This week, Darializa Avila Chevalier was asked if there has ever been a “successful model of socialism anywhere in the world outside the United States in terms of both human rights and widespread economic justice.” The member of the Democratic Socialists of America responded by citing Sweden and Norway. It is a common false claim made by socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders and others. I address the claim head-on in Rage and the Republic.
DSA figures have been claiming that the socialist measures that they are pushing are proven successes in other countries. They often raise the Scandinavian myth. Here is an excerpt from Rage and the Republic:
‘Leaders such as Senator Bernie Sanders have heralded the alleged success of “democratic socialism” in Europe, a pitch that is obviously taking hold with many younger Americans. Sanders and others often refer to the prosperity of Scandinavian socialism, including Sweden and Norway. It is a dangerous myth that is promulgated by many in the media. The question is not whether Scandinavian socialism can work in the United States (it cannot) but whether Scandinavian socialism can work in Scandinavia. Sweden is a particularly curious choice as a model for democratic socialism. In reality, Sweden shows not only the success of capitalism but also the limits of socialism even in a relatively small nation. Sweden turned away from the type of socialist theories increasingly in vogue in the United States.
…
The Scandinavian countries also differ from the United States in other key ways. For example, Norway has largely sustained large public welfare systems through oil revenues. The country imposes a corporate income tax rate of 78 percent on extractive activities to fund its public welfare programs…
Countries like Denmark and Sweden are strong adherents to capitalist principles and are listed among the most capitalist nations on Earth. Indeed, leaders often express surprise by American references to their socialist principles. In 2015, the Danish Prime Minister Lars Rasmussen observed, “I know that some people in the U.S. associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore, I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.” Likewise, Social Democratic Minister of Finance Kjell‐Olof Feldt stated “That whole thing with democratic socialism was absolutely impossible. It just didn’t work.”
As I discuss, these countries are not only committed to capitalism but also ranked among the most free-market economies in the world. These countries are also very different from the United States:
“When socialism was tried in larger nations in Europe, such as France under François Mitterrand, it failed, and capitalist measures had to be restored. In 2025, the populations of Denmark, Sweden, and Norway are approximately 5.9 million, 10.6 million, and 5.6 million—smaller than many American states.”
The DSA and the American left, including many in the media, continue to sell the public a bill of goods on the success of Scandinavian socialism. Ironically, it is the type of disinformation that the left often cites to justify greater censorship. Despite denials from these very countries, socialists in the United States continue to spread this false claim that there is a socialist paradise over the ocean where collectivists labor in picturesque Nordic fishing villages.
The promulgation of such myths is a central feature of Marxism. Lenin stressed that “we must not confine ourselves exclusively to propaganda in the narrow sense of the word.” Stalin likewise warned that “If our Party propaganda for some reason or other goes lame…then our entire state and Party work must inevitably languish.”
The fact is that socialism has repeatedly failed throughout history. The only way to get a people to embrace it is to rewrite that history. That is precisely what we see not only in the United States, but in the recent claims of incoming British Prime Minister Andy Burnham, who condemned the privatization policies of Margaret Thatcher: “The country surrendered control of the essentials — housing, water, energy, transport — and left people exposed to higher costs.” What he does not mention is that she followed the collapse of socialist policies under Labour Prime Minister James Callaghan in 1977–78 during the so-called “winter of discontent,” which I also discuss in the book.
Chevalier is a true believer who has praised Marxism and the concept of “seizing the means of production.” She won her primary despite comments bragging about her using the American flag to wipe her hands and criticizing the dating of white women as Black and Arab men “Fetishizing ugly colonizer women.”
Given that history, the adoption of the Scandinavian socialism myth is par for the course. Like Zohran Mamdani, she is rallying young, disillusioned, college-educated voters who are told that their struggles stem from the failures of the free market. Instead, they are offered free stuff and the illusion of an economic nirvana where lattes and Pilates are virtually costless.
Indeed, the Scandinavian socialism myth is so enticing that I expect Scandinavians must wonder where they can also find it.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
Capitalism is not very kind to people who cannot work due to disabilities.
Like Stephen Hawking and Stevie Wonder?
No system is kind to shirkers, malingerers, slackers, goldbrickers, leeches, parasites, etc.
Name all the countries with better disability benefits than the US?
Close to the opposite. Before capitalism, they died or lived off charity.
Capitalism strives to find productive employment for everyone.
Why are the workers not as well off as the business owners?
Why is Taylor Swift’s staff not as well off as she is?
Gosh, that’s a real puzzler.
Why should they necessarily not be?
By the sweat of your brow, you shall earn your daily bread.
You are not entitled to be alive – much less well off.
You are entitled to the value you can trade for with others.
People are prepared to trade a great deal of value to hear Taylor Swift.
If her staff can get someone to agree to trade more value for what they do – that is great
Sam
You are obviously not aware that Taylor Swift paid out over $197 million in bonuses, over and above salaries, to her road crew on her recent worldwide ERAS tour.
On average everyone received a bonus equivalent to 5 times their annual salary, but some received colossal payments.
Her back up dancers received $750,000 each.
The chefs who provided the daily meals for the entire crew received $200,000 each.
Nobody received less than $100,000.
Not only that, she wrote personalized hand-written notes thanking every single person in the crew. She said it took her 2 weeks to do this.
She not only rewards her crew with bonuses, she also pays very high salaries, far above the industry standards. And she also provides fully paid comprehensive health coverage. This is highly unusual in the industry, where the usual arrangement is that the crew are 1099 independent contractors who have no benefits. She also also provides 4 or 5 star accommodations for the crew who all get a single room, with no sharing. She provides free catered meals every day. She employs physicians and physical therapists to travel with the crew and provide free healthcare. She structures her tours with multi-week gaps so that the crew can have time off, and she pays them their full salary during the downtime. On long tours she provides free travel and accommodations for the families of the crew to visit them on the road. When her performances are recorded for streaming platforms, she ensures that the musicians and dancers receive royalty payments that continue in perpetuity, long after the tour is over.
She clearly recognizes that her wealth would not be possible without the help of thousands of workers, and she has no problem in sharing that wealth.
The bonus payments alone amounted to almost 10% of her total net worth.
Perhaps Elmo the Muskrat, and Jeff Bezos could follow her lead and reward the workers who actually made their own wealth possible.
If they were to match Taylor, then Elmo the Muskrat would have to pay out close to $100 BILLION in bonuses, while Bezos would have to hand out a mere $25 BILLION.
What Taylor swift pays is between her and her staff. I strongly suspect she pays them very well because she values what they contribute to her performances, and that those she could get for less pay would diminish her performance and what people would pay to hear her.
Free markets are not perfect – but everyone is free to try to get paid as much as they think they are worth.
No other system offers that oportunity.
One of the reasons that China post Mao became capitalist is because leaders like Deng Xio Peng discovered as they traveled the world that while they were the top of the pyramid in China – they were poor compared to much of the world
Even the “rich” in non-capitalist countries are typically relatively poor.
“Perhaps [Musk] could follow [Swift’s] lead . . .”
You’re an ignorant, envy-eaten fool.
