potentially become a political act. How is this not empowering citizens?