SF 사랑방
* 욕설, 비방, 광고, 도배질 글은 임의로 삭제됩니다.

Why Democratic socialism doesn't work -StevenCrowder 민주적 사회주의는 왜 …

페이지 정보

유샤인

본문

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lG3x3UQVc_Y Click the link if auto video feature does not work on your browser.



 Comparing democratic socialism to traditional socialism or, God forbid, communism, is fear-mongering. It's inaccurate.. What's that... but it's actually. pretty reasonable. 

"We need to unite and work together if we're all going to get through this."
"Sounds like socialism to me. "
"Democratic socialism"
"What's the difference?"
"Huge difference"

Accept that it's not.
Here's Bernie Sanders when asked describing democratic socialism.

"What democratic socialism is about is saying that it is immoral and wrong that the top one-tenth of one percent in this country own almost 90 percent, almost owned almost as much wealth as the bottom 90%. 
You see every other major country providing health care to all people as a right except the United States. Those are some of the principles that I believe in and I think we should look to countries like Denmark like Sweden and Norway and learn from what they have accomplished for their working people. "

This is pivotal because there's a myth going around that democratic socialism is inherently different from traditional socialism. Bernie Sanders did not articulate a worldview there at all. He just pointed to things that have existed since the beginning of time, told you that you should be angry that you deserve stuff and presented you with a Christmas wish list. That's not a worldview that's how you buy votes. 

"It's time for who do you trust. Huba huba huba... Money money money.. ? Who do you trust? Me? I am giving away free money."

Allow me to contrast if someone asked me what is conservatism or federalism or constitutionalism whatever you want to call it. Pretty simple. My worldview inherently believes that individuals when left and given the freedom to make their own decisions tend to do so more effectively than government bureaucrats in Washington. Also I believe that it is morally imperative to provide people with set freedom and liberties.

That's it, that's it, I didn't promise you any free shit.
And we'll get into the Nitty Gritty but the macro is first because we'll come back to reference this of the two worldviews. There is only one that allows and acknowledges human nature and one that necessitates humans be inherently altruistic particularly those in government with a D next to their name completely immune to corruption.
 
" I have brought this freedom, justice and security to my new empire." 
"Your new empire? Don't make me kill you ."

Where as my worldview allows for the human nature of some people being good some people being turd nuggets and allowing them to make their own decisions and the invisible hand of market forces to mitigate the damage as opposed to the damage that can be done in a centralized power.

"I, no King? I didn't vote for you. You don't vote for king?"

Right away before we get into the nerdy math and we will,  you have to decide what it is that you believe because right away the Democratic socialists will try and poke holes in your argument.

"What a lot of people may not realize is that America is kind of already a socialist country."
 
"Some of the most obvious are things like Medicare and Social Security." 
"Free K through 12 education."
"National parks prisons in the whole justice system."
"The Postal Service"
"Disposal of your toilet waste,"
"Even the army are all socialist programs."

Leftists inevitably try and paint into the corner that anything provided by government at all equates to socialism, and that comes back to the worldview you need to understand what is the legitimate role of government particularly in the United States.
Honestly have you ever asked yourself that fundamental question? Everything stems from it. The good thing is we have pretty clear blueprints. The Constitution is how the Declaration of Independence is, why.
.
Definitely read those.
Allow me to give you analogy that my dad provided with me and I think is appropriate here.
The role of the government as per the documents that we have, is very similar to that of a hockey referees, specifically hockey you'll see why in a second.

The job of hockey referee is to ensure the safety of the players and ensure people are obeying the rules in a way that keeps the pace of the game keeping the players ie the citizens safe.
That would mean that the military some form of police force is of course a legitimate role of government. Having regulations in place to ensure that people don't steal or screw other people, of course that's a legitimate role of government. Anything beyond that purview is considered incidental, and the referee in hockey keeps his whistle in his pocket.
Also there's a certain element of self regulation to hockey not seen in other sports, which one can appreciate.

"dude Robert come in Jam he goes down.."

To contrast that with a European socialists in soccer.

Very clearly defined role, the referees job is not to  pick winners losers high scores to provide medical assistance, to be a waterboy or a cheerleader or even to draft the team's.
So I don't want to get too far off into the weeds but I find it funny that Democratic socialists used the post office as an example for success.

