WDSmart

Starting with the animals' owners who openly display disregard for the safety of the animals by letting them roam free... right??? If the animal is breaking any law or causing harm, steps can be taken to stop that. But killing the animal should not be allowed unless the harm is life-threatening. Yes, if the animal has an owner, that would be the same as a child causing problems who has a parent. The parent/owner could be held responsible.

Arrest the perpetrators for animal cruelty and don't just fine them but "lock 'em up!"

Good! I'll be watching this closely. I expect Trump will make a fool of himself (that's not difficult for him) and tell a lot of lies, which will be revealed by the news media after researching them.

Disappointing news. I guess this issue will have to run its course until people accept the fact that not everyone is born to be only a male or female. It's very much like racism - either be the way I accept, or I'll reject you.

I hadn't heard that before, but it strengthens my support for him.

I agree, or at least believe Musk, assisted by his wealth, is one of the most despicable people on the planet.

Yes, I agree with almost everything you say. And yes, Israel would have to give up all the land they have seized from the Palestinians since 1948 or negotiate on that. I suggest starting these negotiations with the 1948 two-state solution. I am not surprised the Palestinians and their Arab neighbors have gone to war against Israel. I am surprised at how many people on the Asean Forums believe this all started on October 7, 2023. It's been going on for at least since 1947, or over 70 years, and you could even say for almost two thousand years before that when, according to the fables in the Torah and the New Testament, the Jews left Egypt and finally settled in Canaan after seizing it from the Canaanites, who could be said to have been the ancestors of the Palestinians.

Yes, the government in a socialist economy would provide everyone with food and shelter as best it could. You might not get the type of food or shelter you would like, but you would get the type that the government believes meets your needs, and that would not be based on what you contribute to society. An example would be a ditch digger with a crippled spouse and two children would be assigned a two- or three-bedroom apartment and an allowance of two adults and two children's food supply, whereas a renowned scientist who was single would be assigned a studio or one-bedroom apartment. and one adult's food supply.

In socialism, you only get what you need. The government determines or at least approves your requests about what you need. So, if you believe you need five beers every day, you'd have to put in a request for that, kind of like getting a prescription. I think your request above will open up an opportunity to really discuss what socialism is and how it would work. I encourage you to continue to pursue this.

I will do dishes once a year then. You buy beers daily. As usual, I don't understand your reply. I can only respond, "I do dishes multiple times daily and haven't had a beer in at least five years, maybe more." I do drink a little brandy almost every evening before going to bed.

@susanlea It's really astounding how resistant you are to trying to learn something you don't know. That's probably because somehow you've convinced yourself you know almost everything. AN is so unlucky to be saddled with a Dunning-Kruger poster child. No, in socialism, everyone who is able to work works, but they are not "employed." They do not receive a salary. If you do dishes to help your family, you aren't "employed" to do them. You do them to benefit your family, not only to benefit yourself as you would if you were employed in a capitalistic society.

I want to commend you on your commenting style. Although we disagree on some things, you have never used insulting, derogatory language in our exchanges like most people on these forums. Thanks for that.

This leads to plutocracy because, in my opinion, it is the same problem as we have with economics - selfishness is a fundamental trait of humans and forces its way into almost all of our activities.

I would also make the same comments on governmental systems as I have on capitalism, socialism, and communism. Because of our selfishness, a plutocracy (the rule of the rich) will always be the government that tends to thrive. A representative republic would be the middle path, like socialism. I don't think we'll ever be able to have a pure democracy, which IMO is the governmental equivalent of communism.

No, I don't think so. I think capitalism will continue in some form because that is most compatible with humanity's essence—selfishness. However, I think socialism should be interwoven into it to lessen its effects, and communism should always be our final goal—even though we (humans) will never be able to achieve that.

