Hawley on passage of the DREAM Act: 'More like a nightmare'

How the...? What the...? How the hell are you eligible for any kind of social service, or college loan or grant, if your here illegally?
Every single thing I have ever had to do of any consequence, required a birth certificate and ss card.
We were open for like 300 years guys, America is closed now, no occupancy sorry.

Christopher, that's the Liberal mindset. Think about it. An illegal will be able to go college in New York for less money than somebody from Vermont or New Jersey.

Im struggling to pay tuition for my wife, we get no help from the state or feds because MY income is too high. So all I have to do is stop working 60 hour weeks, and go on the dole, and she could get a free ride.
People wonder why there is such a movement against minorities and illegals, well there is one of the reasons, Americans working hard as hell to make things work, and my tax money giving a free ride to criminals, who snuck into our country, and now they want a handout. WTF

Makes me want to take to the streets in protest. How about you Jim Urtel Jr?

Gee, I wonder why the influx of illegal immigrants. Who would want to move to a place where everything is free? They call them "dreamers". Go on the government dole with a free education to boot. Hell, that would be my dream.

"Gee, I wonder why the influx of illegal immigrants."

Influx? Illegal immigration is at historically low levels.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/20/us/politics/fact-check-trump-border-…

Also, undocumented residents use less in social services than native-born.

https://www.cato.org/publications/immigration-research-policy-brief/imm…

Points well taken Howard. I'll admit I may have not clarified the point I was trying to make, but my comment was meant to address the newly passed "Dream Act" in New York, not the national immigration policy (or lack thereof). Also, undocumented residents sounds so much better than illegal immigrants. Fact remains they are here illegally, they have no rights to social services, a free education or any other benefits. Just my opinion.

Apples to oranges Daniel.

Ray, as a matter of law:

Crossing the border without permission is a crime. It's a misdemeanor.

Being here in the country without permission is not a crime. You cannot be punished in any manner beyond deportation for being in the country without permission/proper documentation.

And the majority of people in this country without permission did not enter illegally. They came here on valid visas and overstayed their visas. "Ilegal" generally denotes a crime being committed but overstaying your visa is not a crime. The only consequence is deportation and a bar from re-entering the country on a visa for a specified time period. For this class of person "undocumented workers/residents" is decidedly more accurate.

Further, there are about five classes of undocumented residents who will be allowed to stay in the country and out of custody if located here while their cases are pending, including children of people who entered illegally, asylum seekers, and the victims of certain acts in their home countries.

Whether a person who crossed illegally and is now in the country as a resident is an "illegal immigrant" is a matter of semantics since their presence in the country is not a crime even though they arrived through illegal means.

As a matter of law Howard you are right on the money. So if you sneak into the country under darkness of night you have no documentation that allows you to be here so you are guilty of a misdemeanor and have to serve a short stay in jail until you are deported. Now, if you enter the country with a visa but don't renew it, you have no documentation that allows you to be here so you can only be deported. Right after you get a free college education in New York. What a wonderful country! I'm just busting your chops Howard.

I'll start off with Steve's mis-leading statement, ..“We cannot possibly justify spending millions of tax dollars to line the pockets of those here illegally".. this statement tells me that people here "legally" are getting their pockets lined. After sending two of my children to college I can assure who ever is reading this that my children did not get their pockets lined by anyone much less NYS.
Steve uses the term "illegal aliens" I'm not too sure it's very accurate. The article states it is talking about so called "Dreamers" , correct me if I am wrong, who are adult children that came to America as children. These children have had a Right to attend public schools and a Right to a public education. There is a federal law that gives them that right.
All non-dreamers have a right to higher education after graduation from high school. There are many programs out there to get the financial aid a student may need if they can not afford tuition. There are loans, grants and scholarships to name a few.
The Dream Act allows All high schools graduates the same rights to apply for the financial aid they may need to further their education. What could be wrong with that?

@ Christopher Putnam - "People wonder why there is such a movement against minorities and illegals, well there is one of the reasons, Americans working hard as hell to make things work, and my tax money giving a free ride to criminals, who snuck into our country, and now they want a handout."