The post office was awful until, surprised, FedEx provided competition. Overnight shipping, two days shipping, it didn't exist. It got there when it got there, you hoped, Also before FedEx tracking numbers didn't exist. That was your post office. You want to see government-run health care take that and add cancer. Schools are another example. 
Your parents were raised without a federal Department of Education. They still had public schools. They were funded by their municipalities in their States and guess what results are pretty similar. Most of your parents are smarter than you and that's the beauty again of the worldview of constitutionalism.
There's a very limited role of the federal government in DC but States and municipalities have the right to enact government services that the federal government does not.
If one State wants to tax you out of existence to provide schools and free weed to everybody they're free to do so just as surely a decent State doesn't have to.

Again when accounting for human nature you want a decentralization of government power. This groundwork has to be laid here because it's pivotal that you understand the difference between your opinion, how you would like systems to work versus how they are legally designed to operate. 

So to be fair let's go to Democratic socialists of America and their description of democratic socialism. Democratic socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few.

Now right away they say that because people hear democracy and believe that it's somehow inherently noble and subconsciously delineates between socialism and democratic socialism. There is no difference. 
It's why Vladimir Lenin famously said
Democracy is indispensable to socialists.

So you may want those things but right off the bat, the United States is not a democracy. It was never designed to be a democracy. And it will never be a democracy so long as the Constitution stand;
The United States has always been a constitutional representative Republic. Why and how is it different because the founding fathers understood that for freedom to be maintained it was pivotal that the rights of the minority were not entirely beholden to the ever-changing will of the majority.
See pure democracy sounds nice but in reality it's mob rule, which is why it inevitably collapses.
Again, you're not accounting for human nature. If everyone has a vote they're going to vote in their own self-interest and the mob will vote to take stuff from the minority.

" I want I want I want me be be  mine, mine mine, Now, now , now.. ugh..."

A good example would be when people first came to the United States and colonies under John Smith.
Prager University is a great video on this. Originally the goal was the betterment of the community not the individuals. So grain, food, resources were communal and people took what they needed. What inevitably happened is some people were more productive than others and the system began collapsing and people starved. That invariably happens with some model of socialism.

It's just a matter of time, and when that time comes you have a decision to make, either you go to full-fledged communism where the government has to control all aspects of commerce or you go the other way free-market enterprise capitalism which is what John Smith did saying, okay, this isn't working everyone you're in charge of yourself and prompted the famous phrase. He who does not work does not eat, which he was quoting from the Bible.
Yada yada yada fast for hundreds of years you have an iPhone six.
Again human nature if if you yoke yaks if you
yoke two yaks or a few yaks I don't know
how many can you yoke the yoke yaks? I
don't think the yoke yaks I think the yoke yaks they yoke the yak if you yoke them together they are going to move as fast as the slowest yak.

Centralized forms of government do this. They pull people back. They're incapable of pulling people forward. Which is why Lenin famously said of socialism.

"The goal of socialism is communism. balala..."

Okay, let's go right back to the Democratic socialists own website.  
Democratic socialists do not want to create an all-powerful government bureaucracy. Today corporate executives who answer only to themselves in a few wealthy  stockholders make basic economic decisions affecting millions of people. We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them, own and control them! and how are you going to do that, Democratic socialists?

Damn it! Important to note right off the bat, most businesses are not held by millionaires.  
Most of them are small businesses. By the way who's most affected by said economic institution or business.

Maybe instead of just the worker could it possibly be mmm oh I don't know the business owner who incurred all the investment in risk? Yet  according to the Democratic socialists own website, all of that control should be given over to the worker. Why? Because they said so. Who's going to do it? 
The  government bureaucracy that they just promised wouldn't happen.

Little-known fact, it's going to be done at gunpoint . That's what government does. That's what taxes are. You give us this or men with guns come and take you away.

 "You are one first-class idiot." "Oh, really?"
You are not like Walmart's wages but when was the last time they gangster punked you?
More over the fall of communism should not blind us to in Justices at home.  
We cannot allow all radicalism to be dismissed as communists. That suppression of dissent and diversity undermines America's ability to live up to its promise of equality of opportunity not to mention the freedoms of speech and assembly.

Okay here's just the point where I'll ask you to point me to any socialist government that allows for freedom of speech. 

