Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ok that's a crock. And by "The American Thinker" of course.
"Lately, a shocking percentage of American voters are eager to have a government that fails at everything from healthcare to illegal immigration put in charge of controlling more stuff."
Yup, that's what we have but no, people are objecting to it all. Socialism? Check Denmark, Switzerland, Norway, Finland, Iceland, Sweden, etc.
Or are they too good to catch your attention and interest?
Let's talk about capitalism for a second. Capitalism is a liberal ideal (bare in mind that when I say liberal, I mean it in the proper context, not the watered down vague word we use to describe anything left of "center;" we're at the big kid table now so we use big kid logic, not the little kid media logic). It came about in the age of the Enlightenment, as ideas like contract law, rights, and democarcy became more prominent in resistance to the feudal state. America had to fight 3 times over this issues. The American revolution was a literal fight against a feudal state, one that was battling internally on this same issue as the monarch was losing more and more power to a representative form of government (parliament). They successfully separated from the feudal government and instituted their own. It failed. Yes, it failed.
The War began in 1765, the colonists declaring their independence in 1776, and actually securing it in 1783 when the treaty with England was signed, marking the end of the war. The Articles of Confederation were written in 1767, and was ratified again in 1781. This government was deemed a failure and replaced in 1789 by the Federal Government under the current Constitution. What does that mean? It means the government started by the revolutionaries collapsed. Liberalism, and by logical connection, capitalism, failed.
Let's keep going, because it happened again!
In 1861, seven states in the union seceded from the United States. While some deny that this was about slavery, it kind of was. Those state weren't doing it out of hateful racism or anything like that. Those states relied on slavery as part of their capitalist system. Turns out, work for free is highly profitable. Humans are unbelievable efficient and while most humans work for pay, if they are a one time purchase, they are a more profitable thing, therefore slavery makes a lot of money. Many say that capitalism ended slavery, but that's false. Liberalism ended slavery. Capitalism exists under liberalism of course, so it had it's role, and by it's nature, I'd say capitalism is against slavery, but it's also pro-profit, as only what is profitable succeeds in a capitalist system.
I digress, when those states left, they didn't want the federal government, at that point the American government successful implementation of liberalism and capitalism, interfering with their business. So a war was fought to end the institution of slavery and restore the union. But let's look at the broader picture. Liberalism out of principle, is against slavery. Expecting people to work without pay is a violation of their inherent human rights. This means that up until 1865, the US government still had not successfully separated itself from the feudal system as it was still harboring slavers.
My point being that capitalist countries weren't ever and remain to be failing too. Many do alright and did alright, but even so, many still turned to socialism. Just as capitalism was a reaction to feudalism, socialism was a reaction to capitalism. I'd say that capitalism was objectively an improvement from feudalism; and interestingly enough, so did Karl Marx. Socialism may be the next improvement. We'll see. While full on communist states tended not to do too well (for a variety of reasons), some are introducing socialism in only certain areas slowly overtime, and they're doing ok. Some hiccups here and there, but none are on the brink of collapse.
To simplify: it's complicated. More complicated than "socialism=bad; capitalism=good."
Ok that's a crock. And by "The American Thinker" of course.
"Lately, a shocking percentage of American voters are eager to have a government that fails at everything from healthcare to illegal immigration put in charge of controlling more stuff."
Yup, that's what we have but no, people are objecting to it all. Socialism? Check Denmark, Switzerland, Norway, Finland, Iceland, Sweden, etc.
Or are they too good to catch your attention and interest?
Nice try, but your oft cited countries don't have a segment of their populations that flat doesn't work, nor has any intention of being a contributing citizen.
They don't tolerate it. Get my drift?
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 20 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,549 posts, read 16,535,254 times
Reputation: 6032
Quote:
Originally Posted by finalmove
Nice try, but your oft cited countries don't have a segment of their populations that flat doesn't work, nor has any intention of being a contributing citizen.
They don't tolerate it. Get my drift?
Which means you still agree that the idea of socialism people in this country support would work, you just have to make everyone work.
Which means you still agree that the idea of socialism people in this country support would work, you just have to make everyone work.
Which means you think the OP's link is wrong.
Wrong. My idea of the truly needy would remind one of the 1940's.
Benefits not handed-out without background checks and in-person interviews at the recipient's residence.
Some would qualify and some wouldn't.
Wrong. My idea of the truly needy would remind one of the 1940's.
Benefits not handed-out without background checks and in-person interviews at the recipient's residence.
Some would qualify and some wouldn't.
There still are interviews for welfare. This does include a background check. ~1% of fraudulent cases are caught. Most people within the system agree that there are probably more, so an improvement to the background checks is likely necessary. This would probably require more funding, which you aren't going to like.
Ok that's a crock. And by "The American Thinker" of course.
"Lately, a shocking percentage of American voters are eager to have a government that fails at everything from healthcare to illegal immigration put in charge of controlling more stuff."
Yup, that's what we have but no, people are objecting to it all. Socialism? Check Denmark, Switzerland, Norway, Finland, Iceland, Sweden, etc.
Or are they too good to catch your attention and interest?
Scandinavian-Americans live longer and are wealthier than Scandinavians. Only advantage they have is demographics.
Any people of color nations doing better than the USA?
Ok that's a crock. And by "The American Thinker" of course.
"Lately, a shocking percentage of American voters are eager to have a government that fails at everything from healthcare to illegal immigration put in charge of controlling more stuff."
Yup, that's what we have but no, people are objecting to it all. Socialism? Check Denmark, Switzerland, Norway, Finland, Iceland, Sweden, etc.
Or are they too good to catch your attention and interest?
They all tax regressively instead of progressively like the US. Ready to switch to regressive taxation?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
