...Dude, you do realize that the original Constitution supported slavery, right?
Prepare yourself for my probably final post on this entire thread.
I just don't understand why people are so afraid of socialism. Yes, it's been used badly in the past [I know you're thinking of Stalin], but it was warped to suit the ruling elite and not the people, who it was originally intended for. Democratic socialism is, according to Wikipedia:
Democratic socialism is distinguished from both the Soviet model of centralized socialism and from social democracy, where "social democracy" refers to support for political democracy, regulation of the capitalist economy, and a welfare state. The distinction with the former is made on the basis of the authoritarian form of government and centralized economic system that emerged in the Soviet Union during the 20th century, while the distinction with the latter is made on the basis that democratic socialism is committed to systemic transformation of the economy while social democracy is not. That is, whereas social democrats only seek to "humanize" capitalism through state intervention, democratic socialists see capitalism as inherently incompatible with the democratic values of liberty, equality and solidarity; and believe that the issues inherent to capitalism can only be solved by superseding private ownership with some form of social ownership. Ultimately democratic socialists believe that reforms aimed at addressing the economic contradictions of capitalism will only cause more problems to emerge elsewhere in the economy, that capitalism can never be sufficiently "humanized", and that it must therefore ultimately be replaced with socialism.
And listen to how Karl Marx, the founder of Marxism [the predecessor to socialism and communism] says about it: "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need." That means everyone works to the best of their ability to provide people with the things they need. Doesn't that sound reasonable?
This is why democratic socialism is a better alternative to capitalism, because as long as capitalism exists, there will always be people who will be rich and those that are too poor.
Take for example, the game of Monopoly. The goal of the game is to make more money and make your enemies poor. After the game is won, everything goes back in the box. Is it really worth it?
Capitalist societies also tend to have more crime than socialist countries, (no, it's not because of the threat of getting shot) because everyone in socialism is required to work and everyone earns a living. This means there are no poor people, and since most crimes are resulted by poverty, then crime is reduced. Also people are not too rich, which means reductions in organized crime.
Take for example, when China turned Communist to Capitalist, the crime rates increased and there were mobs.
Now then, let's also take into consideration the rich companies and banks. It's no secret that these monopolies buy their politicians and fund their campaigns. After all, a politician can't really fund himself. They also make profits off of people from other countries using cheap manual labor. These people don't earn enough and are often earning slave wages, and that is a terrible thing.
Also, as long as there are big rich companies in capitalism, they will tend to find a way to make money off your problems. For example, it is because of the oil companies that we don't have solar powered cars, because they buy patents to such things and keep everyone else from getting a free source energy.
Doesn't that seem wrong in some way? I mean, forget about the Constitution for a second and try to take a look at the larger picture. Our economy is rigged. People are suffering because of a broken economic system.
On to the Second Amendment, which is kind of a dangerous part of the Constitution. The Second Amendment says "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." What that means is that in order for a state to remain secure, there should be a guard of sorts in place that consists of the people, who have access to weapons.
Doesn't that sound familiar? Like, maybe, the police force? Or the National Guard? Or the military? Who are all made up of the people, you know.
I'm not saying that people shouldn't have weapons, but having a guy walk around in a supermarket with his big-ass machine gun slung over his shoulder is kind of absolutely insane. The lethal weapons should be entrusted to the authorities. The people, however, should have non-lethals, like tasers or pepper spray or just really big sticks. This reduces the chance of tragedies like shootings happening. If someone wants to own a lethal weapon, like a gun, they should go through a background check to make sure that they're mentally stable enough to use it properly. This way, no one's infringing on your rights, no more tragedies happen, and everyone's happy.
That's the end of my Second Amendment rant.
Now, tell me, is getting money out of politics, trusting science/addressing climate change as a threat and not a punchline, ending unfair pay, creating a livable minimum wage, creating new jobs, rebuilding our infrastructure, getting off fossil fuels, making college affordable, expanding Social Security, enacting single-payer healthcare, ending systemic racism, and closing tax loopholes... Are ANY of those things infringing or overthrowing Constitutional rights? Because, if anything, about half of those are additions to our rights! And the other half is actually attempting to make our country better after the disastrous presidency of George W. Bush! You have to look at the bigger picture here.
This system isn't without flaws, obviously. Which system is? But right now, this system seems- no, that's not even up for discussion. - IS the best system to repair a damaged America. You can call me idealistic, naive, etc. But if you take a close look at this, you should know that this is the best option, that Sanders is the best option. Everyone else is either taken by the banks, themselves, or want to actually remove Constitutional rights, if that's what you're so worried about. [Donald Trump doesn't like freedom of speech.]
And that's all I have to say on this. I'm not gonna say any more, because I want to let other people share their opinions and such. If you do want to continue discussing this with me, do so in a private message. Thank you for indulging me!
Edited by Ignatius of Aetheria, 21 April 2016 - 02:48 AM.