In the short term we can't eliminate private corporations but we can bring them under greater democratic control.
The government could use regulations and tax incentives to encourage companies to act in the public interest.

Key detail here, in the short term we can't eliminate private corporations which would imply in the long term, the goal is to eliminate private corporations. That sounds familiar.
The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation 

Ahya ya ya...laughs
Thanks cut out Lenin for refreshing my memory. So the goal is to discourage companies from acting in the interest of you, the consumer in order to appease the social justice worker. Which is funny because it's counteracted by another point on this very page. 

We don't agree with the capitalist assumption that starvation or greed are the only reasons people work. People enjoy their work if it is meaningful and enhances their lives.
So right before this the  Democratic Socialist tell you how they're going to force your company to produce and operate and then in the very next paragraph tell you oh no but we believe that if people are left to their own nature, they truly enjoy work, specifically the work that we force you to do. People will love  the forced work we give them. Although a  long-term goal of socialism is to eliminate all but the most enjoyable kinds of labor, we recognized that unappealing jobs will long remain.
Is there anything more leftist social justice warrior entitled millennial than wanting to eliminate all the icky jobs, jobs like septic cleaning, trash man, snow removal. Basically any high-paying skilled job that Millennials refuse to do as they pursue their eight year degree in gender studies. 
These tasks could be spread among as many people as possible rather than distributed on the basis of class, race, ethnicity or gender as they are under capitalism. Rather than distributed on the basis of race, class, ethnicity under what? Nothing is distributed under capitalism. Nobody says I need this trash picked up you, black man, do this also I won't pay you.

"Fuck your mama" "Thank you very much" 

That's the beauty of free enterprise. Not only does it create a truly free market of ideas, goods, and services, but jobs for people who are willing to perform those jobs, if people are willing to pay them for it.
No government force required, which brings us to the linchpin.
Although no country is fully instituted democratic socialism, the socialist parties and labor movements of other countries have won many victories for their people. We can learn from the comprehensive welfare State maintained by the Swedes, from Canada's national health care system, Frances nationwide child care program and Nicaragua's literacy programs.

See this is what every failed economic system does whether it's communism socialism socialism or democratic socialism is. Oh no it would work,
Just nobody else has done it yet. All the other people didn't do it right, but I will and then they cherry pick data from individual facets of countries in order to make their point.
Like Nicaragua's literacy program, okay why don't you talk about their GDP? Canada's nationalized health care system why don't you talk about the crushing debt? In a Supreme Court case that ruled it a violation of Human Rights. In 2005 Sweden it's now the rape capital of the Western world and on the verge of cultural and economic collapse.

Good for you Sweden, you finally pulled one out but that's right the the failsafe is, these places weren't real democratic socialism, not like these people wanted to. We just have to trust them. Speaking of trust ,let's move to some of the most notorious supporters of democratic socialism, noted neurosurgeons at the Young Turks.

" and so many people who would really benefit from his policy ideas are against him because they've bought into the Bernie Sanders fear-mongering."

Ah, she said fear mongering, drink trigger warning, if you play that game, you're gonna get hammered.

"They hear the word socialist without really understanding what it means. Why is it that the middle class in the working class pays a higher percentage of their taxable income to the federal government and then you have these massive multinational corporations not paying anything in taxes?"

Um, because you're comparing corporations versus individual income? Couple of things here under Bernie Sanders, noted Democratic Socialist, the middle class would pay more, oh a lot more, yeah you're making fifty thousand a year you'd be paying over five thousand dollars more a year so there's that. 

 I know I know some of you were saying but we'll get free health care in college. Again if you believe that everyone in government is beyond corruption and those things will happen efficiently. Again let's go back to the analogy health care. Like the post office only add cancer. College, this goes back to the worldview.

What if I don't want to go to college, what if someone decides again human nature. Out of their own free will to take that job, cleaning septic tanks that Millennials refuse to do when he gets paid well. Why should he be taxed more to fund your decision to college? There's the practical and there's the moral.

But back to the rocket scientists at the Young Turks.
The whole reason for lower corporate tax rates is to avoid punishing the Umbrella so that it has more money to give out to individuals which ironically enough are now taxed at a higher rate.

So what do you think happens if you tax these corporations, these umbrellas more? Are they going to take it on their chin or fire employees and pay them less?

