A very naive lovestory to fascism.

[Long rant with the question asked why does not people in the US embrace socialliberalism or socialdemocracy?]

Not posted as a debate as most people in here disagree with this standpoint but to hopefully enlighten some of the "other side" to it, if you want to read up on how societies develop and examples I've posted a few in the text.
So the main issue I'd like a stance on is why people aren't willing to pay "marginally" more in tax to be able to stop a majority of charity work/donations and increase the efficiency of both the society and themselves by solving the issues these deal with throughout the society by doing so (raising taxes)?

*Wrote this as a reply to BlackJAC for another thread i viewed some time ago, but it's posted here as I did not find that thread again.

For me it's quite strange, these "socialist handouts" surly come from something - so what do they come from? Ah yes, the taxes, you know that thing that most "elites" go around and pay a 10th or so of compared to "normal" people. And yes, even though the majority of the top 10% or more duck their duty to give back to a society which has made their rise possible the companies still pay their legal due for receiving access to a market under law and order with state protection from war, infrastructure and the access to a workforce. -Wrong, alot of companies don't pay their due, just ask ebay or amazon, or those which puts their profits on one side of the ocean while their losses magically appear on the other side (depending on where the tax and other costs are most benefitial). Point being if you accumulate the taxes that are taken in i doubt the largest part comes from the rich and those companies but the accumulated mass from individuals within the society.

-So back towards the point, what does these crazy costly "handouts" go to, well if we look at the more developed countries (where we now can exclude Sweden after US tanked it) the higher amount of tax goes to natural monopolies (like infrastructure; who would pay for sewers, basic education, night lights in cities, roads that are needed for business to operate but to costly to build for them, a healthy populus) which grants businesses in those countries a more efficient workforce, better conditions to compete (equal for all entities in that country) and first and foremost an on average higher educated workforce which means higher technological evolution - which means progress (if you are a Job fan why not see where that technology originated from a decade earlier both times around - a good starting point being Håkan Lans - computer graphic geolocating software for airtraffic and seatravel, Ericsson and Nokia when it comes to smartphones).

What the fascism in US has managed to do is efficiently drain the rest of the world of rewards for money spent on science to achieve technological advancement, only those that are willing to spend the majority of their lifetime doing legal battle will have a chance to actually retain what they invent in alot of the larger cases.
So instead of the entrepreneurs and invetors getting their fair share, people who own huge global companies without any thought or creation of their own steal what they can and get protection from land of the "free" -USA.

You know keeping money away from the system will surely see to that it works at its optimum peak, that is why the global lagarde list and the exposures by ICIJ so quickly were followed by the huge release of information about surveillence that clouded out any other news, whereupon the news about over $60 trillion being withheld from taxation became 34, then 32 and later 18 trillion (last time i heard anything about it).

I'm not saying the good kind of ceo doesn't exist and that got screwed over by the state, but it's not the socialdemocractic state that does that - it's the fascistic one that does because it is simply in it's interest as a "rational" actor.

I'm seriously intrigued by this missconception of "socialist handouts" that i come across now and then by mostly (excuse the term if it's derogatory; US rednecks), why would people not want to create a better society together, all these NPO NGO's (of whom not a small part if for tax reasons and do not put out enough of it's cashflow to be of any real aid), why do they not think that instead of helping a small part of the problems by donating alot to charities, church and others that take off a huge part for themselves should they not pay 1-10% more in tax and solve the majority of the problems within society?

Are they afraid it'll just go into particular interest instead of actually solving what it was supposed to? The only way to achieve a real change in the state is to keep it liable (through law or responsible through votes (well, in those areas/districts without electronic voting machines) - which is where transparceny comes into play, without being able to audit governmental affairs that cannot happen (of course secret military operations might have one or two limitations due to strategic reasons but other than that most governmental affairs that does not impact the personal negative rights of an individual should be open.

The movie touches on how the state can force open patents for the good of progress (even though that is not the way it's being framed) and writes it off as theft, even though it does not mention anything about how companies often overlook the ones creating the progress within them or how they steal it from other companies or why not how the state grants access to assesst that are deemed valuable for society (the common good) in such a degree a landowner can't refuse it. Or why not the abomination these days where the state issues NSL letters to stifle technological evolution on behalf of the oil industry and other big corporations.

All in all capitalism and the trial by kennedy and hatcher in the 20th and others along the route Ayn Rand included by kicking down the sandcastle others build up together has brought us close to extinction, we might not see it as clear as we'll do in a century or so but the regressive agenda do not deal with a finite world.

For those who want to know more; Elinor Ostrom writes about the tragedy of the commons, or Adam Smith if you prefer to hear it from the father of modern capitalism.

All in all this movie was very, very naive and blue eyed - which is quite positive because anyone viewing it today can't take it as more than what it is/was - a propaganda piece for status quo by cultivating regressive norms.
From the beginning i meant to comment more on how the movie shuffles over the negative parts of an unregulated market (like nepotism) to the state and takes on the positive roles the state has in a "free" market (like the traintrack for the people in a remote area, which the state pushed to remove - if the company acted as a rational actor that would never be built due to costs vs returns even though it might impact the society very favourable), but I got stuck in the rant.


I haven't gone through the text to proofread it so excuse poorly wording, spelling errors etc, i hope you who read this is able to take the points from it anyway - if not, than you are most likely set in your ways and change is to scary to consider.

[EDIT]Yes the tax exemptions plays a crucial role here, creating a "fake" charity to tunnel money through is something most of the upper middleclass and above seem to do. It's still shooting yourself in the toe by not cashing in on a better economy that will benefit all consistantly.

[EDIT 2] @elduderino09: As long as you got a functioning democracy fascism won't reign. Democracy can be removed if the public is sleeping and their politicans are corrupt (for how long we'll see as this is what currently is happening with the freetrade agreements which equate tearing down protection for regional democratic norms - some to work by monetarism, but the vast majority being legit causes to protect decisions taken to create a better tomorrow).

Ignorance is only a bliss if you haven't reached awareness.
My imdb posts are getting altered.