Not too far off the mark as far as the general response of most people is concerned. In terms of something actually substantial: 1) Our government has time and time again proven itself far too inept and incompetent to manage something even vague socialist. 2) We pride ourselves on being (claiming to be) a capitalist nation, which doesn't work well with socialized services. More significantly, the rich idiots with power aren't going to keep growing their riches in a socialist environment, everyone else be damned. 3) Despite what they'd say to the contrary, the rich and powerful love exploiting the system for their own means (see 2). 4) We've got 232 years of legal cruft that would make such a system pretty much impossible without a revolution. I think that with the right people managing it and the right legal environment to back it up, socialized services would be quite appropriate in a number of areas. We already do it for quite a number of things already (roads, police, fire departments, etc) without the socialized label, and while you can argue about their effectiveness, they tend to be on the whole better than our mess that is health care for example. Whenever someone wants to start talking about socialized health care, the person against it comes up with all sorts of random straw-man arguments based on stereotypes (omg look at British teeth, see what socialized health care gets you?!) and it goes nowhere. Part of the problem is that democracy, or rather the democratic republic we have, doesn't work well with 300M people - especially when most of them are apathetic morons. Forging ourselves into an American Union of sorts would introduce a lot of initial panic but in the long run would probably work out reasonably well if done right - basically, just abolish the federal government and leave things to the states, in true libertarian fashion. For all of the problems that our currency is experiencing right now, it would make no sense to break it down by state/region IMO, and relatively open borders for interstate commerce would be critical (as we have them now). Simply put, most of our problems come at a national government level - politicians that 49% of the country hates, lobbyists buying nonsense laws over an entire country (of course that'd be a problem if there were only state laws as well, but at least it could be slowed down or stopped in some areas by them having to repeat the process fifty times over), etc. There would probably be a lot of segregation as a result, especially politically, but with a proper free market and all of that stuff the problems would mostly sort themselves out over the course of a few years.
Nor collect stable healthcare, poverty reversal, improved living standard, distribution of wealth, etc. Just look at Canada, they're obviously drowning in communism from their socialist government. Just don't vote Obama and America will remain strong and free. GOD BRESS AMRICA!
Americans tend to think socialism=communism. And don't care enough to learn the difference. Yet, they love to cry about how the government need to do more. See Katrina, petrol prices, and the home loan fiasco. Only a socialist government would bail out banks that were failing due to stupidity, a free market democratic one would have let them fail so more robust institutions could emerge. If Americans were really so anti-socialism then we wouldn't have FEMA and the FDIC, or Social Security. Health care is the last hold out, the last gasp at a proud heritage washed away by the voters apathy and citizens refusal to fulfill their obligations. I long for the day when Americans admit that the poor choices at the polls, choices based on selfishness, are the reason for our nations ills and decline, not the the governments of other nations nor the followers of religions we don't want to understand. The Americans have become a land of whiners and hand out junkies with an inferiority complex. Everything is someone else's problem, but we still need to beat up some people time to time. We are nothing now, but bullies with no credibility. If Benjamin Franklin could see us now, he's hang his head in shame.
Utopia would be a wonderful place to live. However, human nature means the reality is much more Animal Farm.
So long as all parties agree to it, then yes I am (despite your clouding of the issue with emotive terms, you're basically describing anyone who doesn't work at the lowest eschelons of society - so yes, I am ok that there have to be managers in life). You don't understand because you haven't thought it through. Taxation takes from those who have money by threat of state-sanctioned force. The only difference between taxation and gunpoint robbery/extortion is that taxation is the state-sanctioned variety of those things. Employment on the other hand is voluntary. Both parties agree to it. So the two things are completely different.
... lower crime rates, less poverty, better education that is actually affordable, not having to live with crushing cc debts, less unimployment, less chances for douchebags to earn their 56th bilion by sacking 60.000 people while robbing their retirement funds, roads, judges, police, not having to pay protection money to Don Scarlotti, ...