 "Yes we have the highest corporate tax rate of any developed country but when you consider the deductions and the loopholes we have the lowest."
 
Wait, which party is it again that wants to do away with complicated tax codes and loopholes? Is it? Someone give me a reference?
Free-market means that the rich people rigged the market in their favor. No it does not. It's actually rigged by people like Hillary Clinton Barack Obama or would be Bernie Sanders big government bureaucrats who get to legally determine how the system operates. Again democratic socialism necessitates trust that all of these people are beyond corruption and will do what's right for you.

"Which is why when we're in the middle of economic boom times which we are right now, corporations are making record profits. Wall Street is at record highs.."

 Right off the bat, this goes back to a world view.
Wall Street at record highs. So equities are the single greatest wealth creation tool that have been
afforded to a populous since ever. If you have a 401k retirement you haven't invested at all.

Guess what you want? Wall Street to do well? Bailing out Wall Street is bad. We agree. What Wall Street doing well is not inherently bad, for the middle class. In 2009 largely inspired by a rant from Rick Santelli against the big Wall Street bailouts, tea partiers protested big government and crony capitalism long before Young Turks or Bernie Sanders came around calling them racists. Occupy Wall Street.They're just copycats who smoked more weed.

"The wall street, violence, murder, suicide, and the ultimate end of marijuana addicts. Hopeless insanity...

"They rigged that system so that you don't get to the benefit of your labor. So when even though you're working harder, producing more you don't get to benefit. You don't get to yeah you don't get any of that money."

Okay democratic socialists, let's fix that. How about the middle class, the middle tier workers tie their job entirely based to performance. Go, you want them to benefit from their labor proportionally to the corporation? Okay, now all of those employees just like the top earners in a down year get nothing and have to fund all of those bleak years out of their own pockets but if the company is successful enough to do well despite the fact that 80% of businesses fail, the employees get paid handsomely.

Oh that's right. Unions have opposed that for decades. Better teachers should be paid more. Bad teachers less now. Okay American autoworkers you'll get paid more when our reliability ratings go up and sales go through the roof. No!

See the reason employees are paid less and the reason for this contract is because unlike the business owner creator innovator you decided to forego the risk, in order to receive financial security. It's a choice you made. You didn't start the business. You didn't risk your livelihood. You collected a check regardless of annual profits from someone who did.

"What are they going to do with that disposable income? Are they gonna do what millionaires and billionaires in the United States are doing where they just kind of poured it and they put it in either an overseas account or any US account and just kind of sit on it?"

This is so beyond stupid it defies reason. How do you think millionaires and billionaires got to be that way? By keeping a pile of gold like Scrooge McDuck? No, the only way to become financially successful in a true free enterprise system is through investment and willingness to incur risk.

"They're gonna go out there and spend the money they're gonna buy cars they're gonna fortunately hopefully one day for people like me buy a house right they're gonna actually go into the economy and they're gonna spend that money they're gonna go out to eat they're gonna go out to malls and buy gifts during Christmas time. Whatever it is they spend that money that's what stimulates the economy and when people are buying companies are kind of forced to hire more people so they can deal with the demand okay but if we're dealing with a situation where people don't have disposable income they're not gonna go out there and spend anything."

Yes yes that's what I'm talking about.  Young Turks with the grasp on basic economics you're getting it. That's exactly a create an environment where there are more jobs and goods and services can be provided at an affordable market price. It's what Adam Smith referred to as the invisible hand, the market, that set prices in demand. So you're catching on as you said with lower taxation, less government red tape, putting money back in the pockets of the consumer. I'm proud of you.

"You're being robbed not by socialists but by the established economic system that we've got in America right."

민주적인 사회주의와 전통적인 사회주의를 비교한다는 것은 그것도 맙소사 공산주의와 비교한다는 것은 공포심을 유발하며 정확하지 않다.. 뭐야? 사실은, 실제로 꽤 합리적이다.

"우리 모두가 이 문제를 해결하기 위해서는 단결하여 협심해야 한다."
"내게는 사회주의처럼 들려."
"민주적인 사회주의다"
"뭐가 다른데?"
"아주 많이 다르지"

제 말 들어요, 차이 없어요
여기에 버니 샌더스가 질문받고 민주적인 사회주의를 묘사한 것이 있지요..