Your racism is showing. Did you really insinuate that minorities don't work hard to make things work? Minorities are not Americans? Surely all white people bust their hump every day to "make things work."

Chris Putnam when did America become "closed"? After the white men came and sent the Native Americans packing? And as far as Liberal/Democrat/Republican mindset, that is part of what is dividing our country more than ever. We don't all think the same depending on our politics . That in itself is a very ignorant mindset . I thoroughly appreciate the facts given here, and to be honest, most of the comments we are hearing regarding this issue ( overflowing social services offices, "attacks" of caravans at the border" etc ) are not at all based on facts but on stereotypes, not only of people themselves but of what they may be thinking .
We all are welcome to our opinions people, but lets base them on what is true.
We need to get smarter, not become followers

My question would be are the undocumented/illegal immigrants paying taxes the same as everyone else. This is what should determine if they are entitled to anything.

Eric, undocument workers pay billions in taxes.

They pay for social security they never receive.

They make contributions toward Medicare they'll never collect.

Their pay is docked, like everybody else, for unemployment insurance, state taxes, workers' comp, etc.

They have pay withheld on taxes but can't file a return to get a refund.

They pay sales tax on their purchases.

If they pay rent, they are contributing to property tax collection.

They pay gas taxes and cigarettes taxes and liquor taxes (if they purchase those things). They pay taxes on their use of mobile phones.

https://www.vox.com/2018/4/13/17229018/undocumented-immigrants-pay-taxes

http://immigrationimpact.com/2018/04/16/undocumented-immigrants-pay-tax…

There is a path to entering this country legally. You can use a passport to visit, you can apply for a student visa if you want to attend school, you can get a green card that allows you to work and take up residency. That's it. Maybe I'm wrong, but I know of no country in the world where you can enter at will, stay as long as you like and talk about your "rights". You can apply to enter the United States legally, that is your right, your ONLY right. I know I have strayed from the subject of the "Dream Act" but the comments have morphed into a debate on immigration, so what the heck.

Entering here for work is difficult and can take years, especially for the kind of low-end labor sought by most migrants from the south.

The major reason migrants from the south come here is to make more money. Immigration declined during the recession to some extent because there were fewer jobs in the states.

Immigrant labor helps keep consumer costs down, helps fill hard-to-fill jobs, brings economic growth to communities, creates job opportunities for citizens, and generates revenue for programs such as social security. In an era of declining birth rates, that's critical to social security.

The clear answer is to improve immigration laws to help meet the supply and demand needs of the market. It should be easier for workers from the south to come here legally.

This would also improve border security because it would greatly reduce the demand for illegal crossing and help the government better track who was in the country, why, and where they are in the country.

Undocumented immigrants do pay taxes on their income, and lots of them . I have seen the paychecks myself. That money never gets refunded as Howard says . I don't ever hear anyone complaining about how much in taxes the undocumented pay.

Our congress, in it's infinite wisdom, has been trying to improve immigration laws for as long as I can remember, to no avail. If the democrats make a suggestion the republicans say no, so the republicans suggest an answer and the democrats say no. Sound familiar? The only thing that changes is the partisanship gets worse every year. All they agree on is that they don't agree. What in the hell are we paying these people for? The left get lefter and the right get righter. My solution is all of our representatives(?) take a deep breath, move 3 steps toward the middle and do their jobs. To hell with the party platforms.

Here's George HW Bush and Ronald Reagan debating what to do about immigration in 1980.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsmgPp_nlok

Both are essentially saying what I said in my previous comment.

Much of what Reagan wanted he got in immigration reform in 1986. For reasons I don't fully understand, the reform did not address the consequences of economic growth increasing the demand for immigrant labor. Hence, we really didn't solve the problem long-term.

In Reagan's time, the biggest opposition to immigration came not from Republicans, who saw immigration as part of the American fabric and essential to economic growth but from Democrats, who backed by labor and led by Cesar Chevez, promoted the myth that immigration hurt American workers.

