Hawley on passage of the DREAM Act: 'More like a nightmare'
Assemblyman Steve Hawley (R,C,I-Batavia) issued a statement this afternoon on passage of the DREAM Act:
“The priorities of the far left are now on full display in Albany, and today’s theme was unabated college aid for illegal aliens.
“We cannot possibly justify spending millions of tax dollars to line the pockets of those here illegally when the student loan debt crisis is a national epidemic, with an average debt burden of $39,400 per student.
“We are a nation of laws, and those who follow our laws, work hard and pay taxes are the ones we should be helping with college affordability. But state leaders, intent on quarreling with the federal government, are using our state governmental process for partisan political gain.
“There have been numerous proposals put forth by members of the Assembly Minority Conference to expand college affordability, increase tax credits and lower student loan payments. Those are the solutions we should be considering before giving away free college to illegals.”
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.