"민주적인 사회주의가 무엇에 관한 것이냐 하면, 이 나라의 1퍼센트의 1/10가 거의 90퍼센트를 소유하는 것은 부도덕하고 잘못된 것이라고 말하는 것인데, 그들은 거의 하위 90퍼센트 층이 가진 재산을 소유하지요. 봐요, 모든 주요 국가들은 모든 사람에게 권리로서 건강 보험을 제공하는 데 미국만 안 그러죠. 이런 것들이 내가 믿는 원칙  중 몇 개이며, 내 생각에 우리는 스웨덴과 노르웨이, 덴마크 같은 나라들을 바라보고 그들이 근로자들을 위해 무엇을 이루었는지를 배워야 한다고 생각합니다." 

이거 중대한 건인 이유가 신화 한 개가 떠돌고 있기 때문이죠.. 민주적인 사회주의가 전통적 사회주의와 본질적으로 다르다는 신화가. 버니 샌더스는 위에서 어떤 세계관도 전혀 뾰족하게 설명하지 않았지요. 그는 그저 세월이 시작한 후부터 존재했던 것들을 지적했을 뿐이고, 여러분은 물품들 가질 자격이 있으니 화를 내고 있어야 한다고 말했으며 성탄절 선물 목록을 여러분들에게 제시했지요. 그건 세계관이 아니라 투표를 구매하는 수단이지요.

"누구를 믿을 건가 정할 때여, 얼른, 빨리, 빨리..... 돈, 돈, 돈, 누굴 믿을 건가? 나를? 나 공짜 돈 뿌리고 있다고요."

제가 대조해보지요. 누군가가 저에게 보수주의나 연방주의 또는 입헌주의가 무엇인지 물었다고 치고, 그것들을 뭐라 부르든 간에. 아주 간단하죠. 나의 세계관이 본질적으로 믿는 바는 개인들은 방해하지 않고 자신들의 결정을 내릴 수 있는 자유를 부여받으면 워싱턴의 정부 관료들보다 더 효율적으로 결정 내리는 경향이 있다고 믿지요. 또한 나는 사람들에게 일련의 자유와 독립성을 부여하는 것이 도덕적으로 절대적이라고 믿지요.

그게 다고, 그게 다 라니깐. 난 여러분에게 어떤 공짜 XX 약속 않았죠. 이제 핵심에 들어 갈 건데 우선 거시적으로 보는 게 먼저요. 왜냐면 우리 이 문제, 즉 2개의 세계관을 다시 거론할 것이니까. 인간의 본성을 허용하며 인정하는 세계관은 오직 하나뿐이다. 인간들은 본질적으로 이타적이라 특히 그들의 이름 뒤에 D자(민주당원)가 붙는, 완전히 부패에 면역된 정부 사람들을 필요로 하는 것이 또 하나의 세계관이다.

"내가 나의 새로운 제국에 이런 자유, 정의, 그리고 안보를 가져왔다."
"너의 새로운 제국?" " 내가 널 죽이게 하지 말아라."

그런데 나의 세계관은 어떤 이들은 인간성이 선해도 되고 어떤 이들은 똥 덩어리 같아도 되기에 각자 자기의 결정을 내리게 허용하니 시장 경제의 보이지 않는 손이 피해를 완화하게 하지만 중앙 집권적인 권력체제 안에서 완화될 수 있는 피해에 대조되게도.

"나 왕 아냐?" "난 널 투표하지 않았어: "왕에게 투표 안 해?"

곧바로 따분한 수학을 논하기 전에, 우린 그리 할 건데, 당신들이 믿는 게 뭔가를 결정해야만 한다. 왜냐면 곧바로 민주적인 사회주의자들은 당신들의 주장에 구멍을 뚫으려 들것이니까.

"많은 사람이 어쩌면 깨닫지 못하고 있는 것은 미국은 이미 일종의 사회주의 국가라는 것이다."

"가장 명백한 것들로 의료보험제도와 사회보장제도 같은 것이 있다."
"유치원에서 고등학교까지의 무상교육"
"국립공원들이며, 전반적인 법치 제도 안의 교도소들"
"우체국 서비스"
"화장실 쓰레기 처리"
"심지어 군대는 모두 사회주의 프로그램이다."