Yeah, just as I believe that the only abortions should retroactively be performed upon those who are proponents of the deed, I feel that those who are apologists for illegal aliens should suffer the worst of the deeds such misplaced illegals perpetrate upon my fellow citizens. I'm convinced that if the brutal stabbing murder of a local woman had been your gal Howard, your attitude would be quite different.
Check here:
http://www.lonsberry.com/writings.cfm?story=3250
Check here:
https://www.constitutionparty.com/illegal-alien-crime-and-violence-by-t…

The parents of Mollie Tibbets have spoken out against using their daughter's death to push an anti-immigration agenda.

Her mother took in the son of illegal immigrants so he could finish high school after they fled the area fearing for their safety.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/12/28/mollie-tibbetts-m…

I do my best to make decisions about my beliefs based on facts and reason, not emotion.

Immigrants of all types, including illegal immigrants, are less crime-prone than citizens.

https://www.cato.org/blog/white-houses-misleading-error-ridden-narrativ…

If somebody I loved was killed by anybody, I would not judge a whole group of people -- whatever their race, religion, gender, political beliefs, or immigration status -- based on the act of one person. That's putting emotion over logic.

If we had an immigration policy as I discuss above, we would have fewer illegal aliens here committing crimes.

It would be easier, also, to keep people out with criminal records or mental health issues.

If you're truly serious about reducing crime committed by illegal aliens, then you support more immigration, not less.

One crime by an illegal is too many. If our borders were secure illegals would commit zero crime statistically. It's not making decisions based on emotion. It's about feeling the reality that other Americans are experiencing because too many enablers put their own financial and political agendas ahead of the safety, wellbeing, and sovereignty of our nation and our people. Shamefully so.
I have no problem with using my taxes to help our neighbors to feed their children. But they need to be at home in order to help make a difference in their own country. They also need to stop procreating when they can't bring children into a secure environment. Overpopulation is the worst kind of pollution.
As far as your contention that illegal immigration is at a low ebb. That may be so but that has a lot to do with saturation coupled with heavy increases in deportation. Many experts put the number of illegals in country at 20 + million.
More immigration means less crime is ludicrous. The slave labor driving living and working standards into the toilet would increase crime by the Americans you would disenfranchise. As well as increase social tensions. While the pretend progressive political puppets and their perverted 1 percent puppet masters laugh all the way to the purloined beaches of Puerto Rico.

"One crime by an illegal is too many."

One crime committed by a citizen is one too many. Let's get rid of them, too.

One person hurt or killed by an automobile accident is one too many. Let's take all cars off the road.

How far do you want to carry that logic?

One person killed or robbed by a gun is one too many. Let's get rid of all guns. That is the logic, after all, often used against gun ownership by those who want to repeal the Second Amendment. That's the logical trap you've put yourself in.

That said, as a matter of math, you're right, we would reduce crime by committed by illegal immigrants if we had fewer illegal immigrants. Above I offer a plan for reducing illegal immigration and improving border security. It's a plan you haven't refuted.

No amount of force is going to reduce illegal immigration. It is human nature to try and improve one's resources (Econ 101). That's what immigrants and the people who hire them are trying to do. And it makes our economy stronger to get more people into the workforce. Illegal immigration has dropped primarily because of economic factors, both in the U.S. and in Mexico, not because of any government policies are practices.

And most experts, the ones who really know the issue, say the number is 11 million or less.

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2018/11/27/u-s-unauthorized-immigrant-total-…

The fact that 10 million or more people are here without documentation only proves there is an economic need for them to be here. We should have policies that answer that economic need. Nothing is better for the American people than growing the economy.

Exactly Howard, Econ 101. Things will never improve in their own country as long as the most able bodied, most motivated, are running away from their responsibility to their home country. So not only are they shirking their duties as citizens at home, they're undermining my country and my fellow citizens. As well as harming the earth by procreating more polluters.
If progressives were TRULY progressive, they would be anti war. If progressives were TRULY progressive, they would push for a more successful helping hand to our neighboring countries from which the vast majority of our illegals flee. Mexico and their cartels are ten times the threat to our safety and security as isis. They're a constant source of illicit drugs and weapons. And a constant source of violence. If progressives were TRULY progressive, they would buck their neocon, lock step brethren by reigning in the CIA and other rogue government and quasigovernment agencies like the federal reserve who are constantly undermining governments around the world who refuse to be coerced into the economic yoke we bear. Venezuela is the most glaring recent example of OUR economic warmongering. Hence, a predictable exodus. Exodus.... hmmmm where have I heard that term? Yeah.