*Because* of Musk’s productive talent, over 4,400 SpaceX employees are now millionaires, including this *welder*: Juan Hernandez. *Because* of Musk’s productive talents, some 400 of those employees now have a net worth over $100 million.
That is the principle of the Pyramid of Ability: Stay out of their way, and the most productive elevate the productive ability of everyone else.
Intelligence, talent, capability, acumen, ambition, passion, effort, sacrifice, endeavor, commitment, resilience, vision, decisiveness, honesty, work ethic, continuous learning, goals, communication, adaptability, optimism, discipline.
Smart people taking advantage of the not so smart. A fair and wonderful system, indeed.
It’s OK to be stupid. Jesus loves you.
Life is tough, it’s even tougher when you’re stupid. John Wayne.
How so ? You are free to seek to be paid as much as you think you are worth – regardless of your intelligence.
There are skills and talents that are of great value besides intelligence – spots superstars and popular entertainer are not necescarily members of Mensa – but they are very well paid – for the talents they have.
It is not fair that some people are more intelligent than others – it is also not fair that some are more musically talented or athletic or ..
Life is not fair – get over it.
Why should they be as well off? Were they innovative? Did they risk their own capital? Did the put in the same long hours while watching their capital shrink not knowing if they would be successful or go broke? Do you know most businesses owners go broke multiple times before becoming successful?
And in the US you can become a business owner by buy stocks, including in an IRA, 401K or 403B. Now if you blow your money and someone else saves there is no one to blame for the difference than yourself. Why do you cover so much? Why are you so greedy you want the fruits of others labor?
Every Eagle Scout has had the experience of getting projects done by eliciting the voluntary cooperation of other ppl.
How many of the other Scouts can say the same? Is this not a valuable skill that should be compenated appropriately?
“The DSA and the American left . . . continue to sell the public a bill of goods . . .” (JT)
Political propaganda is a public lie told to achieve or maintain government control over an individual’s life and business.
DSA’s lackeys, like those on this blog, propagandize you with the notion that American socialists do not want a Soviet- or Cuban-style (authoritarian) socialism. (They merely want socialism with [Mamdani’s] happy face.)
That’s obviously false. The DSA itself openly embraces Cuba’s socialism and its bloody, dictatorial revolution. (See its “Cuba Solidarity Committee” and countless quotes from its leadership.)
More importantly, such an endorsement is irrelevant to proving the evil, tyrannical nature of socialism. Socialism by its nature is the government initiating physical force to control an economy and an individual’s personal life (including speech). It criminalizes individual judgment and free choice. Its basic premise is that the individual’s life belongs to the state.
Whether its nascent socialism (Mamdani) or totalitarian socialism is only a matter of time.
Professor Turley is correct that Sweden and the other Nordic countries are highly rated for free markets and investment environment. Part of the disconnect is people discussing solutions that are not consistent with their goals. Assuming the DSA goals are as stated in their platform, there is little in the Nordic model that would accomplish their goals. One example is they seek open borders. But you can’t have a welfare state with open borders. The problem isn’t really the solutions, it is the goals.
This link https://index.prosperity.com/rankings has a good analysis of goals and rankings. Last, one thing to consider is even if your goal is prosperity and the evidence is that personal freedoms and free markets creates prosperity, you still have to have a culture and leadership that works with that structure. Professor Harrison wrote a great book on this called The Central Liberal Truth about progress prone and progress resistant culture.
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
– Declaration of Independence of the American Founders, July 4, 1776
Communism is unconstitutional.
Not if it is in Constitution.
And it isn’t.
It can’t be denied that capitalists have a long history of screwing the workers.
Anyone who denies this is the delusional one.
The capitalists and the hired help enjoyed the freedom conferred by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The workers begged for the jobs, accepted the employment, and were duly compensated in contractual amounts.
Every American is free to operate a free enterprise or accept employment.
Describe how this is true? Free market offers employment opportunities you can choose from. Nobody is forced to work somewhere, unlike socialism where everyone gets the same pay to be given to people who don’t want to work. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
Agree! I was a teacher for many years. I always thought that profession was, and still is, socialist in some respects as I saw teachers routinely pass out worksheets, give answers in advance of textbook generated tests, and walk out everyday on the the dot without any case carrying papers to review and grade–yet they made the same salary as I. I took advantage of every program offered to increase pay based on individual accomplishment (National Teacher Certification), but, as is typical, those funds provided by state legislature decreased to the point of nada. Don’t get me wrong–I loved most every day in the classroom, but I understood it was not the greatest example of capitalism. The difference is, that was my choice, not the government.
The ONLY way a capitalist can “screw the workers” is by renting government power.
That is a government problem not a capitalist problem.
If you think you boss is screwing you – you are free to find another – if you beleive all bosses are screwing you – start your own business.
No one hods a gun to your head.
Slaver-owners wanted to keep benefiting from the status quo of slavery, so of course they badmouthed the abolitionists, and worse.
What does slavery have to do with anything?
Slavery has been illegal and unconstitutional since 1865.
The Israelite slaves were out of Egypt before the ink was dry on their release papers, but then they had the capability and acumen sufficient for the task.
Slavery is not free markets – that is WHY it is immoral.
Slaves are not free – if they try to leave – their employers will punish them, if they escape GOVERNMENT will ue force to drag them back.
That is not free markets.
Thanks for this background information! Most appreciated!
Anyone who read the “Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” series and paid attention to the background stuff, recognized the frequently heavy hand of the state with respect to the desired social norms. You don’t have to have a planned economy to be repressive “for the good of society”. They’re now having their own issues with immigrants who don’t want to adapt their behavior to the norms of their host country.
I worked with a number of Swedish engineers during my career. The near universal response to why they were working wherever we happened to be was “taxes”, often followed by “I work here, I retire Sweden.”
Health care is an interesting issue. For example, near the Canadian border, US citizens frequently take advantage of lower drug prices in Canada. OTOH, Canadians (and citizens of other countries) can take advantage of the easier/faster access to quality health care in the US than may be possible in their home countries. The UK has a two tiered health system. The National Health for the plebes and private doctors and hospitals who aren’t part of the NH system for those who can afford not to have to wait their turn for treatment.
While there are a great many dedicated employees of government agencies, those of us who have experienced their opposites-that are essentially employed for life-are loath to turn medical care over to ANY government. Think of what could have been done with the money squandered in recently discovered frauds.
As it has been said many times,
“You can’t fix stupid”
I can’t share this enough…
Trying to present the progressive left we observe in a painting as the lying, morally bankrupt, hypocritical, cult that they are just doesn’t quite complete the canvas, but once you dip your brush into the word “EVIL” and begin to brush it on the canvas, the painting becomes vibrantly complete.
The progressive left wants to do anything they want with absolutely no rules, consequences, or remorse. But when it comes to progressives controlling everyone who’s not a progressive; they want everyone else to be required follow the ever changing rules as dictated by progressives, suffer the ever changing consequences as dictated by progressives, and all non-progressives must have deep seeded hate for themself, be remorseful for everything they do, kowtow to all things progressive, and wish they were dead if they veer from progressive rules.
Progressives are delusional Orwellian socialists.
Better yet; Progressives are delusional sociommunists (sō sē äm yə nists).