Parents provide for their children through a mixture of love and acts they feel obligated to do because of the society in which they live. You can then extend that family-like activity to the neighborhood, the village, and finally, the state. The latter would be socialism. The Bible (New Testament) has many references to complete sharing (communism). Here is just one: "3 Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility, value others above yourselves, 4 not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others." Philippines 2: 3-4. Like Nietzsche, I, too, believe that the fables in the Bible are based on selfishness in the long run. Good acts are promised to be rewarded in Heaven, and bad acts in Hell. However, the "teachings" are a good example of the essence of relationships on which communism would be based. Capitalism is based on pure selfishness. I disagree that it's been proven to "work so well." I think, in fact, capitalism is the cause of most of the world's (humanity's) problems.

You make a lot of good points here, but I am using the concept of "family" and how its interactions and responsibilities are thought to work on a theoretical level to exemplify the social relationships in the theoretical definition of "socialism." In other words, socialism is supposed to work like a family—everyone does their best to provide for the individual needs of a group in a way that is not based on what each individual contributes. A good family and pure socialism require a lack of selfishness regarding the family or the entire society. In contrast, and in the same theoretical way, capitalism is supposed to work like a business—everyone gets rewarded based on what they contribute, and those who contribute less get less, and those who contribute nothing get nothing. A good business and pure capitalism require complete selfishness. To take this just one step further, in the same theoretical way, communism works like the fable-based description of Jesus' disciples—no distinction (judgment) is made on what an individual contributes, and everyone shares everything. The fabled disciples and communism require a complete lack of selfishness. So, those are the theoretical examples of the three major types of economies: socialistic, capitalistic, and communistic. Most countries today, including the USA and Thailand, have a mix of socialism and capitalism (Keynesism). It's the strength of each in the mix that is usually what is under debate.

Indeed, you "sluffed it all off"! Going well for you is it? Well, as you know, the democratic republic of the USA has had and is now having some challenges, but, yes, I think, in retrospect, our (USA's) "sluffing off" of the British monarchy was a positive move.

So dad will leave and find a younger model elsewhere and mom will be bitter and stuck with doing everything including looking after grandma when she gets sick? Well, that would be an undesirable and hopefully very rare example. The family I described is one in which the adults (man and wife?) do whatever they can to provide for their children. The children also might do some things to contribute, like cleaning around the house, but there also could be a child who is retarded or physically unable to work. Those types of people would be cared for just as the others are. In a family like this, and in socialism, all people are cared for as best they can, regardless of their ability to contribute to the family or society.

You're conflating socialism with the welfare state. Socialism is where the government (the people) owns the means of production. I agree with you. In pure socialism, the government owns all means of production, and the government, as best as possible, provides for the needs of all people. Perhaps our disagreement is based on our interpretation of the word "employment." I interpret that as an activity that is done for a wage, which is usually money. I don't consider working, as is done in socialism, as a task to benefit the society as a whole without the expectation of a special wage, but only the expectation that the government will provide for your needs as best as it can.

Hypocritical. Go live in Germany, more like Harris. I've lived in Thailand for over 20 years now and never intend to return to the USA. If I ever did, I think I'd try to find a place in the Aleutian Islands in Alaska, that string of islands that curve south and west towards Russia. I'd try to find a nice, cozy isolated cabin there. I hope Harris does get elected and helps move the USA more to the left, but I know if that happens, the movement will be very slow.

I agree with that, but that is because humans are selfish. Socialism (communism, actually) should be our goal, but until we, as a society, respect and care for everyone regardless of their ability to contribute, it can never be fully enacted. We are not like an ideal human family where the breadwinners share everything with their children and fulfill their needs the best they can. We're more like a pride of lions, where, regardless of who kills the prey, the lead male eats until he's full, and then the rest of the pride fights over what's left. That's capitalism.

Kamala Harris would be fine, that's who I will vote for. Trump is an anathema for me.

Families often hate each and break up. In my experience, that does not happen "often," but it does happen. That could happen in a socialistic society, but if it did, the society would, as you say, be broken and probably be dissolved. That could happen in any form of economy, though.

No cars and electricity under your system. Again, I don't understand your remark. People would develop technologies but not be rewarded extra for doing so. They would have their needs met like everyone else, even someone who was mentally retarded and could contribute nothing. That's socialism. In the USA, anything that has "public" as part of its name is a socialistic feature, like public roads, public libraries, public hospitals, public parks, etc...