Well, as a conservative I believe first what is good for the economy of my country. Immigration is good for the economy.

Immigrants grow economies. Walls kill them.

Immigrants here help their home countries because some portion of the money they earn is often returned home.

Free markets improve all economies.

Free markets over the last 150 or so years have moved the world from about 95 percent of the population living in deep poverty to less than six percent in deep poverty. Every American alive today enjoys a better standard of living their grandparents at the same age because of free markets.

Free markets have led to more freedom (though there are clearly still pockets of resistance and trouble spots).

Want to end cartels? End the War on Drugs.

As a conservative I believe in smaller government. The War on Drugs is big government. A border wall is big government.

Freedom is always the answer. Individual liberty is always the answer.

Conservative???

When have I ever expressed a view that isn't conservative/libertarian?

I'm for individual freedom, economic prosperity, a stable society, adherence to the founding ideals of this country (particularly as embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights), and upholding the Constitution ... free minds and free markets, the very core of conservative ideals.

If you disagree with any of that, perhaps you're not the conservative you think you are.

Increasing competition for our jobs keeps the average American subjugated to the 1%er pervs who stack our courts (including the supreme court) with shills to do their bidding. Along with the FBI, justice department, CIA, both houses of Congress and our presidency. Saturating our job market with illegals keeps Americans busy toiling to make ends meet so they don't have the opportunity to organize any resistance. The upper middle classes usually have huge debt to overcome from college loans. Then they are taxed heavily to pay for the "lower classes" who are paid less than a living wage. The "lower middle class" is lucky if they too don't need extra government assistance. Consequently virtually all but the highest levels of our economic caste system have both the time and intelligence to discern how we are being robbed. Or more realistically, how they are robbing us.
Incorporation is a benefit, a privilege bestowed by the government (the people theoretically). As such, corporations should be subjugated to the will of the people, and for the good of the people, not the other way around as it is today. Perverse! Let's send those illegals home, where they belong and force the piggy 1%ers to pay what Americans are worth. Instead of slave wages. Continuing to repeat the same behavior that is responsible for the mess we're in is the definition of insanity.

Horse hockey.

"Increasing competition for our jobs .."

Jobs create jobs. The more people who work in an economy, the more money spent, the more jobs created.

The rest of it is just a rant devoid of form and substance, filled with conspiratorial thinking and wild ass assertions lacking a factual basis. It's impossible to address intelligently. I'll let it go.

Jim: Yes - Howard has shown significant signs of being conservative - especially when it comes to the economy.

One can be conservative without being batscat insane and demanding "be as radically right as I am or you are a commie/pinko/socialist/whatever!". Try listening to old Ronald Reagan speeches, from when he was Gov of California and prior to his successful Presidential campaign. He lays out some very good and clear arguments for conservatism. I appreciated the way he presented his views even if I may not have agreed with the arguments.

A perfect example of the type of jobs Howard thinks Americans should be thankful for:
https://www.worldhunger.org/report-walmart-workers-cost-taxpayers-6-2-b…
What Americans should tell Howard and the like minded:
Watch "Johnny Paycheck - You can take this job and shove it" on YouTube
https://youtu.be/EPrSVkTRb24

Ronald Reagan winning the presidency in 1980 had some influence on my decision to join the military. Over the next decade and a half, my politics swung pretty wildly all over the place as I searched for who I was but I eventually came around to something that is pretty solidly old fashioned Reagan conservatism.

First, you're making up stuff, Dan. Nothing I said could be construed to anything along the lines of "example of the type of jobs Howard thinks Americans should be thankful for" ... you do like to argue with staw men, don't you?

That said, as is well known from my past comments, I'm no fan of Walmart, and some of their growth has been fueled by inappropriate government subsidies. They were also an innovative company. Lower costs goods have also helped increase the standard of living for poorer Americans and with more free money circulating through the economy helped accelerate the economy even further.

What sort of socialist, big government program are you proposing to fix "the Walmart problem," Dan? More distribution of income? More government regulation? Nationalization of Walmart? Seizure of Walmart assets? You've described a problem and blamed it on free markets, so what's your socialist, big government fix?

