Why Do Republicans Lie So Much More Than Democrats?

 The reason Democrats don't lie as much as Republicans is because they don't have to. In general, they want a more pluralistic America, a better regulated economy, a better safety net, and a more progressive taxation system.

They want what they want, and the rest is just agreeing on the details and how to sell it/explain it/argue for it. No lies needed. Ever.

Republicans, on the other hand, want a white ethno-state with a fascist government, run by an oligarchy, like they have in Russia and other "banana republics."

You can't sell that crap to decent humans, so they have to lie, lie, lie.

There are no socialists here

Source

That's Socialism!

It's Not Socialism, It's Authoritarianism!

"Mother of all Marches," Caracas, Venezuela April 19, 2017

The other day I was chatting with an acquaintance on facebook about Venezuela -- and if you aren't following it, shame on you -- and they were angry with a headline that blamed "socialism" for the woe. He angrily exclaimed, "It's not socialism, it's authoritarianism."

That led to a fruitless semantic debate about one of the most slippery words in political discourse: socialism. Folks on the left and right simply could not communicate, because they couldn't agree on semantics.

Socialism means, in just about everyone's vernacular, that the state somehow "socializes" land, labor, or capital....or, collectively owns or controls, in any or all of those areas. There are only three main ways to do this: voluntarily, democratically, or autocratically.

Voluntary socialism is libertarianism. An excellent example of voluntary socialism is a group like the Freemasons. The collective owns and controls the assets, everyone is a member voluntarily, and you can leave if you choose by simply declaring it so. It's run democratically, but entry and exit is voluntary.

Democratic socialism, which barely exists in reality, is where you have a democratic society, and a socialist economy. It's a theoretical thing at best, and usually ends up being social democracy. That's like Bernie. Social democracy, which many people mean when they use the word socialism, is not socialism at all -- it is capitalism with a safety net. Not socialism, but people in America call it that. In fact, when Bernie Sanders referred to Denmark as an example of the type of country that he, a democratic socialist, liked, Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen disagreed: "I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy." We are talking about a "mixed economy," a mix of the free market and "socialism," or "economic interventionism," or "economic authoritarianism." All of those terms work for what is happening.

Then there is state capitalism, which is even more "socialized" than social democracy, which is everything from China, Germany, and Brazil, to a few other smaller countries...that's the mixed economy, where the state runs a heavy-handed "industrial policy." Now, to the socialist, these are "not socialism." Well, they are if it goes well. If not, it's not socialism, it's authoritarianism.

Now, every one of those words is slippery, confusing, and used differently by the people who use them.

The left usually uses them broadly one way, the right, another. Libertarians might use either way.

However, whenever we are discussing socialism in the news, we generally mean economic authoritarianism in one manner or another. We are not talking about some theoretical socialism that is either capitalism, or something that has never existed.

Either way, I seriously think we need to just start listening to what the person means more than the word they use....the point is, maybe we should exercise charity when we see these words, and really pay better attention.

Basically, I think making the claim that your definition is the only one is false, and making the claim that yours is the best one requires an essay and citations.

Semantics. The only way to win is not to play. Or at least, maybe forget about winning, and play to understand.

The Case is Clear

The case for liberty has never been more clear. There are now about a hundred countries that are (true, flawed, and hybrid) democracies with (overly) regulated capitalist economies with safety nets. Actual socialism is a dead issue. The new game is social democracy.


Are these countries perfect? No. Are they better than what they had a century ago, or even fifty years ago? Heck, yeah.

Each one of these countries -- from New Zealand, to Denmark, to Singapore and Hong Kong -- each place makes a separate case for economic and personal liberty, and the more deeply we look at each one, the more we see that it does.


I think it behooves us to study these places, and learn from their failures and successes. Libertarians have the ability to go beyond left and right here, and look at actual liberty in these places, so we can make our case to Americans even more. The world has changed, and the facts are with us.

https://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index

https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-world-2017