Steve Witherspoon,
It is truly adorable to imagine a shadowy, unified “leftist” cabal controlling the media when American news infrastructure is actually owned by a handful of multi-billion-dollar capitalist conglomerates (think Comcast, Disney, and Fox). If this is a “socialist Pravda,” they are doing a spectacular job of making sure Wall Street stock tickers run 24/7 on every screen while aggressively running ads for pharmaceutical giants and luxury SUVs.
You have managed to paint a political group that is simultaneously a bunch of lawless, hedonistic anarchists and strict, totalitarian micro-managers. Which is it? In the real world, the “ever-changing rules” you are sweating over usually translate to incredibly radical ideas like “please don’t dump toxic waste into public rivers,” “maybe workers should have paid family leave,” and “let’s fund public schools with tax revenue.” If requiring a corporation to pay its taxes feels like a totalitarian leash to you, the problem might not be the rules—it might be your tolerance for basic civic responsibility.
George Orwell was a literal, card-carrying democratic socialist who fought in a leftist militia during the Spanish Civil War. He didn’t write 1984 to warn the world about universal healthcare, public housing, or collective bargaining; he wrote it to warn the world about authoritarian regimes that weaponize hyper-nationalism, rewrite history, and manipulate reality. You know, things Trump and his administration are doing now.
“…a bunch of lawless, hedonistic anarchists and strict, totalitarian micro-managers.”
No contradiction there. You’re merely restating the ‘rules for thee but not for me’ ethos of the narcissistic, hypocritical left.
“adorable” “So cute”
you’re such a little girlie girl. are you gigi?
What history has Trump rewritten? What reality has he manipulated?
“ he wrote it to warn the world about authoritarian regimes that weaponize hyper-nationalism, rewrite history, and manipulate reality.”
You know, what socialist and communists are doing and have done every time they have seized power in any country. Think Soviet Union, Eastern Europe after the war, several countries in Africa, China and VietNam and in in our own hemisphere Cuba, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Venezuela.
And in our own country, who but the socialists in our midst continue to try to rewrite our history to manipulate reality.
The world is constantly changing – that is what free markets are for.
The rule of law is NOT constantly changing
The fundimental social contract requirements of governent should NEVER change.
Change does not belong in government.
We do not change the rules regarding how FORCE may be used against others.
Clearly you have never read Animal Farm or 1984
“All animals are **equal, but some animals are more equal than others”
https://wordhistories.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/d803f-photograph-from-the-animated-film-animal-farm-1954.png
Capitalism has a history of causing misery to workers.
Socialism has a pretty poor track record too.
The capitalists and the hired help enjoyed the freedom conferred by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The workers begged for the jobs, accepted the employment, and were duly compensated in contractual amounts.
Every American is free to operate a free enterprise or accept employment.
Socialism has a history of killing its people, creating elites with everything and leaving misery to the rest.
Capitalism has uplifted billions of people and saved them from starvation.
Ask yourself questions:
Do you want to be able to own your own home?
Do you want to be paid for your effort?
Answer those two questions, and let’s discuss whether or not you want socialism or our Republic where you can own a home and be paid for merit.
Meyer makes a very important and valid observation.
Corrupt governments inevitably end up killing their people, and installing a corrupt elite class of wealthy oligarchs who exploit and bring misery to the people.
Heavily armed, masked and unidentifiable agents of the Trump administration are quite literally shooting people in the streets on a regular basis with absolute impunity.
Trump has installed more than a dozen mega-billionaire oligarchs in positions of power in his administration, where they routinely exploit and bring misery to the people.
“Heavily armed, masked and unidentifiable agents of the Trump administration are quite literally shooting people in the streets on a regular basis with absolute impunity.”
You hate it that Trump is protecting Americans. Amazingly, you have no problems with criminal illegal aliens killing young men and women.
Trump’s goons have been shooting AMERICANS.
Very strange way of protecting Americans.
Americans seeking violence are in danger of getting killed themselves, especially when they intervene in law enforcement. Some of these people should stop trying to kill American citizens with their cars.
Ahh, I yearn for Hermit Kingdom!
ICE agent are enforing laws passed in most cases on a bipartisan basis.
If you do not like those laws – change them.
If you do not wish to be killed by law enforcement – do not try to run over them.
If you do not want them to wear masks – do not threaten their wives and children.
Trump is making the left miserable – because he has reduced their power to make the rest of us miserable.
The rest of us are doing pretty good.
Nope.
There is nothing a free market EVER forces you to do.
More evidence of exactly how the likes of the DSA will bring about socialism and the destruction of America, Show Host Wrecks NYC DSA Co-Chair Over Radical Goals in Brutal Interview
https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2026/07/18/nyc-dsa-co-chair-remarks-on-fox-n2204475
It’s not socialism, communism or capitalism that will destroy America. .. systemic corruption and unrestrained greed may.
*Centrally planned economies don’t work.
You mean like the systemic corruption of the Supreme Court that continually nullifies the Constitution?
None of this is constitutional per Article 1, Section 8, and the unqualified and absolute 5th Amendment right to private property:
Admissions affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, CRT, DEI, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, PBS, NPR, Fed, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Environmental Protection Agency, Agriculture, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.
America, if destroyed, will happen because of the Red-Green alliance. Today it appears that half the Democrats have joined in that effort.
“If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher.”
– Abraham Lincoln, Young Men’s Lyceum, Springfield, 1838
_________________________________________________________________
Lincoln was!
Lincoln was the author and finisher of the United States of America, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.
Top down government economic planning always fails.
Top Down government economic planning is socialism.
BTW corruption and greed are problems – but they are actually not fatal problems.
So the data shows – in fact in socialist countries corruption and greed are what keeps the wheels on a bit longer.
I think sums up what the DSA and like socialists think, Democratic-Socialist influence in NYC sparks scrutiny of public education
“The rapid growth and influence of the Democratic-Socialists of America (DSA) party in New York City may have serious consequences for public education, experts say.”
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/education/democratic-socialist-presence-nyc-sparks-public-education-scrutiny
Turley’s right on the data but he’s answering the wrong question. Nobody arguing for this stuff has asked what government is actually for. Strip out the agendas. The purpose of government is to secure rights, period. If that’s still true, the form that serves it is a constitutional republic limited to what’s enumerated. We picked that form 239 years ago and spent every year since bolting new experiments onto it while still calling it a republic. Trace the $40 trillion and it’s concentrated almost entirely in the functions that were never part of that enumerated form. The debt doesn’t indict a constitutional republic. It indicts what got bolted onto one.
Second point, separate from the first. Where does anyone think the “giving” in democratic socialism actually comes from? A government $40 trillion in debt has no capital of its own. It isn’t operating at a surplus. It can’t give you anything it hasn’t first taken from someone else or borrowed against people who haven’t been born yet.
Every dollar handed out is a dollar seized or a dollar owed. That makes government a middleman, not a benefactor, deciding whose earnings get reassigned to whom. And this is a middleman with a documented history of losing track of its own waste, fraud, and abuse. Handing more discretion to an entity that can’t audit itself and calling it generosity isn’t compassion. It’s just picking who gets to hold the leash.
Both problems trace back to the same root. We stopped asking what the form of government is actually for, and we stopped asking whether the people running it are even competent to be trusted with more.