Your hypocrisy is showing again Howard. I just shake my head at your childish renditions of "conspiracy theorist" like nany nany boo boo, LOL. "I'm not a fan of walmart" oh but they should continue on screwing their employees cause that's the way the cookie crumbles. Well im of the school of thought that a man stands up to abusers. I think we need to jack up those abusers and take their Hilton Inn Chop Chop Cobb Salad lunch money and use it to achieve a fair and equitable distribution of the proceeds garnered from the benefits bestowed by the people. If they played fair those stolen proceeds wouldn't need redistribution. The protection afforded by incorporation is again bestowed by the people. We the people giveth, we the people shall taketh away. Otherwise those entities and the people who operate them should be totally liable for their missteps. Any company/corporations that move overseas would see the government doing the right thing by the people. Help the employees to create a co-op to go in direct competition with the unamerican POS entities who did so. I believe in the people holding the power. Not piggy plutocratic blutos and their punk apologists. Straw men? I once took on 5 bikers. I have a chipped tooth to show for it, but they never bothered my wife again.

Only you would find a fair, reasonable response based on facts and logic, that honestly looks at the world as full of complexities, to be a sign of hypocrisy.

"achieve a fair and equitable distribution ... "

So you admit, you're a socialist.

I admit to fair mindedness. Your hypocrisy is in acknowledgment of the unfair policies of walmart, even citing a few. But you offer zero solutions and give them a pat on the back for being innovative. BS! They were innovative when Sam Walton was in control. He was a big proponent of America/Americans 1st. of the 10 points to his business philosophy, #2 is: "Share your profits with all your associates, and treat them as partners." Number 5 is: "Appreciate everything employees do for you." Associates are what Sam called employees. They are still hypocritically referred to that today as his offspring and the other plutocrat stockholders abuse them.
From a Blumberg article: "In his autobiography, Sam Walton: Made in America, Walton summed up the company’s position on unions: “I have always believed strongly that we don’t need unions at Wal-Mart. Theoretically I understand the argument that unions try to make, that the associates need someone to represent them and so on. But historically, as unions have developed in this country, they have mostly just been divisive.” He "understands" because he was a reasonable man. And he took care of his employees.
I didn't think my employees needed representation either. I paid the highest wages in the area for same/similar work. I also paid health insurance. Something unheard of in the area. I had 18 - 20 employees on average and two different pairs of managers ended up marrying. It was a great place to work. As all places should be.

And Sam Walton was innovative. He built the company into what it became.

Their supply chain management was truly innovative and enabled them to stock more stuff with faster inventory turns, at lower prices.

But they also took $8 billion or so in tax incentives. I'm more concerned about that than what they pay people.

I'm also more concerned about their predatory pricing practices when moving into a new community, selling items at a loss in order to wipe out the competition.

In a free market, people get the jobs they deserve or want or are willing to settle for. Nobody is forcing anybody to work at Walmart or anyplace else.

But notice how we went from discussing what to do about illegal immigration to talking about Walmart.

That's what you do, Daniel, on any discussion. Once you get beat on a point by facts or logic, you change the topic. Each step of the way in this conversation, every time I made a point you couldn't counter, you changed the topic or obfuscated with obscure and opaque rambling rants, put up a straw man, or moved the goal posts.

Also, I notice you haven't denied being a socialist.

Howard - I supported your statement that you are a conservative (was easy to support)... but you are throwing around the word "socialist" like it's an insult. Just because you do not agree with the philosophy does NOT make it an evil thing.

When people start treating other philosophies as evil, they lose the ability to look at other philosophies with an open mind. Because, you know, other philosophies *might* have something good behind them.