>boss: "i have a job for you, you work 6 hours a day, 7 days per week, each hour of work you do will make me 1000€ richer, you will get 2.5€, no job security, no health or dental." >person: *thinks that this is the only job he can do, even if he is a splendid doctor/engineer, but due to the high unemployment of the country he must do this job or die of starvation because there is no government help for him (none of the taxes are used for parasites that cant get a job)* "i accept the job" *i hope my wife does not get unemployed, or we will have to go live under a bridge, my wage with this job only covers 2/3 of the bank loan and the loan is rising almost every month due to capitalistic forces* is this ok with you? (the above job does exist, i did it during part of my holidays) do you propose a country without taxes?
No, that sucks - but it is moral. Both parties are agreeing to the exchange of work for money. With taxation, one party can disagree and still have their money forcibly removed from them. That's why it's immoral. No.
Compare the best examples of socialism against the worst examples of anarchism, what an argument. Person: "No thanks, i'm going to offer my skills to another company that'll pay me better with more benefits." Why do you think doctors and lawyers (especially lawyers) are so highly paid?
Because doctors and lawyers both screw insurance companies for everyone else's money. In America the hospital pharmacies can charge $300 for a bottle of Ibuprofen because the patient doesn't have to pay for it, the insurance company does.
congratulations, you are among the 600 000 people (10 000 000 population) that are unemployed and have the same skills (and sometimes better skills) as you, you will now be responsible for the starvation of your family and the forcing of you giving your house to your bank and get nothing in return because you can not pay them. here it is submit or die, thank God we have unemployment funds that help people survive.
It's immoral, but you still want to keep it. You are contradicting yourself here. Also, the employee from the example does not have any choice. What other company? They are all the same.
No, I'm not contradicting myself. Yes it's immoral, yes I want to keep it. I never said I was moral. Of course the employee has a choice. He can choose to work for one company, or another company, or not at all if he doesn't like any company's terms. That's choice. You don't have a right to employment, and you don't have a right to exist.
We're getting lost in semantics, which is fun, but besides the point. I think it's a good discussion with insightful participants. I like the thread qeuestion a lot, and would like to re-state it. Do you really prefer the cut-throat way above the commie way? If so, why, what's in it for you? Now for the semantics, because i cant resist Granted, but if you are not moral, there clearly must be other reasons for you to be against taxes. While not directly contradicting yourself, you are invalidating the arguement you made just a breath earlier. Again you invalidate your own arguement. If you define choice like you do, you can either choose to pay your taxes or don't pay them. Obviously, they will try to make you pay them, but there are ways to spend the money before they get their hands on it. Oh sure, you'll do jailtime, but it's still choice. ahem. And nobody said that everybody has a right to employment. Socialism doesn't define it as a basic right, but it does say the state should provide jobs for everyone, be it private or community. As for the right to exist... yikes dude, there's this list of universal human rights that the UN made. Google it. In case you are uninterested, here's article 3:
he then chooses to starve to death, by the way it is illegal to starve to death, by ones choice, in countries that follow the human rights convention... it is considered suicide. you have the right to life according to the human rights convention.... so since you pop up in existence for some reason that is not your fault and not controlled by you (unless you remember being a spermatozoon), then you have a right to exist.
And then the pharmacy goes down the tubes because the one across the street offers the medicine for competetive prices. Or you go out there and accept the job, it's a choice. A company can offer very low wages and very bad working conditions, or they can offer high wages and good working conditions. Given the choice who would you work for? With a lack of skill the first company loses money.
how about there being a lack of jobs (aka the first opening for you may be your last) and all jobs that appear are of the "very low wages and very bad working conditions" kind? here you have no choice, either you do the "very low wages and very bad working conditions" job or you are unemployed......... or you know someone that wedges you into some job that you are not qualified to do but at least you have a medium wage job and do jack s*** all day.