You’re missing an important purpose for the style of layered government (federal-state-county-local) — to solve problems that people want to see solved. This goes beyond protecting rights. Let’s talk about infrastructure, because that explains the difference between the USA and Kenya (also a democracy with human rights).
How about railroads? The 1800s saw an explosion of rail lines and locomotives dotting the US landscape. But there weren’t agreed-upon standards for intercompatibility. The hundreds of companies couldn’t cooperate to solve this problem because they were competing for traffic. In 1863, the Congress standardized rail gauge to 1,435 mm. Everyone understands how pivotal this action was to transforming the national economy over the next 50 years.
There is no right to weather prediction in the Constitution. From a libertarian viewpoint, the USG had no Constitutional authority to develop or launch weather satellites — each state wanting modern weather prediction should have developed its own space program. The majority of Americans see that orthodoxy as a stupid and inefficient obstacle to technological progress.
Generally, under our system of freedom, problems are to be solved at the lowest level they can be effectively managed (meaning delivering the desired results). Our grandparents created the FBI because state police were unable to pursue criminals across state borders. The FBI does not do local policing, nor state-level policing. There has to be an interstate element to the crime or the criminal(s).
Govrernment is there so we citizens can work together to solve problems we cannot solve on our own as families and individuals.
It is a tremendously successful system, but must be diligently constrained by the citizens to prevent overreaches of govt. and corporate power. AI poses the next major threat to corporate overreach into economic and legal infrastructure.
Good examples, but they prove a different point than you think.
Rail gauge standardization and weather satellites are coordination functions under the enumerated power to regulate interstate commerce, and neither one put a dent in the federal budget.
The FBI crossing state lines is the same thing. None of that is what generated $40 trillion in debt. That number comes from entitlement spending and administrative growth that doesn’t trace back to any enumerated power at all.
I’m not arguing government should never solve coordination problems. I’m arguing the debt proves the government stopped limiting itself to that category and started functioning as a redistribution middleman instead. Those are different arguments and only one of them costs $40 trillion.
“Good examples . . .”
The railroad example is a bad example, because it is false.
While you are correct that they are covered by enumerated powers.
At the same time they are NOT problems that require government.
“The hundreds of companies couldn’t cooperate to solve this problem because they were competing for traffic. In 1863, the Congress standardized rail gauge to 1,435 mm.”
That is either historical ignorance or a lie (to rationalize a statist government). Private railroads in the 19th century did cooperate, willingly, to solve the problem. In fact, it was *private* railroads that saw the problem and solved it.
That gauge standard was in fact set by a *private* engineer in England, and was widely in use by private railroads both in England and the U.S., *before* Congress stepped in. Those *private* companies voluntarily adopted that standard because they realized the inefficiency of having to unload and load passengers and cargo each time a section of rail changed gauges.
Further, the “Pacific Railroad Acts” you’re referring to did *not* apply to the entire railroad industry in the U.S. The gauge requirement applied *only* to the Pacific Railroad.
If you wish to agitate for government injecting physical force into the free market, at least try to get the business history straight.
The British Parliament did standardize Britain’s railroads on the Stephenson gauge.
Not our Congress, save for tge transcontinental.
Fair challenge. The Preamble does list more than rights. But look at what those functions are for. Common defense secures rights against external threats. Domestic tranquility secures them against internal ones. Justice secures them through fair process. Those aren’t separate purposes running alongside rights-securing, they’re instrumental to it.
The Declaration says it directly: governments are instituted to secure rights. Once general welfare gets treated as an independent purpose rather than a means to that end, you lose the constraint that keeps government from justifying anything under the label of welfare. That’s not a technicality. That’s the whole ballgame.
The federal government’s number one job is to protect our freedom.
Government is NOT there to solve problems we want solved – that is why we are NOT a democracy and why democracies fail.
Government is there to secure our rights using FORCE – there are only a few things we want that REQUIRE the use of FORCE – aka government,
Those are the ONLY legitimate domain of government.
If you see a problem and want it solved – solve it yourself, that is how people get rich
pbinca – congress did not standarize rail guage – EVER – it is outside their power.
They linked subsidies they had no legitimate power to offer to rules they sought to impose.
Regardless, businesses come together all the time to solve these types of problems
Elenor Olstrom got a Nobel proze by demonstrating that problems such as these have NEVER requird government.
All that Congress did in 1863 was standardize track gauge ON THE TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILROAD. The railroad industry eventually set the standard for mainline track.
Here, what Congress did made sense. (1) Federal taxes were paying for it, and (2) When the rails met in Utah, the trains better be able to run both ways.
Several decades ago a weather satellite that as critical to predicting weather started to fail early.
NASA refused to produce a new one and find space on the shuttle for it.
So the reinsurane industry quietly came up with several billion on their own to develop a satellite and launch it elsewhere.
Before they get very far – NASA found a sattellte and found room on the shuttle
Govenment hates competition. There are almost no governnent communications satelites.
Today 80% of satelites in orbit are private – and that number is growing.
ALWAYS when you see something you think only government can do – you are wrong.
private weather satelites do not exist because governnent does not want them to.
Absolutely businesses like government footing the bill and subsidizing things.
But if what government is doing is worthwhile – it will happen with or without government.
Today we pay for roads primarily though gas taxes.
But car makers, truck makers, shippers and energy companies require those roads to exist to make money.
Do you think that if government stopped paying for roads tomorow that these companies – or the consumers of their products would not step in ?
Less than 20% of the prie of gas is gas taxes and those pay most of the cost of roads.
Why do you think Government is required to collect that money and to decide what roads to buid or maintain ?
When you analyze the giving, you should take a hard look at who is doing the getting. The money isn’t going to the people but to those supposedly acting on the people’s behalf. I’d name some of the names, but you already know.
I’m not getting any of that free money .. . all I get is a tight lip and a frown.
*presently, with a multi-trillion dollar market cap, I think AI is getting most of it . .. followed closely by the military industrial complex.
Trump, Bessent, Kushner, Don Jr, Eric, Ivanka, Musk, Bessent’s kids, to name a few.
What about them – they own stock in companies. Not even majority shares. Those companies and many others provide government services. They get paid.
The rules for all of this are complex to preclude corruption – but if you think they are failing – change the law.
So long as those you listed are following the law – I am not interested in anything yu say beyond “we should change the law”
Administrations benefiting chronies is nothing new.
Alteast Trump is not funding garbage ike Solyandra which provides nothing of value, consumes billions in government funds that go to political cronies and then goes bankrupt.
Even Mamdani in NYC is funnelling government money to “non-profits” that got him elected.
He is literally using the NYC government to pay to build his own political machine.
Nothing is more dangerous that government using government money to stay in power.
That is far worse than anything you THINK trump is doing.
regardless you will not get the laws you want to prevent the conduct you think the Trump’s are engaged in,
because neither republicans nor democrats will vote for such laws – they all benefit from this – even Mamdani and the DSA
Fair point, but I’m not playing the naming game. This isn’t one jersey’s fault. Forty trillion didn’t happen under one team, it happened under the whole government team versus the people team, decade after decade, jersey doesn’t matter.
The people who started this are long gone. Naming names now is pointless, it just keeps people rooting for a team instead of seeing the problem.