Very true Tim. Howard... you have beaten me on nothing. And you like to attack me with your whimpering "conspiracy theorist" without a single example of such because you know that I'd show proof. Something you are extremely short of. But that seems the norm for "journalists" these days. Gee tax incentives are more of a concern than worker's need for government assistance to live some semblance of a normal life. You seemed okay with the incentives for the local dairy production facilities. Fully explaining the ins and outs of the different companies and the fact that the overall situation was beneficial to our community. No mention of your "concern." Hipocrite be thy name. LOL. As far as not denying that I'm a socialist, I don't wear anyone's BRAND. That type of yoke is for cattle, sheep, and others who are easily herded. I look for what is good 1st, then what is real and/or realistic. My previous assertion that I didn't think my employees needed representation is a statement that refuses your efforts to brand me with your socialist slur. Which is obviously how you see it.
Wether you like it or not, the people have been imbued with the power in this country. They just don't know how to be effective because mouthpieces who push agendas of the greedy help to keep those pesky citizens busy enough, and diverted enough so they can't make heads or tails of our real problems. You haven't mentioned anything about my assertions that incorporation is a privilege that is bestowed by the people. If you truly believe in no government intervention then there should be no corporations. Frankly I could be fine without even basic law enforcement except for the fact that many innocents would suffer because of their inability to face up to abusive blutos. I'm certain I'd make a fortune (in those things that are truly important) as an interventionist/enforcer who also feels empathy. I also believe that government should be small, but basic law enforcement is only realistic. Like protecting our borders. Protecting the weak and marginalized. And protecting the oligarchs from the pikes and pitchforks they may soon face.

Tim,

Socialism is evil. It's the embodiment of evil. It has no redeeming qualities. Millions upon millions have been murdered in the name of socialism and socialism has never produced any positive gains. It's failed in each and every case it's been tried. All authoritarian ideologies are evil.

Howard - millions and millions have been murdered in the name of all sorts of things. Your point about authoritarianism is close, but you should note authoritarian regimes.

Socialism is NOT an authoritarian ideology. Yeah - the Soviets and Maoists were socialists, but they were also authoritarian. Nazis were capitalists (with a twist of support the regime and you'll do even better), and they managed to kill millions.

How many millions have the Swedes killed? Danes?

Socialism is a sucker's bet. Just ask the people in Venezuela how quickly Socialism devolves into a dictatorship.

The Nazis (National Socialist German Workers’ Party) were not capitalists-this is a myth often used by socialists to promote socialism.

http://economiccollapsenews.com/2017/10/31/the-nazis-were-capitalists-a…

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Nazi-Party

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany

Sweden is a Parliamentary Democracy, while Denmark is a Constitutional Monarchy, and that is why they haven’t butchered millions of people. For that see Stalin or Hitler.

https://www.government.se/how-sweden-is-governed/

https://www.danishnet.com/denmark-facts/government-structure/

"Socialism is NOT an authoritarian ideology. "

Socialism is always authoritarian. You can't have the economic egalitarianism socialists seek without confiscation of property and a denial of private property rights. Without a strong-arm government, you can't achieve socialism's goals.

"How many millions have the Swedes killed? Danes?"

That's irrelevant. Those are not socialist countries. Sweden, Denmark, etc., are all free market economies. In fact, far from being socialist utopias, there are 240,000 millionaires in Denmark and 285,000 in Sweden.

The Danish prime minister says Denmark is not socialist:
https://www.thelocal.dk/20151101/danish-pm-in-us-denmark-is-not-sociali…

Sweden is a market economy

https://www.atlasnetwork.org/news/article/the-story-of-sweden-is-about-…

As for Nazi's ... the Nazi's nationalized industries but not out of some socialist egalitarian ideal. The Nazi's were also nationalists. Nationalism is also authoritarian in its impulses (many confuse nationalism with patriotism but they are not the same thing). The socialism in Germany under Hitler was political socialism, not economic socialism. There was no central control of markets, as required in economic socialism. The social and economic structure of Nazi Germany was designed around serving the state and its elite, not in distributing wealth. The nationalist mindset is one that believes everything must conform to the state's needs, from what you believe to who you choose to be with and what art you view and what music you listen to. Everyone must conform to the nationalist ideal.

To reiterate, there has never been a socialist system in any country that wasn't murderous and authoritarian and there never will be because socialism cannot be instituted without compulsion.

Howard - I believe we will have to agree to disagree on this one, as we are approaching socialism from vastly different viewpoints. You are obviously viewing it from attempts to impose socialism by totalitarian leaders onto their countries. I'm viewing socialism from the philosophical standpoint, where a society chooses to be socialist. Kind of like Reagan's conservatism compared to today's GOP claim of socialism.

