They're all laughing at you

[bacchys]

Move to a socialist utopia. Go ahead.

That's difficult since there's never been one...

[NCRAVEN]

What is economic freedom? How would you define it?

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

To keep as much of my money as possible and don’t or not do with it as I please.

[bacchys]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Those two things in the First Amendment completely invalidate an order to limit the number of people in church. It also makes it unconstitutional to stop the peaceful protests from the leftist. Congregating is an expression of religious faith for Christians, Jews, and Muslims.

Those two things don't completely invalidate an order to limit the number of people in church, and the Per Curiam off the shadow docket doesn't make the claim they do.

Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, (1990) (written by Scalia) still holds. From the summary:

Although a State would be "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" in violation of the Clause if it sought to ban the performance of (or abstention from) physical acts solely because of their religious motivation, the Clause does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a law that incidentally forbids (or requires) the performance of an act that his religious belief requires (or forbids) if the law is not specifically directed to religious practice and is otherwise constitutional as applied to those who engage in the specified act for nonreligious reasons. See, e. g., Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 166-167. The only decisions in which this Court has held that the First Amendment bars application of a neutral, generally applicable law to religiously motivated action are distinguished on the ground that they involved not the Free Exercise Clause alone, but that Clause in conjunction with other constitutional protections. See, e. g.,Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 304-307; Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205. Pp. 876-882.

Bennett bends reason considerably in order to stay compatible with Employment Division while still striking down this pandemic mitigation rule.

The upthread claims by some posters that congregating isn't a requirement of religion are inapt and inaccurate, however. Each of us gets to decide what our religion requires of us. That's the whole point of the rule in Employment Division. We don't want the government- not even judges- playing Uber Pope and deciding what is a real religion or religious practice. Should Employment Division get struck down we either have judges playing Uber Pope or religion becomes a Get Out Of Jail Free card.

[blueridgemtnman]

That's difficult since there's never been one...

A true oxymoron if there's ever been one.

[wickedsolo]

That's difficult since there's never been one...

I hear Venezuela and Cuba are pretty boss.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bandc]

Everyone always goes to Cuba and Venezuela and never brings up Nordic Countries

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

[BuryRaven]

Everyone always goes to Cuba and Venezuela and never brings up Nordic Countries

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

Because the Nordic model is explicitly not socialist. Any economist worth their salt could explain this with ease.

They are market economies heavily taxed to push welfare systems ie healthcare, college etc. Naturally you will see more restrictive movements/outcomes in these systems such as longer wait times and lower survival rates for cancer etc in comparison to the US.

However, their economic models are far more laissez faire than the US.

A socialist model is as expressed in Cuba and VEN. The labeling is correct here. See VEN taking over their oil industry in 76, banned firearms in 2012 and they have become the Zimbabwe of the 21st century as of now.

The labeling of the Nordic nations as socialist is incorrect, even the Danish PM expressed as much in 2015 when visiting Harvard "I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy...the Nordic model is an expanded welfare state which provides a high level of security for its citizens, but it is also a successful market economy with much freedom to pursue your dreams and live your life as you wish."

Taxation is higher (VAT taxes to be clear) and luxury vehicle ownership in the middle quintiles are far lower per capita than the US for example due to how VATs are applied but a higher level of taxation doesn't implicitly equal socialism.

Market vs planned economies folks it's that easy.

[bandc]

Because the Nordic model is explicitly not socialist. Any economist worth their salt could explain this with ease.

They are market economies heavily taxed to push welfare systems ie healthcare, college etc. Naturally you will see more restrictive movements/outcomes in these systems such as longer wait times and lower survival rates for cancer etc in comparison to the US.

However, their economic models are far more laissez faire than the US.

A socialist model is as expressed in Cuba and VEN. The labeling is correct here. See VEN taking over their oil industry in 76, banned firearms in 2012 and they have become the Zimbabwe of the 21st century as of now.

The labeling of the Nordic nations as socialist is incorrect, even the Danish PM expressed as much in 2015 when visiting Harvard "I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy...the Nordic model is an expanded welfare state which provides a high level of security for its citizens, but it is also a successful market economy with much freedom to pursue your dreams and live your life as you wish."

Taxation is higher (VAT taxes to be clear) and luxury vehicle ownership in the middle quintiles are far lower per capita than the US for example due to how VATs are applied but a higher level of taxation doesn't implicitly equal socialism.

Market vs planned economies folks it's that easy.

I agree with everything you've said here. I've always been a proponent of a strong social democracy. I just use the word socialism to get people in here butt-hurt

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

[bacchys]

Because the Nordic model is explicitly not socialist. Any economist worth their salt could explain this with ease.

Yet both "conservative" critics and leftwing proponents talk about the Nordic Model as socialism.

It's a wonder why so many people are confused about what socialism is...

[wickedsolo]

Everyone always goes to Cuba and Venezuela and never brings up Nordic Countries

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

LMAO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bacchys]

Venezuela "worked" as long as oil revenues were enough to fund Chavez's programs. When the price of oil plummeted so did Venezuela's ability to maintain them.

Socialism will work when scarcity no longer exists. Which may mean never.

[Dade]

Socialism will work when scarcity no longer exists. Which may mean never.

Great point. All resources are finite.