The real point stands either way: government largesse doesn’t come from government. It comes from the people. Every dollar “given” was a dollar taken first. Doesn’t matter who’s holding it at the moment it gets handed out.
You’re right about it not being one-sided, all the rules are set up to protect the wealthy and make them richer. It is even worse now where pardons can be blatantly purchased, fraud forgiven, a President can rake in billions and his son-in-law even more. A Supreme Court Justice can reap millions in gifts and no effore is being made to stop it.
Still not biting on the jersey game. What you’re describing, pardons for sale, fraud forgiven, justices pocketing gifts with zero consequence, that’s not a Republican problem or a Democrat problem. That’s what an administrative oligarchy looks like once it’s fully formed. It doesn’t care which jersey is in the White House. It protects whoever’s inside the system and extracts from whoever’s outside it, regardless of party. You keep trying to pin this on one team because that’s the frame you’re comfortable in. I’m telling you the frame itself is the problem. Citizens formed to see politics as team sport will always find a way to excuse their team’s version of exactly what you just listed. That’s not a guess, that’s the pattern.
Clarence Thomas dared to stray off the ideological plantation the Left wants to keep Black men on, and make a conservative friend.
This friend happens to be rich and white. The liberal lapdogs at Pro Publica decided to try to turn this friendship into a scandal.
Like Clinton buddy Jeffrey Epstein, Crow owns a private jet. Crow flew Thomas to Texas on his plane. Pro Publica estimated the cost of chartering such a jet between DC and Texas, and decided the flight was a “luxury gift,” worth $30,000.
Lather, rinse, repeat. Hanging out in SE Asia with the Crows on their yacht was another “luxury gift” worth the price of chartering an identical yacht.
Meanwhile, billionaires were handing their vacation villas and resorts over to the Bidens four weeks a year. But, for some reason, PP did not see these as “lluxury gifts.”
EB
Absolutely all govenrment spending profits someone.
It can profit the Trumps as minority shareholders in companies that actually deliver to government what was paid for.
It can profit the owners of Solyandra ho pocketed billions, then went bankrupt and delivered nothing.
If can profit people running the quality learing center that provided day care for no one and funnels millions to Somalia.
If government spends SOMEONE is getting rich.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with people getting rich providing others with value.
We want as much of that as possible.
But we DO wish to minimize as much as is feasuble those getting rich off govrnment.
I have a choice whether I give money to walmart for some good.
I have no choice when my money is taken to buy something for government that I rarely if ever benefit from.
We must be vigalent against actual corruption – the kind the bidens engauged in – trading personal graft for leveraging government power for private benefit. That is a HUGE problem.
But the most effective way to reduce people profiting from government is to reduce government
You pointed out Trump being a “minority shareholder,” what about World Liberty Financial where the Trump family own 60%. WLF’s explosive profits coincided with federal actions that reduced enforcement and expanded the legal infrastructure for crypto.
Trump’s administration implemented federal rules for stablecoins and dialed back policing by DOJ and SEC. Enforcement dropped ~60% at SEC and near zero at CFTC in 2025.
Trump’s arrangement guaranteed him 75% of token‑sale revenue — meaning minority shareholders received no share of those profits.
Minority shareholders and outside investors lost billions while the Trump family earned billions. All based on the new lax rules put in place by Trump.
The company Powerus had been in business one year before Don Jr and erick bought in. At the same time they invested, Powerus began competing for Pentagon contracts selling drones. Two months after Eric and Don Jr, invested, they got their first Pentagon contract for $24 million. Let me know when you see the grift and conflict of interest.
I would be happy to join you in reducing what Government “gives” – in most any possible way
“The purpose of government is to secure rights, period.”
If you would not have ended with “, period” I could agree.
Securing rights is NOT the sole purpose.
“Handing more discretion to an entity that can’t audit itself and calling it generosity isn’t compassion. It’s just picking who gets to hold the leash.”
Not this, but that. Olly’s favorite fallback
None of this is constitutional per Article 1, Section 8, and the unqualified and absolute 5th Amendment right to private property:
Admissions affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, CRT, DEI, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, PBS, NPR, Fed, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Environmental Protection Agency, Agriculture, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.
And it all started with the unconstitutional Civil War that was based on the ridiculous, nay, stupid decision that because secession was not prohibited, secession was prohibited.
“I am wary of over-focusing on an individual’s personal character over their platform. You know, I’ve said this before. I don’t really care if say like Bernie Sanders or AOC go home and they’re a secret Nazi, but they go out and they vote for the right things. Like we’re talking about politician,”
— Emma Vigeland, DSA member
That is right. You can be a secret Nazi, hate Jews, black and brown people, heck, even kill kittens or drink straight out of the milk carton, as long as you vote for the right things, that is all the DSA cares about!
“You can be a secret Nazi, hate Jews, black and brown people, heck, even kill kittens or drink straight out of the milk carton, as long as you vote for the right things, that is all the DSA cares about!”
Or, you can publicly support Nazis (Bannon & Trump), hate Jews while proclaiming to be supporting them, killing dogs (Noem) and drink to excess (Hegseth, Patel) and cheat on 3 wives, be found liable for sexual assault, and accused of raping a 13-year-old, and do just fine.
AI Overview
The final hours of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and his closest friend and chief aide, the Rev. Ralph David Abernathy: In his 1989 memoir, And the Walls Came Tumbling Down, Abernathy detailed the night of April 3, 1968, in Memphis. He claimed that after King delivered his “I’ve Been to the Mountaintop” address, King spent parts of the night with two different women and physically fought with a third who was jealous.
Way back in July, 2016, The Guardian exposed “Katie Johnson” as a hoax perpetrated by fmr Jerry Springer producer Norm Lubow, AKA the Rev. Bud Green. Sorry you never got the memo.
You may also have missed ths one-year window New York State opened to let ALL of Trump’s victims sue him. But only ONE woman did. Not a former child victim, but the menopausal advice columnist Trump groped in a department store changing room. She got $5 million — imagine how much an actual child victim would have received.
Not only is Sweden not socialist, but it is one more example of how socialism destroys countries.
In the second half of the 19th century, Sweden adopted policies that promoted a capitalist market economy. It thrived through 1970. At that point, socialist policies were adopted. By 1990, the economy had collapsed. Market oriented policies were then reintroduced and the economy rebounded. There is now a consensus in Sweden that a welfare state requires a robust market economy to work. And on taxes, the poor and middle classes in Sweden pay a much higher share than they do here, and there are no inheritance, property or wealth taxes. And there is a a universal school voucher program and no minimum wage.
Daniel,
Sweden’s famous welfare state, high tax rates, and massive public sector were actually built long before 1970.The social democratic model was constructed steadily throughout the 1930s to 1960s (known as the Folkhemmet or “People’s Home”). Far from destroying the country, Sweden experienced its most historic, explosive economic growth during these heavily socialized decades.
Furthermore, the economic crash of the early 1990s was not caused by universal welfare. It was caused by the rapid deregulation of the Swedish banking and credit markets in the mid-1980s (the Novemberreolutionen).This financial deregulation triggered a massive commercial real estate bubble that burst in 1990, mirroring the exact same type of capitalist speculative crises that hit the U.S. in 1929 and 2008.
