In socialism, the tyranny of the majority means you have no rights

Can't understand Bernie's frustration - 'pears to be SOCIALISM in practical practice; he ought to be praising this move!

 

I think it would be quite amusing for Bernie to win the vote count but lose the delegate count for the primary. Especially considering that he pushed for this change in the democrat primary system.

 

I hope Bernie gets squeezed out of the nomination, gets his dander up, & proceeds to run as an “I”.
Don’t think the dem process could end any better!

 

In socialism, the tyranny of the majority means you have no rights
whereas
In capitalism, the tyranny of the minority means you have no rights

Let's consider the truth (regardless of the Democrat party infighting) -

We are all people, all humans, with the same needs -
family life;
adequate water, food, clothing & shelter;
health care;
peaceful coexistence;
employment, whether working for ourselves on a simply plot of land, or working for others;
freedom of worship, including freedom to change religion;
etc.

As a society, we all need the same services provided collectively -
supply of electricity & other power;
water;
public services, including waste disposal;
insurance services paid by all & provided at the time of need without major cost;
care for elderly & disabled;
services provided according to society requirements, individual skills & calling - ministry; blacksmith; baker; shepherd; dairy & other farming; road building & maintenance;
etc.

In the UK, since 1066 we have had a hierarchical system where land rights were controlled by the foreign invaders who became the "gentry". The rest of the population were either the religious, dependent on the RC church properties or peasants working as required by the land owners & otherwise destitute, or fighting their wars, or building their extravagant castles & churches.

Collective action by the peasants was dealt with severely - the peasants' revolt; the levellers; trade unions. Laws were made to make all sorts of peasant activities into crimes. Hunting game, gleaning, taking food to feed a hungry family became punishable by prison, execution, transportation, etc. When farmers in a "tied" cottage became unfit for work the family was turned out for someone else. Workhouses were provided for the destitute in prison conditions, with families separated - even elderly spouses who had spent a lifetime together.

Only the rise of post war socialism, coupled with national insurance, transformed the situation in the UK & gave my generation unprecedented opportunities -
free health care;
free higher education;
university education with fees paid & a living grant (means tested);
council housing, including an emergency prefab system;
etc,

900 years of Capitalism failed to provide where a few years of socialism succeeded. The great British Empire became great by military conquest, slavery, plundering of resources, etc. Only after WW2 was there a major rethink.

Americans confuse Socialism with Communism, making whatever administration they label "communism" their enemy. Thus the US has been at war with many countries since WW2 plundering their resources & destroying their economies, carrying on when the UK withdrew.

True democracy has to be the rulers recognising themselves as servants of those they rule over, as Jesus taught -

25 Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” Mat. 20.

 

Covenater sez: "900 years of Capitalism failed to provide where a few years of socialism succeeded."

Considering the status of the major populace during this time frame, one could scarcely call this CAPITALISM.
Conversly, using this criteria, Cuba (along with other socialistic/communistic countries) could be called "CAPITALISTIC"

 

Rule by the people with wealth & land is capitalism. They could, of course, use their wealth & power for the benefit of their subjects as a few have, but the overall effect is domination of the majority by the few.

Communism in practice has been the appropriation of all means of wealth by those in power, leaving the majority in poverty.

True Socialism will allow the majority control over their local means of production, so that they directly benefit, while taxes pay for major infrastructure such as power & water supply & health care.

 

Both of these are evil

 

I've been a member of the British Labour Party since Jeremy Corbyn was elected. The problem was the viscious & false propaganda put out by the BBC & most of the MSM & newspapers NOT the carefully thought out & costed policies.

The electorate believed the racist lies of Johnson & his apologists & voted against the honest antiracist Corbyn. It's a disastrous result which is already becoming apparent.

 

"Domination of the majority by the few." ​

That's exactly what is supported by the subject of the original article, Iain Murray. It's also been the underlying Republican party theme since the 1960's. The development of this objective is very well described in the book, "Democracy in Chains" by Nancy MacLean.
'Democracy In Chains' Traces The Rise Of American Libertarianism

Obscuring census data to give "conservative districts more than their fair share of representation." Preventing access to the vote. Decrying "socialized medicine." Trying to end Social Security using dishonest vocabulary like "strengthened." Lionizing Lenin. Attempting to institute voucher programs to "get out of the business of public education." Increasing corporatization of higher education. Harboring a desire, at heart, to change the Constitution itself.

This unsettling list could be 2017 Bingo. In fact, it's from half a century earlier, when economist James Buchanan — an early herald of libertarianism — began to cultivate a group of like-minded thinkers with the goal of changing government. This ideology eventually reached the billionaire Charles Koch; the rest is, well, 2017 Bingo.
As MacLean lays out in their own words, these men developed a strategy of misinformation and lying about outcomes until they had enough power that the public couldn't retaliate against policies libertarians knew were destructive. (Look no further than Flint, MacLean says, where the Koch-funded Mackinac Center was behind policies that led to the water crisis.)

 

We do not live in a Democracy

 

The sad result of antiSocialist policy.

Dad in Kansas Jailed Over Medical Debt from Son’s Leukemia Treatments and Wife’s Seizures

 

Those Socialists who are in charge will live and have the best this world has to offer. Socialism is for the people, not the socialists!

Should Bernie Sanders ever win power here in America, he will never have to suffer under the government medical program he wants for the rest of us. No sir, no standing in line for him to get sub-standard care - he will always get the best the medical community has to offer. He will get the lifesaving treatment that would be denied to normal people of the same age - you can bet on that.

 

How bad is capitalism? It is so bad the poorest of our poor have hot and cold running water inside where they live (along with cable TV, large screen TV's and personal cell phones) and the biggest health problem amongst them is obesity.

 

We here in America have a thing called the Constitution of the United States which is our governing document. None of those things are listed in the Federal Constitution as a Federal responsibility. The powers of the Federal government are clearly defined - and limited. Any thing not listed in the Federal Constitution is to be done by the individual states.