Mechanicjohn12

Mechanicjohn12 t1_j8z64vg wrote

Reply to Ranting On! Bank Left, or more of the same? by joeydokes

Why do we need to adopt socialism? Why not simply allow citizens to take their own lives by their own reigns by EASING regulations?

If we were to go the route you describe, would you be willing to lose large swathes of current US land/genocide millions upon millions of people? Because only a small percentage of this nation would agree to what you propose if they fully understood the ramifications.

You speak of getting rid of the electoral college, which is one of the main reasons we live in a UNITED states of America; no state other than the most populous would be willing to join a contractual agreement to be subjected to the will of plurality. We would never have gained independence, and we would have never had the compromise needed to bring the nation back together after the civil war.

Now; there are some points you made I can agree with, but many of them just perpetuate an image of a dystopian future. We BARELY live in a capitalistic society. What we currently live under is more closely related to corporatism.

Capitalism at the end of the day is two consenting parties agreeing to do business, and only ABLE to do business if both parties agree/consent without the need for approval from a third party. What is wrong with that? That is the most peaceful form of economics IMO.

Our nations framework and building principles are what the nation needs to rebuild us back to glory and wealth for MOST instead of a few. We have just gotten so damn far from our roots of freedom and liberties through bureaucratic legislation and corruption at all levels of government.

The issues stem from our politicians having no expectation of retaliation/accountability for literally destroying the lives of millions of people at a time by fucking signing a paper.

−7

Mechanicjohn12 t1_ix0myhn wrote

Reply to comment by SomePolack in Eversource seeks 43% rate hike for electric customers in Mass. this winter by thinkB4WeSpeak

This isn’t capitalism, this is corporatism and consumerism.

Capitalism in its essence is free trade; true capitalism would likely result in each county having its own power plants with the ability to offset the needs of others when they are under maintenance/repair, or case of catastrophic failure.

5

Mechanicjohn12 t1_iuaiecw wrote

Reply to comment by deadowl in Vermonters—legalize eagles asshole Mallory is a Jan 6th supporter by Jsr1

What happened in Kansas, I would say, was internal struggles being propagated by both political factions trying to plant their foot to gain control.

Slavery back then was a massive ethical issue for the nation. People were willing to kill both to uphold the institutions, and to abolish.

Edit: you didn’t even respond to what I had said

2

Mechanicjohn12 t1_iuahwm7 wrote

Reply to comment by deadowl in Vermonters—legalize eagles asshole Mallory is a Jan 6th supporter by Jsr1

No, that’s not even remotely what I am saying.

The attack on fort Sumter had nothing to do with slavery and was purely about jurisdiction at that point. The south claimed the fort as their own, and that it was there property as it was within their borders.

The attack at fort Sumter was clearly southern aggression; albeit nobody died during the “battle”. Hell, nobody even knew that the attack of Sumter would be the “beginning” of the Civil War.

1

Mechanicjohn12 t1_iu9qdy6 wrote

Reply to comment by eye-brows in Vermonters—legalize eagles asshole Mallory is a Jan 6th supporter by Jsr1

States right to what? What do you want me to say?

I disagree vehemently with the concept of slavery, if that’s your question, and believe or Constitution through the rights awarded would make slavery federally illegal since it was created and signed.

I DONT think states have a right to enslave a human being, for any reason.

You idiots are trying to turn an incredibly nuanced and difficult historical time of our nation into a simple one sentence reason or answer.

The original 7 states that seceded from the Union absolutely did so over slavery. The Union actually allowed and upheld slavery in several states throughout the war. The Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves held within the rebelling territories, NOT in the several Union states which still had slaves.

There were 7 original secede states. The other 4 seceded AFTER Lincoln mobilized 75,000 Union soldiers to quash the rebellion by force. Those 4 states were not fighting specifically for slavery (played a factor) but their main disagreements were by the violence and overreach presented from the federal government. It rang a lot like Britain prior to the Revolutionary war.

Only ~5% of the south were slave owners. Most of the slave owners never picked up a rifle to defend the institution of slavery. Ask yourself why did the poor men of the south decide to fight and die against the Union? Was it because they just loved slavery?

Or was it because they began to see the Union (aka federal government) literally enter their states and burn and pillage the homes of their friends and families who had NO relation to slavery or even southern politics.

Union soldiers did not fight to even end slavery for the most part. The whole war was mostly fought because the “Union” could not be allowed to dissolve, too much had been lost to get to the point in which they were at.

I will never defend the south and their “right” to slavery as I don’t think anybody has a right to own human beings, and believe the Constitution to clearly outline all the human rights which would expressly disallow the practice of slavery.

−24