Liberals: Do you really want huge govt when the people may vote in an evil person?

[Grummgug]

So this is a question that I've often asked but current events make me want to ask it again.

For you liberals and socialists, you say you want a very strong & powerful government. One that controls the corporations, maybe even the means of production. You want to give it the power to handle all of our problems. Benefits for the poor, the sick, the old, those struggling with emergencies. To accomplish these goals, you must give government HUGE levers of power to control the economy and even your lives. Further, you have even begun to embrace the chief executive ruling by executive order to override the congress (apparently for no other reason than Obama is a liberal and conservatives run congress).

But at the same time, liberals and socialists are mortified that a large section of the public wants to elect Donald Trump. You seem to think he is basically an evil person.

So let's put these two ideas together shall we?

Why do you want a huge powerful government when it DOES seem possible that, sooner or later, the public will elect a totally evil person that will completely corrupt that powerful government to suit himself. I mean, you must admit a dictator would LOVE the principles the socialism plus this intense desire to strengthen the executive. A dictator wants a nation to fully adopt socialism because he can corrupt it and turn it into a dictatorship. When there is limited government and sharp separation of powers, its not as likely.

So why do you even embrace socialism when this seems to be the end result? Sooner or later, it will happen. Maybe right away, maybe in 100 years, but its coming if you adopt socialism. Isn't free market capitalism paired with limited government a smarter bet?

Socialism seems incredibly naive and foolish. It fails to take into account human nature.

[Blade Wolf]

Socialism seems incredibly naive and foolish. It fails to take into account human nature.

Yeah socialism has never worked in other countries

[Grummgug]

Yeah socialism has never worked in other countries

The thesis here is that it may work on a short time frame, but on a longer term time frame, socialism MUST collapse into a dictatorship.

It hasn't happened in Europe for the simple reason that a super charismatic dictator hasn't emerged in a while. Once he does though, Europe has greased the wheels to his reign. You've given him everything he needs to oppress you.

[Deleted]

The thesis here is that it may work on a short time frame, but on a longer term time frame, socialism MUST collapse into a dictatorship.

It hasn't happened in Europe for the simple reason that a super charismatic dictator hasn't emerged in a while.

I dunno what you've been smoking but give me some.

[Kujako]

Just to be clear, you think "huge government" is from stuff like health care and not border walls, expelling illegals, monitoring what people do in bed, drug wars, etc? Cause from where I sit, the "liberal" vote (really the less right then the other guy vote and not liberal) is for smaller government then what the Republicans offer.

[May90]

I'm confused... Don't liberals typically want the government to take as little part in their lives as possible? That liberals want a very strong & powerful government is a news to me.

[breadisfunny]

I'm confused... Don't liberals typically want the government to take as little part in their lives as possible? That liberals want a very strong & powerful government is a news to me.

it's grummgug. what is there to be confused about?

[Mihalik]

Just to be clear, you think "huge government" is from stuff like health care and not border walls, expelling illegals, monitoring what people do in bed, drug wars, etc? Cause from where I sit, the "liberal" vote (really the less right then the other guy vote and not liberal) is for smaller government then what the Republicans offer.

This.

The US has the largest state security apparatus ever seen in human history. It puts the KGB, the Stasi and the Securitate of the past to shame. And it's a state security apparatus that is known to monitor everyone and everything. This combined with the largest military on Earth by multiple fold, and with a highly militarized police state with half a dozen letter agency "law enforcement" groups, that typically act marginally better than the criminal groups they are supposed to police.

That is "big government".

[Wyrt]

Republicans want a huge government too. They just want it large in other areas. Like military, dictating morality, and spying on citizens.

[I Push Buttons]

Republicans want a huge government too. They just want it large in other areas. Like military and dictating morality.

Basically they just want to impose Jesus' morals on everyone else... You know, like discriminating against your neighbor and letting the poor and needy die in the streets... Wait a minute...

[Endus]

So this is a question that I've often asked but current events make me want to ask it again.

For you liberals and socialists, you say you want a very strong & powerful government. One that controls the corporations, maybe even the means of production. You want to give it the power to handle all of our problems. Benefits for the poor, the sick, the old, those struggling with emergencies. To accomplish these goals, you must give government HUGE levers of power to control the economy and even your lives. Further, you have even begun to embrace the chief executive ruling by executive order to override the congress (apparently for no other reason than Obama is a liberal and conservatives run congress).

But at the same time, liberals and socialists are mortified that a large section of the public wants to elect Donald Trump. You seem to think he is basically an evil person.

So let's put these two ideas together shall we?

Why do you want a huge powerful government when it DOES seem possible that, sooner or later, the public will elect a totally evil person that will completely corrupt that powerful government to suit himself. I mean, you must admit a dictator would LOVE the principles the socialism plus this intense desire to strengthen the executive. A dictator wants a nation to fully adopt socialism because he can corrupt it and turn it into a dictatorship. When there is limited government and sharp separation of powers, its not as likely.

So why do you even embrace socialism when this seems to be the end result? Sooner or later, it will happen. Maybe right away, maybe in 100 years, but its coming if you adopt socialism. Isn't free market capitalism paired with limited government a smarter bet?

