Socialism is where the means of production are entirely (or in practice close to entirely) run by, or controlled by, the government.

And socialism causes SOO much good. Yeah to governments telling everyone what to do and putting you in jail (or killing you) if you disagree.

People (companies) free do what they want. BAD

People with guns and the weight of the "law" (government) free to do what they want. GOOD.

I don't think so.

Are you seriously pretending that we have a free market in today's health care system?

I was born and raised there. I've lived in places with a 5 foot kitchen (24" stove, 6" landing, 18" sink, 12" landing) with the only cupboards above this. (That was the kitchen - the "back" was the living room.) I had more than 3 days worth of food in those cupboards. You had to worry about roaches so everything was in jars and the shelves were lined with jars of rice, beans, lentils, pasta, tomato sauce. I would buy 50 pound bags of rice and bags of dried beans and lentils and boxes ramen noodles and pasta. (Those were my starving student days.)

So, even in a small space people have more than 3 days of food.

Re batteries and other supplies (candles, oil lamps) yeah people are woefully unprepared which is why I think the lack of electricity is the real problem. You live above the 10th floor or so and you need electric pumps to bring water up to your floor.

I'm not going to comment on the rude and crime part. Whatever.

But the 3 days worth of food is simply silliness. Do you think people don't have food at home? What will turn NYC (and any big city into a nightmare) is the absence of electricity. The city will grind to a halt with that. One day is fine - but by day 3 that could be a real problem. And as time goes on and police and fire are unable to respond the situation can turn bad quickly. Without electricity there are no phones, no refrigeration, no cooking (a lot of people have electric stoves), no elevators, no subways, no traffic lights (not to mention no tv, no radio, no tunes).

But people will have enough food at home. (Whether they can cook the rice and beans and pasta is another story.)

One size does not have to fit all. That's a key problem with the sclerotic public school system we have today.

So what is states rights for except as a check and balance on the federal government. Take a look at the constitution and see what powers were given to congress and see if, perhaps, just perhaps, they've overstepped their reach.

Standard concrete floors are less than 1 foot thick and under that there are (sometimes) steel beams. But the drop ceilings often hide the beams and the duct work. In my office the drop-ceilings start at around 9 feet and there is about 2 feet of ceiling height above that with both beams and duct work. The building in which I was on the 55 floor had ceiling heights higher than 10 feet and drop ceilings but I didn't want to get mired in estimating details. The purpose of the exercise was to see if a New Yorker, ostensibly living at sea level, could spend the majority of his daily life above the 150 foot mark (as per the poll).

The calculations in the above post were rough estimates.

The average altitude in Manhattan where I work is 39 feet according to Google Maps. I'm on the 16th floor. (10 foot high ceilings plus an estimated 1 foot floor thickness plus a higher first floor leads to an estimate (15*(10+1)+10)=180.
9 hours ~ 210 feet

The average height where I live in Brooklyn is about 120 feet. I'm on the 4th floor (3*(8+1))=27
8 hours ~ 150 feet

2 hours subway - average height say 50 (below in some areas above ground, others at sea level - whatever)

5 hours average say 100 (split in different areas)

9*210=1800
8*150=1200
2*50=100
5*100=100
Total = 3200
Avg = 3200/24 ~ 133

However many people work and live on much higher floors. I used to work on the 55th floor. That would bring the avg way above 150

Avg altitude 85
Floor height 10+1 plus high first floor = (54*(10+1)+10)=604
9 hours * 675=6075.

A Republic is NOT simply a country without a hereditary monarch. Take a look at the Federalist Papers. Madison 10 is a famous example which gives distinctions between Republics and Democracies and explains why the framers of this country (USA) rejected Democracy in favor of a Republic.

That's correct. Get a 2/3 majority and one can change the constitution at whim. But getting a majority and especially 2/3 is difficult. (See Madison 10).

OK, my lack of proof reading aside next time you hear people say that the electoral college / winner take all aspect of presidential elections is proof that the US isn't living up to its democratic ideals what will you do?

Or when you hear the following argument?

capitalism is not conducive to a democracy and
since we are a democratic country
we should get rid of capitalism.

I guess having a Masters in History and leaving while going for a PhD in History is proof of my lack of knowledge. Either that or I'm off my rockers (which may very well be the case).

There are many in this country who espouse equality of outcome and wealth who promote the idea that this country is failing by living up to its democratic ideals. They give examples of this all the time - example the winner-take-all aspect while voting for President. I have heard and had debates with people numerous times who say that:

- capitalism is not democratic and
- since we are a democratic country
-therefore we should get rid of capitalism.

As a result of these discussions I make certain that people realize that calling this country a "democracy" is in fact part-and-parcel of a straw-man argument.

I did not make up these terms. And neither did you. A democracy and a republic are not the same. When you, or someone else says we are a democracy, and then say that we are not living up to the ideals of a democracy because we apportion our votes on a winner take all basis in the presidential election then that person has created a straw-man argument.

I'm certain you've heard many people saying that we should do away with winner take all model as it is not aligned with democratic ideals.

No. Not in the least. Neither the US Constitution nor capitalism is equal to, nor promotes, anarchy.

In your model (democracy) you would say that the majority (50%+1) can do whatever they want. In the Constitutional Republic model the government has certain powers and no others.

Congress may regulate interstate trade. Can this clause be expanded to mean any trade? If you grow tomatoes/weed in your backyard and sell it to me, your neighbor, are we in violation of the interstate trade clause? I would say not. We may be in violation of local and/or state laws but that is a different concern.

Asking / Demanding that the government to abide by the restrictions placed upon them by the constitution does not equal anarchy.