좌파들은 필경 정부가 제공하는 모든 것은 사회주의에 해당하는 것이라고 구석구석 애써 칠하려 든다. 그러므로 세계관으로 다시 돌아가서 특별히 미국에서 정부의 합법적인 역할이 무엇인가를 이해할 필요가 있다. 솔직히 여러분은 그 근본적인 질문을자신들에게 물어 본 적 있는지? 모든게 거기서 나오는데. 다행이도 우린 아주 명백한 청사진을 가지고 있지요. 헌법이 독립선언의 입장과 이유를 알려주지요.

꼭 그것들 읽어보세요.
저의 아버지가 저에게 해 준 비유를 소개하죠. 제 생각에 그게 여기에 잘 적용돼요. 정부의 역할은 우리가 가지고 있는 그 문서에 의하자면 하키(얼음판위의 게임) 심판의 역할과 아주 흡사하다. 구체적으로 하키, 왜 그런지 곧 보게 될 거요.

하키심판의 임무는 선수들의 안전을 도모하는 일이다. 그리고 게임이 순조롭게 진행되도록 선수들과 시민들의 안전을 도모하면서 사람들이 규율을 따르도록 하는 것이다.

그건 군대나, 어느 정도 경찰력의 형태가 정부의 합법적인 역할이란 것을 의미한다.  사람들이 슬 적 하는 일이나 남을 망치는 일들을 못 하게 하는 규칙을 세워 두는 것도 물론 그것은 정부의 합법적인 역할의 하나다.

그 범위 밖의 것은 모두 부수적인 것으로 간주한다., 고로 하키 심판은 호루라기를 {불지 않고} 주머니에 넣어 둔다. 
또한 하키에는 다른 운동에서는 볼 수 없는 스스로 규제하는 어떤 국면이 있는데 그거 고맙게 생각하는 사람 있지요.

"로버트 저 친구 들어와 막 갈기는 데 그가 쓰러진다."

그 장면 유럽의 사회주의자 축구선수와 비교해 보시라
아주 명확하게 정해진 역할로 심판이 해서는 안 되는 일로 우승자, 패배자나 높은 점수를 정하는 일, 의료지원을 마련하는 일, 물병 나르는 소년이나, 응원단장이 되는 일 또는 선수단원을 선택하는 일이다.

그래 쓸모없는 것들에 깊이 들어가고 싶지 않지만, 민주적 사회주의자들이 우체국을 성공의 한 예로 드는 게 참 웃긴다고 본다. 우체국은 끔찍했다, 놀랍게도 훼덱스가 경쟁을 시작했을 때까지는. 익일배송이나 2일 배송 같은 거 없었다. 배달되는 날 받게 되기를 그저 바랬지요. 또한 훼덱스전에는 추적 번호, 없었지요. 그게 여러분들의 우체국이었지요. 정부가 운영하는 의료 보험을 보고 싶다고요? 거기에다 암을 더해보시라고요. 학교들은 또 하나의 본보기이지죠.

당신네 부모님들, 연방 교육부 없이 자랐지요. 그들 공립학교는 여전히 갖고 있었죠. 그들은 그들의 주에 속한 시에서 자금을 받았었지요. 그랬지만 이봐요, 결과는 거의 같았지요. 당신네 부모님들 대부분은 당신네들 보다 더 똑똑하지요. 그래 그게 헌법 주의 세계관의 또 다른 멋진 면이지요.

워싱톤 디시에 있는 연방정부는 아주 제한된 역할을 하지요. 그러나 주와 시는 연방정부가 하지 않는 정부 서비스를 시행할 권한을 가지고 있지요.

만일에 어떤 주에서 여러분들을 죽도록 세금 때려 가며 모든 사람들에게 학교와 공짜 대마초를 제공하겠다면 저들 맘껏 그리 할 수 있지만 어지간한 주라면 절대로 그리 할 필요 없지요.

그래 그게 헌법 주의 세계관의 또 다른 멋진 면이지요. 반복하건데 인간의 본성을 고려한다면 여러분들 정부의 권력을 분권화하고 싶을 것이죠. 이러한 기초 작업이 여기에 깔려야 하는데 왜냐면 여러분들의 견해가 다르다는 것을 이해하는 게 아주 중요하기 때문이지요. .조직체가 여하히 작동하기를 바라는 가에 상반되게도 그게 여하히 운영되도록 법문화할 것인가 하는 견해들.