Socialism seems incredibly naive and foolish. It fails to take into account human nature.

I've color-coded the above for simplicity's sake. The parts in red are just straight-up incorrect, and since they're blatantly incorrect, there's no point in addressing them. The one bit in green? That's already true in pretty much every Western nation, and has been for like 70 years, concurrently with the most productive era of all of history. So I really don't see why you list it as a negative.

As for the blue bits, in order;

1> Socialism does not mandate any government control over either corporations or the means of production, outside of the rule of law that applies in any system. Social ownership of the means of production is a perfectly functional version of socialism that involves very little government ownership of anything.

2> This is borderline incorrect, but warranted an explanation. The use of executive orders is standard Presidential use of power, and has always worked this way. It isn't "new". If anything, Obama's been more limited in his use than other Presidents of the last 30 years or so.

3> Limited government, sharp separation of powers? It was the weak government in Germany that gave Hitler the opportunity to rise to power, in the first place. You can't seriously claim that this protects against fascist dictatorships, when it directly led to the rise of one of the most horrendous examples thereof in the 20th Century. That doesn't mean strong governments are automatically better, but your claim is wildly off base.

[Damajin]

Republicans want a huge government too. They just want it large in other areas. Like military, dictating morality, and spying on citizens.

Democrats might not want to keep a big military, but they don't mind doing the other two, dictating morality has been the centerpiece of the entire Obama administration, and spying goes along with that. It'd be no different under Clinton, just as it was no different under her husband. Sanders would have a hell of a time wrestling away those two pillars of the government, Rubio would prop them up further, not so sure what the others would do though I think they'd nibble around the edges without taking a serious bite out of them.

[mvaliz]

Conservatives: Do you really want to vote in an evil person?

Fix your own self-created problems before criticizing others.

EDIT: Also, Canada, England, France and other countries seem to be going fine.

If we vote in an evil person - it's because enough Americans are evil and agree with an evil person's view.

Speaking of, recent polls show 20% of Donald Trump supporters would like the emancipation proclimation removed... and he got an endorsement from David Duke, former clan leader of the KKK.

[Wells]

I don't really give a shit about the "size" of government. Neither do a lot of liberals. That kind of rhetoric is mostly a conservative/moderate thing. When I need a tool I don't care about how big it is I care that it does what I want it to.

[hakujinbakasama]

I'm confused... Don't liberals typically want the government to take as little part in their lives as possible? That liberals want a very strong & powerful government is a news to me.

This is actually an interesting topic. Modern US Democrates play VERY heavily into the Philosophy of Populism while the Republicans vocally (at the least) promote Liberalism. The issue resides in how the average person "believes" each of these are defined rather than what they actually define.

In Populism there is no tyranny of the majority. Which is damn near exactly how EVERYTHING the Democrats go about things. Here's a cool thing, look at everything Bernie or Hillary stands on as far as policy...
Universal Healthcare..... "The majority of Americans believe..."
Universal Background checks.... "The majority of Americans want..."
Money out of Politics... "The majority of Americans demand..."

ect ect

Now it's not to say that there isn't an element of this on the Right, but by and large it is the entirety of the Democratic Party Stance.

Liberalism, as defined in its origins is the Constitution. A limited government, tightly regulated by a division of powers, and expressly dictated as to what each division can or can't do. While not everything they do might actually coincide with the classical meaning of Liberalism, it turns out the wide message of the Republicans is however one of Liberalism.

That being said, the biggest founding proponent of Liberalism was James Madison and at the end of the day those who were on his side believed voting to be by and large pointless and it's only true purpose was to rid ourselves of tyrants.... and by proxy the tyranny of the majority.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Do you really want corporations ruling America, implementing policy that would put people aside in the name of profit?

[Dug]

I want more government regulation on businesses so that they stop fucking over the whole of America and its people. I want less government in my bedroom telling me what I can or cannot do with my jiggly bits.

[hrugner]

As things stand, we simply have government by another name, with no check on it's power and no consent of the governed. If our elected and (supposedly)transparent government can't reign in the governing of non-elected uncontrolled government, then it's failing in it's only purpose. Socialism to some degree solves the problem by removing powers that govern through money rather than democracy.

It's all well and good to say liberals like big government, but it's sort of a nonsense point when non-government bodies have more power over our lives than non-elected governing bodies.

[Auxora]

The size of government isn't proportional to whether a leader can be "evil" or not. A small government can certainly have evil leaders, they just do it by manipulating laws to favor certain people and are then rewarded with kickbacks. So then you end up with a small group of people in control of everything in the conservative scenario. Watch The Big Short for an example of that...

Regardless, size of government is only 1 of 10-15 topics to consider when deciding on who to vote for. And it's overestimating the power of the President to think that whoever is elected is going to completely change the size of government in 1 or 2 terms, even if that President's party controls Congress (and definitely not if they don't). They'd be lucky to even moderately influence government size either direction in 4 or 8 years. Candidates always talk like they can dictate things when they are running, and then they get in office and reality sets in that Presidential power is actually fairly limited.

[derpkitteh]

the way i see it, big government is needed to keep life fair for those who can't make it to being rich.

keep businesses in line, take care of the poor and middle class, and if i had my way we'd make sure everyone has a home.