nostr:npub168kkx0x4a3raxtkpgenrk5kh8jhutvxfmaw44uz92xftqmgphkzs8szegj
> It was just last year, but it was close to Christmas, so you may have missed it. It was so bad since Biden has always made a big deal about riding and liking the trains.
I am a COVID research scientist and was in Israel for 2 years doing research. So yea this sounds like I missed it cause i was out of town.
> Anti-monopoly laws don't seize companies. They break up companies. The companies are still owned by private entities.
Well more or less yes.. the company is seized, and they are compensated with either money or shares in the new company (which of course can be sold for the money).
Were you suggesting stealing the money from the investors completely and leaving them with nothing? Even if we seized large companies to replace it with a government owned equievelant, obviously we would have to pay the owners a fair market value to do so (which is how its always done).
I mean at that point your starting to go way past just the left and your starting to sound more like communism. Even when homes are seized fromt he poor (as mentioned) they are paid a "fair market value" (or at least it is supposed to be fair).
> I think there's a lot of talking past each other going on in this conversation because the US understanding of socialism is really inconsistent with how other countries use it.
My bio says I live in the Netherlands (its old i just spent 2 years in israel but i still have my Dutch home)... Why are you assuming our misunderstanding is because of the US? For the record I have spent the majority of my life living around the world, usually move to a new country every few months or years (though NL is a permanent fixture for me). I have lived in most european countries, worked, got health care, all the stuff.
For the record though many europeans sometimes use socialism wrong too.. for example (as has been stated by multiple prime ministers) there are no socialist countries in europe only social-welfare capitalist countries. Which is accurate.
> For example, a lot of policies Nixon and Regan passed would be considered by current GOP as leftist.
Absolutely.. Being ont he left does **not** mean every single one of your policies needs to be left leaning. If the majority are on the left, then you lean left.
Nixon and Regand certainly had more policies on the left than most modern day republicans. But the bulk of their policies were still right. So it would be completely accurate to say Nixon and Regan where on the right, but closer to the center, than many of those in the GOP today.
More importantly, to solidify this, those int he GOP may see some of his policies as left, but most (at least the ones with more than 2 brain cells) woul be educated enough to still identify the fact that these people were right of center.
> The best way to debate is first to agree on definitions. Then discuss the subjects.
I tend to agree with that. As of the moment I havent seen any definitions we likely disagree on. We seem to agree, so far, on the definition of socialism at least (well i dont know yours, but we agree the american view of it is often wrong)
nostr:npub10ey0pzgherzrtmu7nnp4ctyfwmkmk4rwx6jd9sawme5jme8k3rxq50yx0s nostr:npub1nqzzvvr02rm8eqqamu6u403a584ljdtuh0uwdqzdl5maxjn880nss7838y