그러니 공정을 위해서 미국 민주적 사회주의로 가서 그들이 묘사하는 민주적 사회주의를 들어 봅시다. 민주적인 사회주의자들은 경제나 사회는 소수의 이윤을 위해서가 아니라 인류의 요구를 충족시키기 위해서 민주적으로 운영되어야 한다고 믿는다.

이제 당장 사람들은 민주주의란 말을 듣고 그것은 어쩌면 본질적으로 고상한 것이라고 믿기 때문에 무의식적으로 사회주의와 민주적 사회주의를 다른 것으로 인지한다고 저들은 말한다.

 차이 하나도 없어요.
그러기에 을라디미르 레닌은 그 유명한 말을 했죠. 
민주주의는 사회주의에서 없어서는 안되는 것이다.

그래서 여러분들은 저런 것들을 원할지 모르지만 직설하자면 미국은 민주주의가 아니다. 미국은 민주주의로 정해진 적 전혀 없었다.. 미국은 절대로 민주주의가 되지 않을 것이다, 헌법이 존재하는 한.

미국은 늘 헌법적인 대표제 공화국이었다. 어째서 어떻게 그게 다른가. 왜냐면 건국 아버지들을 이해했었기 때문이다. 자유가 유지되려면 중요한 것은 소수자들의 권리가 늘 변하는 다수의 뜻에 전적으로 맡겨져서는 안 된다고.

봐요, 민주주의는 멋지게 들리겠지만 실상엔 인민(대중) 정치이지요, 그래서 어쩔 수 없이 그것은 폭락하게 되어 있지요. 반복건대, 여러분은 인간 본성을 고려하지 않고 있지요. 

만일 각자가 한 개의 투표를 가지고 있다면 그들은 자신의 이해관계에 따라 투표하겠고 대중은 소수의 것들을 빼앗으려 투표할 것이지요. 

"갖고파, 갖고파, 갖고파, 내가, 내가, 내가, 내 것,
내 것, 내 것, 지금 당장, 당장, 당장, 어."

좋은 본보기는 사람들이 처음 미국에 와서 존 스미스 밑에서 식민지 생활을 할 때겠지요. 프래거 대학에 이 문제에 관해 만든 멋진 비디오가 있지요. 원래 목적은 개인이 아니라 사회의 개선을 위해서였죠. 따라서 곡물, 식량, 자원은 공동용이었기에 사람들은 자기들이 필요한 것을 가져갔죠.

불가피하게도 어떤 사람들은 다른 사람들보다 더 생산적이다 보니 조직체가 붕괴하기 시작했고 사람들은 굶주렸지요. 그게 예외 없이 사회주의의 모델에서 종종 일어나는 일이지요.

이건 그저 시간문제지 그때가 되면 당신네들 결정 하나 해야 되지요. 정부가 모든 상업 분야에 통제를 가하는 본격적인 공산주의로 가던가 아니면 다른 방향으로 돌아서서 자유 시장 경제 자본주의로 가던가.후자를 존 스미스는 취하면서 말했다. 자, 이거  않되 먹으니 여러분들 자신들을 책임지세요. 그리고는 그 유명한 구절을 들려 주었지요. 일하지 않는 자는 먹지 않는다. 성경에서 그가 인용한 구절이다.

중얼, 중얼, 중얼, 빠르게 몇백년 지나다 보니 여러분들 아이폰 6 (휴대폰)을 갖게 되었다, 
다시 인간의 본성으로 돌아가서.  여러분이 야크란 소에 멍에를 멘다 치면. 만일에 여러분이 2마리에 아니면 여러 마리에 멍에를 멘다면... 몇 마리