While it is true that Sweden abolished its direct inheritance and wealth taxes to retain corporate investment, you frame this as a complete abandonment of socialized redistribution. In reality, Sweden replaced these with a highly progressive system of capital gains taxation, a corporate tax structure that rewards reinvestment over payouts, and flat municipal income taxes averaging 29% to 35% that immediately hit all wage earners. The working and middle classes accept these taxes precisely because they receive a positive return on investment in the form of completely socialized healthcare, free university, and subsidized childcare—services that U.S. workers must purchase out-of-pocket.
Stating that Sweden has “no minimum wage” is highly deceptive to an American audience. In the U.S., a lack of a minimum wage means employers can exploit workers for pennies. In Sweden, there is no statutory (government-legislated) minimum wage because 90% of the entire workforce is covered by unions and sectoral collective bargaining. Labor unions legally dictate industry-wide wage floors that are vastly higher and more robust than the U.S. federal minimum wage, effectively locking in high baseline compensation without needing federal laws.
As for school vouchers, while Sweden does allow private companies to run publicly funded schools, this hybrid experiment has faced massive domestic backlash due to falling test scores and corporate profit-skimming,leading to aggressive ongoing regulatory clampdowns rather than a celebration of free-market victory.
You say, “There is now a consensus in Sweden that a welfare state requires a robust market economy to work.”
This is true, but it completely defeats the commenter’s initial claim that “socialism destroys countries.” The Swedish consensus is that democratic social democracy works. Sweden did not abandon its socialized universal safety net after 1990; it streamlined it. The country explicitly functions as a mixed economy that uses free-market capitalism to generate wealth, and then aggressively socializes that wealth via heavy taxation and collective bargaining to guarantee human rights.
See “The Mirage of Swedish Socialism” by Johan Norberg for the details. The socialistic policies of the 70s and 80s came to be seen as disastrous across the political spectrum after the economic collapse of 1990-1994. The country changed direction and the economy rebounded. It now has a high degree of economic freedom coupled with a continued welfare orientation funded by a large consumption tax (VAT) and heavy taxes on the middle class. It has one of the more regressive tax systems around.
Daniel,
The Swedish economic crash of 1990 was not caused by high taxes, labor unions, or generous welfare spending. It was explicitly caused by the rapid, reckless deregulation of domestic credit and banking markets in the mid-1980s (known as the Novemberreolutionen). This sudden injection of free-market financial freedom allowed private banks to flood the economy with cheap, unregulated loans. This triggered a massive, classic capitalist real estate bubble. When that speculative bubble burst in 1990, it dragged down the banking sector—mirroring the exact same market-driven financial crashes that hit the U.S. in 1929 and 2008.
While it is true that Sweden relies heavily on a flat 25% Value-Added Tax (VAT) and broad middle-class municipal income taxes, calling the system “regressive” is a massive distortion of public economics.
A tax system cannot be evaluated solely by how money is collected; it must be evaluated by how that money is spent. In a pure capitalist country like the U.S., low-income workers pay lower income taxes but must spend thousands of dollars out-of-pocket on a “private tax” for health insurance premiums, deductibles, childcare, and college tuition. In Sweden, those broad taxes are immediately returned to the population as a universal public benefit. Because everyone gets high-quality healthcare, free university, and subsidized childcare regardless of income, the net effect of the Swedish system is profoundly progressive and highly redistributive, dramatically closing the gap between the rich and the poor.
This is an interesting conversation, Daniel v GSX (AI). Swedish citizenship is one of the best. Trying to compare with American citizenship is impossible. It is a matter of perspective, so both win.
In a nutshell: From a purchasing choice and wealth maximization for the middle class, America wins with a higher average standard of living. For risk abatement, Sweden wins.
SM X is just full of schiff.
The current swedish model does not abate risk – not the way the left paints.
Insurance in all forms has ONLY financial benefits.
Fire insurance does not reduce fires
Auto insurance does not reduce accidents
Health insurance does not reduce deaths.
These all reduce the risk of bankruptcy – that is all.
None of us want to go bankrupt – but even Bankruptcy is a perfectly reasonable solution to bad choices or unanticipated events.
But there is one thing we do not ever want to go bankrupt – Government.
When governent risks bankruptcy – whatever protections it provides of ANY kind are at risk.
“SM X is just full of schiff.”
I agree. But the Swedish system does mitigate individual risks of high costs at the cost of their standard of living.
What many people do not understand is that the per capita costs of government spending are much greater than in all other nations, even with the high per capita costs the individual adds.
I haven’t looked recently, but when I did in the past, I believe a more market approach would almost immediately cut total expenditures by 30 -50% while maintaining overall quality and access. We are overinsured.
The 1990’s financial crisis was caused by the collapse of a housing bubble – just like the 2008 US financial crisis.
But contra your claims it was the tail end of the swedish failed socialist experiement.
IThe inflation was caused by socialism – inflation is a very common element in socialist economies.
Do you remember the socialist calculation problem. In mixed economies – this often results in a housing bubble – because housing is an asset deemed to be a hedge against inflation.
Regardless if you were actually correct the swedes would have immediately returned to socialism – they did not.
They endured the financial collapse and have proceded to slowly whittle the remaining socialism away
Absolutely a tax system can be evaluated solely by how money is collected.
How you raise $6T in taxes matters a great deal
You do not want to “close the gap between the rich and poor” – you want to expand it – you want to Stretch and flatten the distribution of income
The poverty end of of the income curve is FIXED – Zero is Zero.
The top is not fixed – the more you stretch the income curve the more you flatten it – the more you move people up the ladder.
You can not eliminate poverty – 20% of the people will always be in the bottom 20%.
But the poor are better off when the upper income of the bottom 20% increases.
The more you push down on the center – when the one end is fixed – the better off everyone is.
This is just math.
The stupidist thing you can do is try to reduce the gap between the rich and poor,
That makes EVERYONE worse off.
You confuse a welfare state with socialism.
“Stating that Sweden has “no minimum wage” is highly deceptive to an American audience. In the U.S., a lack of a minimum wage means employers can exploit workers for pennies. In Sweden, there is no statutory (government-legislated) minimum wage because 90% of the entire workforce is covered by unions and sectoral collective bargaining.”
No one is working for pennies in the US. We have a competitive job market that dictates wages, not laws. Unions have nothing to do with it, and never did. When Unions demanded unreasonable wages, or higher wages than the owners were willing to pay, companies simply moved overseas. If you don’t like your job, or are unhappy with your pay, you are free to find work elsewhere. It is your skill-set that is in demand. If you don’t have any skills, that is a “you” problem, not anyone else’s. Unions were designed to protect workers who had little to no skills. We have very few of those jobs exist today. A job that requires little to no skills, usually moves to a country where unskilled labor is very cheap.
There is wealth to tax and socialize because it’s a capitalist country. Socialism destroys wealth. See Venezuela, once the wealthiest county in South America, and after socialism now the poorest.
Tired of this nonsense – This is all just fake history X.
Sweden was the most libertarian country in the world in the 19th century – when it experience explosive growth.
It was way ahead of the US well into the 20th century – limited only by its small size
Sweden barely noticed the great depression and they did not do any of th stupid things the US particularly – but other parts of Europe did.
