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.
When one is given something, and does not have to work to EARN it they do not value it. They become entitled. That is what we have now in many ways. An entitled society.
I don't live in Brazil and know very little about Brazilian politics, so I can't speak to Maduro.
Maduro is the President of Venezuela.
Brazil and Venezuela are separate countries.
Venezuela has been and independent country (gaining it's independence from Gran Columbia) since 1830.
Brazil contributes to the UN's budget. Venezuela does not.
Quote:
What I do know is that here in the US, we often consider welfare to be a form of socialism, when it is not. Often, we call Scandinavian countries 'socialist' when they are not. They are largely free market states that have a robust social welfare safety net that is particularly effective at taking care of individuals. It is in no sense of the word "collectivist," it is hardly socialist in nature, and nothing about it even vaguely resembles communism. Yet people, including those who would support the American government adopting some of their policies, often consider is socialism, most notably Bernie Sanders, who I hardly see as being an actual socialist.
So I honestly cannot answer rather or not people think socialism works or not. The reason is becasue I have almost no faith that most people can correctly identify socialism at all.
Re the bolded....
Yet you couldn't correctly identify that Maduro is the President of Venezuela, not a Brazilian politician.
I reside in Brazil where the major left-wing party has publicly demonstrated support to Maduro. How come people still think that communism and socialism works?
Funny, your country has made great progress under left governments with their programs to reduce poverty.
Anyway, I don't think either extreme works. I prefer a mixed system, i.e. a strongly regulated, guided market system.
It is hard to evaluate the potential of socialism because the West doesn't want it to work anywhere, thus the sanctions on Cuba, the civil wars in Latin America etc. Who knows how Cuba would be doing without sanctions...
Capitalism leads to many problems, too. That is why every Western country has had to implement ways to limit the damages that system causes. Capitalism is similar to nature, but humans are not beasts. We can't tolerate parts of society - the less competitive losers - starving etc. Hence our massive redistribution systems, no matter what you call them and how they are implemented.
Unlike the US, arrest doesn't involve violence here unless you start a fight with the police. There's no inherent violence in being arrested for breaking the law.
Care to explain the bolded? Who throws away their furniture and buys new instead of paying taxes (wtf does that mean? You don't pay taxes on furniture you own) on what you already own?
And Europeans (unless they're uneducated idiots) know how much tax they pay on things they purchase, its right there on their receipt and the level of VAT is public knowledge.
I don't know which planet you come from, but here, one the planet of earth, arrest is a violent encounter or use of force. Laws aren't enforced by words - they are enforced by BIG MFing GUNS!
In the socialism most Americans speak of (everyone) owns the factories, land, and resources. And in that socialism there is democracy, 100% freedom, and the laws are created by all of society. And everyone from a school teacher to the president is equally respected.
But in all the countries you listed there are dictators, wealthy corrupt politicians controlling the country, no freedom of press or speech, violent police forces that keep those opposed to the government in their place, ex.ex.
How can you say socialism does not work when a true socialist country has never existed?
True socialism has never existed???? If you utter that in all the socialist countries, the people there would torn you into pieces for saying that.
Listen to me, a person who has lived through socialism.
You may think you can are immune from it as we are just "taxing the rich", the thing is once they finish the rich cats, they will go after the middle class, then the poor. They will NOT stop until everybody is dead.
You may think you are poor and you have nothing to offer. Great, they will send you to labor camp, conveniently named "community", to "work" without pay until you die.
in socialism nothing is moral, fair and just. It's an evil system! The people who support this evil system are either evil, ignorant or both.
No, I think you're talking about something else. We are not talking about that sort of thing at all. We are talking about some government administration or oversight of some things such as health insurance. Expensive, wasteful systems in which it makes sense for all people to pitch in for the common good. Things that everyone will benefit from in some way sooner or later.
It would make no sense for a person to hire a police force all for themselves (except for a few multimillionaires.) For most of us it makes sense to pitch in, and together, we pay for a police force, a fire department, an interstate highway system, health insurance. That makes these things cheaper for all.
It co-exists with capitalism. The original question about whether total socialism works, is a trick question. No one even wants that.
Law enforcement is a function of the government. Health care is not.
"Pitch in" should be voluntary. I am all for a voluntary "pitch in" system, and all those who have pitched in receive benefits. If they so inclined, they can extend the benefits to others who haven't pitched in. No problem at all - I would even personally pitch in voluntarily.
If you want to force people to "pitch in" at gunpoint, I'd suggest everybody should pay the same amount. Why should millions pay nothing and enjoy virtually all the benefit while others have to work and pay? In which way that is moral, just and fair?
Law enforcement is a function of the government. Health care is not.
"Pitch in" should be voluntary. I am all for a voluntary "pitch in" system, and all those who have pitched in receive benefits. If they so inclined, they can extend the benefits to others who haven't pitched in. No problem at all - I would even personally pitch in voluntarily.
If you want to force people to "pitch in" at gunpoint, I'd suggest everybody should pay the same amount. Why should millions pay nothing and enjoy virtually all the benefit while others have to work and pay? In which way that is moral, just and fair?
Many people do not agree with that. There is no natural law which says this or that is the responsibility of government. In the US law enforcement is increasingly outsourced to private companies, which I think is a dangerous thing to do.
Healthcare is in the interest of society as a whole.
I think what is missing today is that kids get educated on what a human society is, how it works, on right and duties, on the responsibility of the individual for society etc. Kids learn so many details, but not what their role in society is.
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.
