FACT: David Harbour does not believe in individual liberty.

FFS beware of sleestak..

Israel is a thriving capitalist nation, unlike Cuba and other shitholes. Moron!

Who gives a fuck about Israel? Certainly not authentic right wingers. Neocons are about as right wing as Bernie is.

"RWers who scream Socialism"

The article quotes Harbour, you goof.

You may have made the coffee, but did you by the ingredients? Did you acquire the building? Did you pay for advertising? Did you purchase the equipment?

If I hire someone at my coffee shop, are they entitled to a percentage ownership of my business?

I don't get his point.

"He's the one who used the word, and words have meanings. If he meant something else, she should've said something else."
Words do have meanings. I'm trying to explain that the meaning is not always what the listener assumes. There are VERY few words/phrases in the English language that are not open to interpretation, to some extent. In this context, there's a perfectly valid definition of "ownership" that should not annoy Any thinking person.

"Especially when he follows it up with "a call for adults to embrace “the idea of a kindergarten-type society where we share things.”
And this is the crux of the problem. That will never, Ever happen. . .but that's not because of the ideas that underpin it. The ideas, which outrage so many, are sound. They simply rely on a collective human reaction that will Never Happen.

"Has he ever visited a kindergarten classroom? Sharing isn't something a 5-year-old does well."
No idea if you have children, but this is Absolutely Not True. One of the most fascinating things to watch is how children relate to each other. . .you quickly see that personalities are VERY strongly drawn at an early age, and there is a Wide range of types. Some share well, some do not, some are shy, some are extroverts, some are manic, some are cautious, some reckless, etc, etc, etc. But the fiction that children don't "naturally" like to share is, flatly, Wrong.

"Correct. Socialism and Communism never work because they go against human nature."

I realize that I'm CONSIDERABLY more idealistic than the average person. So I'll backpedal (a bit) here, and say: I suspect you're right, but I cross my fingers that in a few thousand years we work it out. I don't think it's "human nature," I think it's in the nature of Too Many People. Quite a different statement.

EXACTLY...NOW LOOSEN YOUR DEATHGRIP ON WHAT YOU HOLD RIGHT AND THINK OF IT FROM THE OTHER SIDE...I'M NOT SAYING HOW THE WORLD SHOULD OR SHOULDN'T WORK...JUST THAT SENSE CAN BE MADE FROM BOTH PERSPECTIVES.

U.S. capitalism has always had restraints put on it by the government. The government breaks up monopolies, regulates the food supply, established the Department of Labor, created multiple Employee Compensation Acts and the New Deal, banned child labor, created Social Security and the Minimum Wage. Not only that, there is the HHS, HUD, FDA, EPA, OSHA, and IRS all restraining capitalism.

So if the phone companies were only allowing people of a certain political bent to speak their views over their phone lines, that would be okay? Or should people just start their own phone companies?

One of the functions of government is to protect its citizens' rights, and in the past they've stepped in and restricted businesses for that purpose. This situation is no different.

I'm not supporting it but yes, it is a private company and if there are no laws against the company practices then ...

There are conservative platforms as well, and those are not better either. They might not ban democrats rightaway but some of them give voice to the most idiotic ideas. Like the flat earth.

But you didn't answer to my question: what does "fair" mean?

I agree, it is malicious.

But have you noticed that the same people who are pushing socialism are the same people who are pushing for open borders?

It's like they're trying to break the system. Nah, it couldn't be that, could it?

"I think that people have basic needs" of course. And it's THEIR duty to find ways to fulfil those basic needs.

Do you think it's ok for me to come to your door and say "feed me, house me, give me clothes because those are basic needs"???

Remember: "ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country?" - a lot of people right now have this mindset: the country must feed, house, bla bla me while they do NOTHING to contribute.

If there's unanimous support, one does not need the government/the state/dictators.
What good is a point of view, when someone else dictates?
If socialists are in charge, one does not have choices.

Basically nope. Welfare and social security or social programs are NOT socialism. This is a misconception of the americans, drive by both the right and the left. The fact that you have "social" in the name doesn't make it "socialism".

And the name you're looking for is NOT democratic socialism, because that is NOTHING else than socialism (as an idea ALL socialist countries of the old considered themselves "democratic"), if you would bother to read the dsa page you'd know - but that's another american misconception.

The term you're looking for is "social democracy" - specially the third wave. It is pure capitalism with strong social programs.