The great depression as caused by the US and hit the US hardest – far harder than Europe. But outside the US the impat of the great depression was greatest in nations that followed the american model of Government trying to buy its way out.
Sweden did not do that and had a minor recession. Contra your idiotic claims – Sweden did not try socialism until the late 70s.
Most of the nordic countries did not. Even Germany – is not and never was socialist. The west germans were one of the most capitalist post war countries – and they had explosive growth. The dallied with light socialism in the late 70’s and early 80’s but they got economically clobbered when they absorbed East Germany which had been impoverished by the USSR – Germany has still not economically recovered from that.
The US which adopted significant socialism under FDR – abandoned it all to win WWII – Post war America had ZERO doubt that American Individualism and initiative is what won the War – while we had LIGHTLY socialist economic controls. FDR basially put the captains of industry – people like Henry Ford in charge of running the economy – there was too much central planning. Regardless the US came out of the war with a trust for free enterprise and experience explosive growth
While in the UK the public perception was that Government won the war and that it did so by reigning in and punishing evil capitalists and war profiteers. The result was the UK went significantly sociailist right after the war – and was a total basket case by the time Tatcher was elected – because the british socialist labor party had failed so badly. Thaatcher did not accomplish everything she intended. But she destroy 75% of socialism in the UK and the result was a massively long period of incredible prosperity in the UK.
So much misinformation.
There are three thing that can be done with corporate profits.
Leave them in the business – reinvest.
pay them out and invest elsewhere – reinvest.
Or take them out and spend them on yourself.
With few execptions the last ONLY occurs with people who are retired and living off the slow liquidation fo their investments.
A wise government does not tax any of the above.
Government should not ever tax the sale of stock – you do not WANT people keeping stock in poor performing companies
You want them to move it to better performing companies.
I have listed over and over the most damaging forms of taxation.
Government NEVER should tax people who can make choices that allow avoiding and reducing those taxes – OR THEY WILL,
and that almost always is bad for the economy.
You do not want the musks of the word to slow down and enjoy their lives.
You do not want to stop the movement of capital from poor investments to good ones.
Regardless Sweden has been lowering corporate taxes to attract business – not whatever your idiotic claims are.
They have lowered taxes because everyone in the country benefits from more business
Sweden is lowering corporate taxes because nearly all OECD nations are lowering corporate taxes and if Sweden did not – businesses would and did leave.
Sweden has no minimum wage because there is nowhere on earth that absent the use of force people can be forced to work for pennies.
Enigma ranted that happens in US prisons – it does – that is government. But even in US prisons where food clothing shelter medical care are provided by government – prisoners still can choose not to work.
Without a minimum wage – people will not work for just any wage.
You rant about unions – The US has unions – they did well for a time, outside of the public sector they are doing badly today.
Regardless I have no problem with uniions – so long as government does not put its thumb on the scale.
Unions do not “dictate” they negotiate. If people beleive their interests are best met by negotiating collectively – that is their choice.
Personally I negotiate my own deals. But I have no problem with collective bargaining.
Union membership in Sweden is declining and it is now 70% not 90%
“. . . there are no . . . property . . . taxes.”
You sure about that?
I count at least three of them.
Socialist government is not socialist economy. The prototypical example is China, which has a very communist government that has promoted a very capitalist economy and has very successfully advanced in the last few decades in ways that it took the USA over 100 years.
Capitalism is great for those features of life that are subject to the ability of citizens to participate or refuse to. Buy this brand of cookies or that one or no cookies at all. Buy this house or that one, and so on.
However this does not work with health care, for example. No one chooses cancer or shattered bones or a genetic disposition to some autoimmune disease. People crippled by these simply cannot work harder to offset the difficulty.
The only reason to not socialize support for medical care is that capitalism includes vultures who feed on and profit from suffering. By increasing the suffering the capitalist vultures increase their wealth. Those are the people funding the anti-socialism lobby. By offering the possible outcome of agony, they extract health insurance premiums from a terrified populace. It works hand in hand with employers to suppress wages by tying health insurance to employment. By socializing the costs of medical care it removes the terror of unaffordable medical care – this is the standard across the majority of the democratically elected and the socialist and communist countries of the world. The US is the rare exception that delivers substandard care for the majority of citizens at nearly double the cost to the citizens.
Highways, police, fire, grade schools, all are essentially socialized. The FAA, USDA, and the DoD are clearly not capitalist; they return no profits to the government or the citizens.
China is doing well. Apparently, China CCP has discovered the ‘free market’ does not grow on lotus blossoms .. . it must protected from greed, avarice and corruption.
*it’s the free market that promotes innovation, fair competition and economic growth.
You do know what the Chinese government does to corrupt greedy CEO’s and executives, right?
They actually put them in prison, some are actually executed. China frequently imposes the death penalty (often with a two-year reprieve that converts to life imprisonment) for severe cases of corporate bribery, embezzlement, and systemic financial fraud.
With that kind of punishment hanging over any corporate board no American company would be as greedy as they are now. Isn’t that how Republicans see how justice should be doled out? They are big on severe punishment. No?
Would agree China CCP seems to prosecute barriers to the free market, corruption and greed at levels far exceeding the U.S. nowadays. .. probably ‘stole’ that from all the old U.S. anti-trust cases.
*Idk about ‘Republicans’, but when Trump adds up all the numbers .. . good things are going to happen.
dgsnowden – China’s prosecution of corruption is just newspeak for the prosecution of political differences.
It has nothing at all to do with actual corruption.
Free markets can not be corrupt.
Corruption litterly requires government.
Come back to us when Wisconsin puts someone in prison for giving billions to Somali’s in exchange for their political support.
Actually that is NOT what China does to “greedy CEOs”
China has MASSIVE greed and corruption and nearly all of it is in the public sector not the private – either the military or government or government owned businesses.
China uses claims of greed and corruption to punish those who offend entrenched political power. It has nothing to do with actual greed and corruption.
From 2017-2020 – if the US was china – Trump would have executed political opponents – including members of the press.
The Epoch Times – a free prss in Hong Kong that refused to kow tow to Xi has had all its staff jailed for “corruption”
There is no such thing in an actual free press. They were jailed for refusing to toe the political line.
Using the totalitarian behavior of a totalitarian regime as a positive example to be followed just exposes how vile you are.
What a —-ing lunatic! Take a poll, a real untainted, unadulterated poll, of the Chinese people. Ask if they prefer communist oppression or complete freedom, as is prescribed by the actual American Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Also, Turley “neglected” other facts showing it’s not just Nordic countries that have successful socialist programs that do indeed work. Here are a few:
Austria’s socialization of Housing,
Vienna’s Public Housing Model:Instead of leaving shelter entirely to free-market real estate speculation, Vienna socializes its housing sector. Nearly 60% of the city’s population lives in subsidized, municipal, or non-profit cooperative housing.
The city acts as the primary developer, keeping rents permanently capped and decoupled from market forces. This ensures high-quality living conditions and prevents gentrification, creating a stable, affordable foundation for working-class disposable income.
Singapore: State capitalism and sovereign wealth management.
