Yes, but that's also just as true for us. Many people cite our Constitution as some kind of "glorious document," but there have been times where our government didn't follow it either.
Attempts to subvert our Constitution notwithstanding, we still follow it fairly well.
If the USSR, as you say, had a similar constitution, its implementation sure differed with ours.
Maybe, although the West was not exactly a "passive bystander" either.
Still trying to blame us for their woes, are you?
I don't know what you're getting at, since I'm more vocal
than most here in criticizing our overseas meddling.
So why point out the obvious to me of all people?
They did have problems in that area, yes. There are reasons for this, although I'm trying to resist writing long blocks of text to explain it.
Of course there are reasons, & more than 4 of them....
Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter, central management, collectivization, & a murderous regime.
The short answer is that the previous Tsarist regime left things in such an unholy mess, not to mention the ravages of WW1 and their Civil War. They didn't have much to work with at the start, with Russia already being 100 years behind the West. They did make some improvements, and their economy was far from non-functional. Their performance in WW2 proved this (in contrast to their dismal performance in WW1), as well as their ability to keep up with and surpass the West in the arms race which took place during the Cold War. But they did so at the expense of the luxuries and consumer goods that their people wanted.
I'd wager that if people owned their own farms, they'd have had more incentive to be productive
than having been cogs in a giant machine which spread the fruits of their labors around to others.
Then that would cover quite a bit of territory. Even our own government and Wall Street (among others) could be implicated.
Where there's a crime, prosecute.
I'd go further to strongly prohibit crony capitalism.
No, but I've observed the phenomenon quite often. I'm sure you've heard of "status symbols." It doesn't apply to everyone, but it's widespread enough to be noticed. I'm reminded of an old commercial for beauty products where a model says she buys the most expensive brand because "I'm worth it." I think this attitude has pervaded the culture to a noticeable degree.
You're not making a case for the claim that it's about being better than someone else.
Why reject the simple explanation of wanting to luxuriate in wealth, comfort, & ease?
Perhaps it's easier to criticize them if you can paint them as somehow despising those below?
The thing is, even in our own country, we've already seen "better." Some might say our best days are behind us and that we're now facing a slow decline (often with comparisons to the Roman Empire).
We make some progress....we lose some ground in other areas.
Opinions will vary about the details.
I think things are generally better, but progress requires vigilance.
I can still see many of the same pitfalls, though. What if the contractor or gas company (or any business) you like suddenly goes out of business? Then you're stuck dealing with whoever is left, based on what other customers in the marketplace have chosen. So, you can still be "outvoted" and left having to deal with the lesser of two evils, just like voters face at every election.
You're proposing a scenario in which markets aren't free enuf to allow choice.
This is why I oppose monopolies.
As for the gas company example, our state used to grant monopolies.
But now I can use an "alternative energy supplier" who gets to use the common infrastructure.
I also have the option of going propane, where there's more competition.
I'll use either option (& firewood), depending upon the property location, & relative cost.
Choice is good.
And no one can vote down mine down.
Are you arguing that I do
not have choice in the private sector?
Or that government offers me more choice?
There's also the Walmart effect, where the smaller mom-and-pop businesses just can't compete with the corporate giants.
Competition has winners & losers.
"Mom & pop" have no right to my business, so if someone else offers a better deal, I'll take it.
But the better deal is often at smaller businesses, which is how I & my associates survive...by
being better than our larger competition.
Note also That Walmart faces still competition too...so stiff that I rarely ever buy anything from Walmart. Amazon, Menards, Amazon, Aldi & others are better.
(Amazon is the one you should really be worrying about.)
Minimizes it, perhaps, but as I mentioned above, if there are too many suckers supporting a bad business, then they'll stay in business, despite your firing them. They're in a position where they don't have to care if they get your business or not, since they have so many other customers. And if the business you choose suddenly isn't there anymore, then you'd be in the same position as voters whose preferred candidate was voted out.
This is just specious speculation....the notion that some lousy company will survive because
some consumers make bad choices. That's their problem...& it shouldn't limit my choices.
But were that true, then it's wonderful that I have the liberty to take my business elsewhere.
This is what I advocate....competition & freedom of choice.
It beats trusting a single government source for something.
The only real difference is that, unlike voting where it's "one man, one vote," the number of votes you have in the marketplace depends on how many dollars you have.
If someone has $X to spend, then their vote is worth $X.
If I have $10X to spend, then my vote certainly should be 10 times greater.
It seems you oppose my having power over how I spend my own money
because I might have more than someone else. But you'd give all power
to government, where my vote matters not one whit. Pi$$ on that!
But they're also a very disciplined society and have brains like computers. Not to mention the Vulcan mind meld and the Vulcan neck pinch. Of course, they did have the drawback of mating only once per 7 years.
Vulcans are the party poopers of the galaxy.
I've no desire to emulate their repressed rage, lapses into violence, rigidity & conformity.
I'll bet you rooted for the Borg...so orderly & efficient.
I think my view of business might be similar to your view of government - the smaller, the better. I'm not necessarily advocating complete socialism like the USSR was. But perhaps if we eliminated corporations altogether (unless their only stockholders are their employees and no one else) and only allowed individual proprietorships, partnerships, and family businesses, that might be an improvement. Perhaps they should also be confined within states and not allowed to become national or international companies with centralized authority - which can make them just as bad and mischievous as centralized national governments.
To propose the elimination of the corporate form of ownership would be economically devastating
to the country because raising of capital for aggregating effort would become impossible for
industries like auto making, airlines, pharmaceuticals, etc, etc.
Corporations are just one form of ownership, & there's nothing inherently worse about it than
sole proprietorships, partnerships, or LLCs. "Corporation" is just the left's boogeyman.
The best way to avoid abuses of power is to reduce the amount of power, no matter if it's in the public sector or the private sector.
To reduce private sector power would mean an increase in governmental power over
companies & citizens. What I propose is overall less governmental power over us,
but better quality regulation where the benefits outweigh the costs.
The military draft was the result of the few exploiting and deceiving the many.
Who was deceiving whom?
Nah....it's about a majority deciding which minority should die for the benefit of
the majority. Tis not deception, but rather the seizing of power over others,
appropriating their life & liberty without compensation other than the bare minimum.
But as mentioned above, the many are a bunch of spineless suckers, and they went along with it and called it "patriotism" and "protecting our freedom." But it had very little do with their needs, nor did they even derive much benefit from it. It only benefited the "few," and that's the problem we're facing today.
In the case of some wars, it really was about protecting the country, eg, WW2.
But lately, both Dems & Pubs have fought wars which didn't need fighting.
They'd force only healthy straight males with low draft lottery numbers to bear the
brunt of the dismemberment & dying, while everyone else stayed home & carped.
That's government's idea of "choice" for you.