작성일2019-05-19 12:17

유샤인님의 댓글

유샤인
긴글이라 번역이 짤려 나갔네요.  여기에 가서 나머지를 보세요.
http://www.kb34.net/xe/index.php?mid=knowledges&document_srl=182811
SF 사랑방 목록
번호 제목 글쓴이 날짜 조회
1854 China Introduces Social Scorecards 중국은 시회적인 득점카드를 소개한다 유샤인 2019-07-14 19
1853 Step Back In Time.. famous actor & actres 시간을 되롤려 보자면 -유명한 남… 유샤인 2019-07-11 35
1852 DOES GOD LOVE YOU? 하나님이 당신을 사랑합니까? 유샤인 2019-07-10 46
1851 박정희 대통령 대일국교정상화회담 결과에 대한 국민담화문] 유샤인 2019-07-10 47
1850 Steve Bannon Speech aro CPDC 060319 스티브 배논이 현재위험중국위원해에서 한 연설 유샤인 2019-07-08 62
1849 Jesus is all the world to me. 예수 내게는 온 세상 (한국 찬송가: 예수는 나의 힘) 인기글 유샤인 2019-06-30 145
1848 옛날 그옛날 이조말엽의 희귀사진 + 유샤인의 댓글 인기글 유샤인 2019-06-29 154
1847 David Goldman's Speech at CPDC Conference 4/25/19 중국은 현… 인기글 유샤인 2019-06-25 225
1846 자네- 나훈아, You There - Na HoonAh 팔자(8)는 뒤집어도 팔자(8)인 것을 인기글 유샤인 2019-06-24 249
1845 조롱과 야유에 무관심했던 거인, 콜 총리 인기글 유샤인 2019-06-16 296
1844 사람도, 돈도 미련없이 떠나는나라 -권순권 순활 논설주간활 칼럼 댓글[1] 인기글 유샤인 2019-06-10 403
1843 미국 보수 정치 행동 총회에서 행한 캔다스 오웬스의 2019 연설 Candace Owens At CPAC … 인기글 유샤인 2019-06-04 443
1842 기도 / '헤르만 헤세' 인기글 유샤인 2019-06-02 415
1841 Charlie Kirk at CPAC 2019 미국 전환점 대표 챨리 커크가 미국 보수 정치 행동 총회에서 … 인기글 유샤인 2019-06-01 411
1840 Roger Scruton: Why Intellectuals are Mostly Left 라져 스크루튼: 왜 … 인기글 유샤인 2019-05-24 516
1839 “3·1운동의 실제 기획자는 이승만이었다" -김현지 기자 인기글 유샤인 2019-05-19 440
열람중 Why Democratic socialism doesn't work -StevenCrowder 민주… 댓글[1] 인기글 유샤인 2019-05-19 425
1837 [역사 증언] 이승만의 밀서(密書)가 3.1운동 일으켰다 인기글 유샤인 2019-05-16 445
1836 Que Ser aSera -Sophia Ng 될 건 될 대로 될거야 (영어와 한글자막 English & Ko… 인기글 유샤인 2019-05-14 488
1835 Regan's one final thought, an observation about a count… 인기글 유샤인 2019-05-11 453
1834 Candace Owens (BLexit이라는 흑인 운동을 시작한 여인) Gives A Brilliant Sp… 인기글 유샤인 2019-05-10 3381
1833 나는 본 적이 없다 (데스밸리에서) -차신재 Never Have I Seen (at Death Valley)… 인기글 유샤인 2019-04-29 461
1832 한국인선교사 인기글 유샤인 2019-04-29 424
1831 San Francisco -Scott Mckenzie 샌프란시스코 -영어가사와 번역한글 자막판 인기글 유샤인 2019-04-28 463
1830 미국 흑인들이 더 이상 피해자로 살지 않게 하고 있는 운동단체, BLexit를 이끄는 여자가 미국 하원 증오… 인기글 유샤인 2019-04-27 419
1829 "한국 교회, 개신교 역사상 가장 타락했다"- 안성모 인기글 유샤인 2019-04-27 436
1828 영화 Green Book을 보고 나서 인기글 유샤인 2019-04-22 470
1827 도널드 트럼프의 '사회주의 비판' - 비디오로 볼수 있을 뿐 아니라 영어 와 한글 연설문으… 인기글 유샤인 2019-04-16 501
1826 朴正熙 전 대통령 평가 관련 國際學術大會 인기글 유샤인 2019-04-12 488
1825 남미 기행 (5) 아르헨티나 -2019년 3월 시카고에서 노영일 인기글 유샤인 2019-04-06 617
게시물 검색
* 본 게시판의 게시물에 대하여 회사가 법적인 책임을 지지 않습니다.