Socialism: Good or Bad?
- Thread starter Fbuh
- Start date
The difference between a liberal and a democrat is well, liberalism.
The Democrats are a big tent party of Conservatives (Blue Dogs) Moderates (Most Democrats) and Dennis Kucinich, the token actual liberal.
Liberals are pissed at Obama for not repealing the Patriot Act, and going for the moderate Public Option instead of Single Payer.They also think he should do more towards gay marriage and decriminalization of certain drugs to total legalization of everything.
The Green Party is the most liberal party.
The Libertarian Party is moderately right wing economically but is moderately left wing socially and there is currently a Free State Project for New Hampshire in the works based on the Libertarian Party ideals and supported by normal libertarians,minarchists, and anarcho-capitalists.Although they aren't one and the same I'm guessing there is a huge overlap.
The Republicans are far right.
The Democrats are a big tent party of Conservatives (Blue Dogs) Moderates (Most Democrats) and Dennis Kucinich, the token actual liberal.
Liberals are pissed at Obama for not repealing the Patriot Act, and going for the moderate Public Option instead of Single Payer.They also think he should do more towards gay marriage and decriminalization of certain drugs to total legalization of everything.
The Green Party is the most liberal party.
The Libertarian Party is moderately right wing economically but is moderately left wing socially and there is currently a Free State Project for New Hampshire in the works based on the Libertarian Party ideals and supported by normal libertarians,minarchists, and anarcho-capitalists.Although they aren't one and the same I'm guessing there is a huge overlap.
The Republicans are far right.
The basic problem is that the fundamental view that americans have about their government is that government only has a responsibility to enforce contracts and property law. It goes all the way back to the founding of the US, and even the philosophers its founders subscribed to.
I mean this in the nicest way possibe, but you are completely and utterly wrong. How could a man who believed in racial superiority POSSIBLY be a socialist? How does that make any sense whatsoever? You realise that the central tenant of socialism is establishing equality in society? That's sort of not what Hitler was going for. At all.Ringas said:
You just stated one of my biggest grievances with the introduction of any new socialized service in the U.S. (well, socialism in general). Why should those who worked for their success be forced to give to those who are too lazy to help themselves? For every person who genuinely needs some sort of help, there are more people who simply expect it because it's offered; not wanting to do anything on their own to help themselves.Mcface said:
The problem with a system that stresses equality is that is seems to punish success. Taxing the rich more to give to those who are not as rich seems backwards to me. Why bother to work hard, save your money, and enjoy your hard-earned wealth when you will only be penalized for it?
The only logical system would be one that stresses the ability of the individual to succeed. How else are we going get people off their asses and work?
It's stupid... Really, it is.
People seem to dislike a system they don't even understand. Which makes asking the question "Which kind of socialism?" quite pointless. Hitler as a reason to disprove of socialism? Really?
Anyway I like socialism, or at least more than other systems.
Anyway I like socialism, or at least more than other systems.
I will go further to say that attempting to establish equality throughout all parts of a society is both futile and... Well... a bad idea.
Why redistribute wealth to those who are undeserving?
Let me put it this way - A hypothetical scenario:
I work 45-60 hours a week at my high-income job. I went to college, earned my masters degree, and I got my $80k a year job designing pumps for nuclear reactors.
Some idiot somewhere who had three kids by the time he was 18, sells/uses crack, and refuses to get a job because he does not want to (for sobriety reasons and/or because he's either lazy or apathetic) decides that he deserves a portion of my income because of his position in society - and the government mandates it through a socialized system.
How the hell is that fair, and why should I support his stupid decisions because the government says I have to? I would rather just see someone like that perish by their own stupidity than be forced to pay higher taxes to keep people like that happy.
Sure, there are people out there who need help getting by, but why not provide a means for them to help themselves without big government intervention? People will never learn if they can't make their own decisions.
Why redistribute wealth to those who are undeserving?
Let me put it this way - A hypothetical scenario:
I work 45-60 hours a week at my high-income job. I went to college, earned my masters degree, and I got my $80k a year job designing pumps for nuclear reactors.
Some idiot somewhere who had three kids by the time he was 18, sells/uses crack, and refuses to get a job because he does not want to (for sobriety reasons and/or because he's either lazy or apathetic) decides that he deserves a portion of my income because of his position in society - and the government mandates it through a socialized system.
How the hell is that fair, and why should I support his stupid decisions because the government says I have to? I would rather just see someone like that perish by their own stupidity than be forced to pay higher taxes to keep people like that happy.
Sure, there are people out there who need help getting by, but why not provide a means for them to help themselves without big government intervention? People will never learn if they can't make their own decisions.
I have to say, this topic caught my attention.
IMO, pure socialism (i will even say, utopian socialism, if that's what the op meant) is not a reliable economic (!) system, but not in a way that it may or may not be effective, but in a way that it may make people(with stable/good economical status) discontent because economic equality is not doable.
People need their properties and that is a fact that is not erasable; ranging from a teddybear to a 3-story mansion, a person will always have the need to... well, have stuff.
However, a society which preserves some elements of socialist economic system will only prosper (i.e reach economic stability and good life quality) if (in my opinion):
a) uneployment rate is low
b) -> gnp is at satisfying levels (i don't know if you'll understand this one)
c) employed people are productive (i will justify this with a fact: in my own country people with a 8-hour work day work 4 hours effectively ! + people retire very early, gaining the status of a retired person, thus receiving help from the health department. this causes a country to reach a state when there are less people working than retirees and children together. )
d) brain drain is reduced (countries invest in free education (at least in mine,but high education is paid), but if the person moves out after they received their (high) education, we can look at that investment as a loss, in terms of manpower and money)
These prerequisites, combined with increased personal liberties and provided welfare for those who need it, can lead to a much better system than pure socialism is.
However, these are all economy 101 things. Please, do correct me because i don't know if i've gone over my head or gone off the topic here. : )
IMO, pure socialism (i will even say, utopian socialism, if that's what the op meant) is not a reliable economic (!) system, but not in a way that it may or may not be effective, but in a way that it may make people(with stable/good economical status) discontent because economic equality is not doable.
People need their properties and that is a fact that is not erasable; ranging from a teddybear to a 3-story mansion, a person will always have the need to... well, have stuff.
However, a society which preserves some elements of socialist economic system will only prosper (i.e reach economic stability and good life quality) if (in my opinion):
a) uneployment rate is low
b) -> gnp is at satisfying levels (i don't know if you'll understand this one)
c) employed people are productive (i will justify this with a fact: in my own country people with a 8-hour work day work 4 hours effectively ! + people retire very early, gaining the status of a retired person, thus receiving help from the health department. this causes a country to reach a state when there are less people working than retirees and children together. )
d) brain drain is reduced (countries invest in free education (at least in mine,but high education is paid), but if the person moves out after they received their (high) education, we can look at that investment as a loss, in terms of manpower and money)
These prerequisites, combined with increased personal liberties and provided welfare for those who need it, can lead to a much better system than pure socialism is.
However, these are all economy 101 things. Please, do correct me because i don't know if i've gone over my head or gone off the topic here. : )
Equality is not necessarily good. I really hate saying that, because I want everyone to hold equal ground, but equity is the "fairer" system.
The fact of the matter is everyone votes with their wallets. If you're poor or don't want to work, socialism seems like a great idea because the government gives you a bunch of some rich dudes money. If you're rich socialism seems like a horrible idea because the government takes your hard earned money and gives it to some poor dude. It really all comes down to "Freedom vs Equality."