A society doesn't choose to be socialist. Socialism can only be imposed because most people want to keep what they earn, enjoy the fruits of their labor, hold views different than the ruling party, etc.

Do you really think it would be right for the government (or what you call society) to come along and say, "you can't own The Batavian but you have to keep doing the same work for a wage we determine"? Do you expect me, or any business owner, to be happy with that? Do you really expect anybody who has worked hard to become a top manager or executive only to be told, sorry, you can only earn X amount because you're not allowed to earn more than the janitor?

How is it even workable to impose price and wage controls?

There is only one kind of socialism and that is totalitarianism. As a matter of reality, it is impossible for a society to "decide" to be socialist. Even if 51 percent said, "Ok," that means the other 49 percent are put under the boot of a dictatorship. That is no utopia.

So it's not a matter of agreeing to disagree. That's like saying let's agree to disagree over whether the sun is hot. Socialism is authoritarian in all cases. It is the only way it can exist.

Or to put it another way, Russia chose socialism ... there's no doubt there was a mass interest in socialism. But the only way socialism can be implemented is to put power in the hands of a few. Human nature being what it is, absolute power corrupts absolutely. There will always be a Lenin or Stalin or Mao waiting in the wings once you decide economic freedom is no longer a right. Once you lose economic freedom, you lose all freedom. You can't impose an economic straight jacket without also ensuring there is no dissent a gun is required to enforce egalitarianism.

A simple example for those who don't get it. In a capitalistic free society, a farmer may raise as many pigs as he chooses, 10, 100, 1000 etc. He keeps most of the profits from his labor. He will take pride in his labor knowing he is a free man. Under Socialism, the same said farmer is given a minimum quota, or else. If he raises 10 pigs, he gets to keep one. If he raises 100 pigs, 1000 pigs, or 10,000 pigs, he gets to keep one. The said farmer has no incentive to excel. He will raise his ten pigs. Vladimir Lenin the father of socialism in it's purest form said it best, "One man with a rifle can control 100 men without."

Howard - this is the last comment I'll make on the situation as I am going to agree to disagree, even if it is unilateral (not really agreeing to disagree, but I am growing tired of this)

"Do you really think it would be right for the government (or what you call society) to come along and say, "you can't own The Batavian but you have to keep doing the same work for a wage we determine"?" Did you even read what I wrote? I wrote of a hypothetical situation where folks agreed to it. A democracy CAN be based on a socialistic philosophy. THAT is where we are disagreeing. I've not read of a society that has agreed to be fully socialist, but it is possible. You've declared none has existed (no argument there), and THAT IT CANNOT HAPPEN NO MATTER WHAT NO MATTER WHERE.

BTW - I'm a capitalist... just not a caveat emptor capitalist.

Again - hypothetically, it could happen.. that is what I was stating.

Tim, I realize you're not going to respond but I don't' engage in Shangri-la thinking. I believe in realistic thinking.

Any study of human nature will tell you no large set of human beings are ever going to agree 100 percent on everything.

Even if your mythical country had 90 percent agreement (which I'd argue is impossible, realistically) on socialism, you would have to have totalitarian rule to strip the other 10 percent of their property rights.

Further, you can't have socialism without central planning. The definition of socialism is "planned economy." It is "the people control the means of production," which means centralized control and stringent rules about production. This would be hard to manage (which is a big reason the Soviet Union failed; the task proved impossible). Since, as Richard pointed out, socialism disincentivizes the desire to be productive, a socialist society would naturally have to compel labor to meet production goals. A truely socialist society is a society of slaves. A shop manager wouldn't be free to raise or lower prices by his or her own initiative. If that manager did, punishment would be meted out.

That all describes authoritarian rule. So, even if 100 percent of the populace voted for socialism, you still arrive in the same place -- an authoritarian central rule with no individual autonomy. There is nothing democratic about that.

Democracy and free markets are inseparable.

I think you mean "laissez-faire." I am not a laissez-faire capitalist, either. I'm an Adam Smith free-market advocate.