Thanks for your comment, Karl.

There’s always a leftist in the woodpile.

The issue has many sides. On the one side, public perception, another welfare program. Not too difficult to drum up support for the concept. The actions will be mitigated to some degree by the push back from excessive taxation and general leanings regarding political structures.

That’s not what the issue and proposal is really all about. The issue at hand is another program which will create new avenues for profitable fee raking and customer farming through government channels. They’ll drive people into compromising situations if that’s what’s necessary to establish and expand the program, create more members and funding. It’s all about the expansion of government. Everyone in the know wants a piece of the action.

Once government subsidy and welfare programs get moving, they’re extra ordinarily difficult to shut down. The cost drain will be tremendous, the product at hand’s pricing structures will be under never ending pressure which drives costs up, value down, creating continued incentive for the program to expand and run longer.

What shall not be mentioned is that the people individually are likely to be much wiser managers of the money than the collective body of bureaucrats. That’s the part you’re not supposed to talk about. The people are instructed to focus on the controversy and zany aspects of outrageous program proposals. So then when the heat is turned down, you’ll be better acclimated to accept alternate models of essentially the same programs.

Where as the alternative is a sovereign people whom reject government interventionism. Who recognize it is not the governments responsibility to provide entitlements to anyone. Voting conservative is quite easy, you basically vote no on everything except that which reduces the size of government and restrains their powers.

How will the transition from private to public ownership be accomplished without violating Federal Law. Will this be in the form of eminent domain where property owners are justly compensated? I doubt New York could afford this. Once all property is publicly owned – who decides who lives where?. Would this be based on your social credit score that the left is trying implement (and China already has).

As New York City fails, no state or federal bailouts should be offered/given. And maybe Federal funds of any kind should be withheld starting now.

If these hyper-ignorant voters want socialism/communism – there are many places in the world they can move to. Maybe we can start go-fund-me like-accounts to pay for their one way tickets out of the USA which would include forever voiding their citizenship here.

A few holidays ago I gave everyone his book. The grandfather of law. These days all too many people whom think they’re well informed, are merely parroting slogans without understanding the legal concepts or ideological basis behind them. The propaganda machine has been incredibly successful over the longer term. Always back to the basics; no taxation without representation.

Word. Frederick Bastiat summed it up well about 170 years ago:

Legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on. All these plans as a whole—with their common aim of legal plunder—constitute socialism.

But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.

Stephen Reynolds Seriously, dude. You might want to think of relocating, maybe somewhere socialism succeeded… Oh wait, there isn’t anywhere on the planet that socialism succeeded. Perhaps get some recommendations from Rosie O’donnell.

Cindy Chance Yes and no. First, we haven’t been practicing Adam Smith’s capitalism since ever… So land? Nope…
If you are looking for a villian (or reform point) in this story it’s blowing up “shareholder value” and replacing it with “stakeholder value”….
You can thank me later as I accept the Nobel.

Capitalism has not failed. The truth is that we already live in a socialistic country. Where the governments primary activity is using the mechanisms of force, applying taxation without representation, redistributing peoples wealth. The end result is a limitless line of special interests with their hands out. That’s why there is none left for many regular people, especially honest people, and the youth. Everyone else has cut in line ahead. The failure is branded as the fault of capitalism, by the same socialist groups whom benefit from; more socialist policies.

What has failed is the socialist policies in America. Along with the educational systems, which were among the first major institutions in America to adopt socialist policies and ideals. We should move towards limited government and merit based systems once more, something most of us have not seen in our lifetimes. Back to the basics; no taxation without representation.

You know what works really really well though? The propaganda machine. It has you convinced.

Everything we need to correct course lies in article 1 section 10. / No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Work harder. Millions on welfare depend on you.

Thank you JC! What often gets missed is how quickly institutions react when ownership looks unstable. Capital doesn’t argue or debate, it relocates. Once that happens, the downstream effects on neighborhoods are almost impossible to reverse.

Thank you Carl! You’re right: the signals hit first. What I’ve noticed is that they also change who’s willing to invest, not just how much. That shift alone can alter the entire trajectory of a community.

Exactly. And once those rights are gone, the market reacts instantly. Values drop, risk spikes and neighborhoods feel the impact long before the rhetoric cools off. There’s nothing warm about instability.

The warmth is usually just the glow from the fire made out of everyone’s property rights. Looks cozy until you get close.