Public Land and Housing Domination: While globally renowned as a financial hub, Singapore relies heavily on state-owned land. The government owns roughly 90% of all land and houses over 80% of its resident population through the Housing & Development Board (HDB).
Temasek and GIC Holdings: The state directly manages national capital through giant sovereign wealth holding companies. The government owns majority stakes in critical commercial sectors—ranging from telecommunications (Singtel) to aviation (Singapore Airlines)—socializing the profits of capital to fund public infrastructure and state reserves.
France: Universal Social Protection and Public Ownership.
France runs one of the most robust, state-directed public spending networks in the world, with social protection expenditures making up over 30% of its national GDP.
Strategic Infrastructure Control: The French state maintains strict control over core national industries. For instance, the government enforces 100% full state ownership of Électricité de France (EDF) to directly regulate national energy prices and guarantee public utility access, bypassing private market volatility.
Germany: Co-determination and Labor Socialization.
Under German law, large corporations must allocate up to 50% of the seats on their supervisory boards to worker-elected representatives.
This legally strips absolute control away from private shareholders. It forces corporate capital to align its strategic decisions—such as layoffs, wages, and factory investments—with the long-term well-being of the workforce rather than short-term profit maximization.
Costa Rica: State-Led Healthcare and Environmental Decommodification
Costa Rica manages a universally socialized healthcare system (Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social) funded through mandatory, progressive payroll taxes. It guarantees complete medical coverage to all citizens regardless of their employment status or income.
Nationalized Utilities:The state retains a complete public monopoly over the energy grid via the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad (ICE), choosing to prioritize ecological sustainability and public access over private utility profits.
Remember Abrego Garcia? He was willing to be deported to Costa Rica. The U.S. did not want to deport him there because he would have been better off.
As I understand it, Israel has free health care and education. .. much of it funded by the U.S..
Dgsnowden, no. Just like the Nordic countries, Israel funds its universal healthcare system (mandated by the National Health Insurance Law) through progressive internal payroll taxes and general domestic income taxes.
Israel’s public school infrastructure, child allowances, and pensions are funded entirely by its own taxpayers through the National Insurance Institute (Bituach Leumi). Israel is a highly developed, high-income, tech-heavy economy with a per-capita GDP comparable to Western Europe, meaning it possesses the internal tax base required to sustain its own social programs.
We just pay for their defense spending. They can afford universal healthcare and education without any assistance from us.
With our $1.3 trillion defense budge (and growing) we should be above to afford our own universal healthcare. We just have to cut defense down to a reasonable $500 Billion at least.
Israel has a four-payer health-care system Residents sign up with the one they are naturally affiliated with.
“afford our own universal healthcare”
GSX, isolating government spending from all other sources, the US government spends more per capita than any other country.
Israel’s standard of living is 2/3 that of the US.
You keep playing word games – The US now has “universal health care” thank to Obama, it is much the same as the rest of the world.
Changing a few words cost us $2T/decade – for nothing.
Nothing that YOU the left has done to healthcare in the US or elsewhere has not been anything but an expensive boon doggle.
Yes the US massively subsidizes Israel’s defense.
Money is fungible – the money we pay for israels military would come from their social welfare programs if we did not pay it.
US defense spending should be much lower.
But not to pay for more socialist nonsense.
First to pay off our debt and then returned to the people to spend on whatever they want.
If YOU want to spend it on health insurance – be my guest.
But you have no right to dictate what others do with their own money.
You heard wrong. The US does not support Israel’s healthcare or educational system. Today, it provides a limited amount of military aid, where most of the dollars must be used to purchase American weapons, some of which the Israelis improve upon for free. Israel also provides a tremendous amount of intelligence to the US, helping America secure American interests in the Middle East, also for free. Unlike elsewhere, it is a symbiotic relationship.
Tomorrow, all aid will disappear, and they will function jointly, in part, because the Israelis use protective weapons that are constantly changing, and they have the real-time experience America lacks.
Prove it. Otherwise it’s just your.lie
So you pick a bunch of randon socialist policies from countries that are NOT socialist and pretend this means something ?
The US has PPACA, Medicare, Medicaid, Snap, Social Security and myriads of other bad and stupid programs – much like those you cite.
Some of these are popular – but only because people do not understand the true cost and harm of these programs.
No nation goes all in on socialism – because it does not work.
Socialism lite does not work either
It just does not completely bankrupt the country.
Every country you cite except singapore has a significantly lower standard of living than the US.
If you think that their programs make up for that – Go there.
But standard of living is measured by GDP – we consume what we produce
When we say Germany’s GDP is the same as Mississippi – that INCLUDES the value of their socialist programs.
GDP is the measure of what a country produces.
It is the value produced that pays for what is consumed.
If you produce less – you consume less.
When we say the standard of living of Germany is 30% lower than the US – that means Germans have produced 30% less and therefore can only consume 70% of what americans can. That includes the value of all those socialist programs.
What happens to all those people who thru retirement plans own part of thd means of production. All the pension funds that have invested in ownership thru the stock market will suffer.
One could argue that big business did this deliberately to protect its self.
*. The socialism rhetoric scam? It’s just common theft and robbery. Suckers are born everyday. Truly tragic criminal behavior isn’t it.
Carpe diem
Well of course we all know Scandinavian countries are NOT socialist economies. They even TELL us they are not. Only the leftist dupes and the DSA believe that. Or they need to propitiate that lie to get more dupes to believe them. “Look!” they cry. “Socialism works in Sweden! It can and will work here once WE are in power!”
Point out history of all the failures of socialism and they cry,
“But it WILL be DIFFERENT when WE do it!”
Point out the socialistic failures of CA and in NYC and they usually make up some excuse like it is someone else fault. Not theirs!
Nobody is saying their economies are socialist. That’s a misreading on your part. Thanks to our poor education system.
What is true is their economic systems is a mix of both capitalist and democratic socialists ideas. And they do work.
Our right-wing buddies and conservatives are terrified of people knowing that ideas like democratic socialists are successfully running in other countries would one day be applied here because they work.
That’s the single most terrifying thing, people realizing those ideas do have merit and that they do work. It’s terrifying for most conservatives because it carries the very real prospect of making less profit way less than the obscene amounts they are making now.
Nordic leaders state they are not “socialist planned economies” in the Soviet sense, which is entirely correct. However, they explicitly operate as social democracies or mixed economies. They aggressively utilize socialist mechanisms—such as the universal decommodification of healthcare, massive state-owned enterprise equity, and centralized labor bargaining—to strictly limit free-market outcomes.
Where our right-wing friends get confused is the inability to make the distinction between socialist and democratic socialist, because those are two different things.
The historical failures often cited (e.g., the Soviet Union or Venezuela) occurred under authoritarian regimes with total state-monopolized production and no democratic checks. Modern democratic socialists point to the Nordic model precisely because it proves that integrating socialized welfare and public wealth funds within a stable, multi-party democracy does not lead to economic collapse. It leads to some of the highest standards of living in human history.
Isn’t our poor education system entirely run from top to bottom by our left-wing buddies? Aren’t most of our failing inner cities run entirely by our left-wing buddies?
“Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed.”-Stalin 1934
Mixed socialism and free markets is better than all socialism.
Th less arsenic you mix in your food the healthier you will be.