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.
Welfare is used in socialist countries but that does not make welfare itself socialist.
The logic displayed is this:
1) Socialist countries have welfare systems
2) The United States has a welfare system
3) The United States is a socialist country
Using the same logic as above we could do this:
1) Fascist countries have flags
2) The United States has a flag
3) The United States is a fascist country
And this:
1) Terrorists use computers
2) cjma79 uses a computer
3) cjma79 is a terrorist
It's called a non sequitur argument. I could go on and on.
No body is saying or questioning that US is socialist.
US have a lot of socialist programs.
You said in the other thread that there are 2 choices: socialism or capitalism.
Yes, by program, by IDEA.
Like our schools system is socialist(free education)
Like our Social Security is socialist
Like our Medicaid is socialist
Like WIC is socialist
Like Sec. 8 is Socialist
Like the projects are Socialist
Like the bailout of 700 B is socalist.
Like giving tax free money to the poor is Socialist
that doesnt mean our COMPLETE GOVERNMENT IS SOCIALIST.
Again is a balance, of capitalism and socialism.
Cuba is almost 100% capitalism.
US is not 100% capitalism, everytime the government gets involved in the economy is socialism.
Oh and please respond on the other post where I have plenty of links(and from 2 universities) talking about welfare=socialism
Yes, by program, by IDEA.
Like our schools system is socialist(free education)
Like our Social Security is socialist
Like our Medicaid is socialist
Like WIC is socialist
Like Sec. 8 is Socialist
Like the projects are Socialist
Like the bailout of 700 B is socalist.
Like giving tax free money to the poor is Socialist
that doesnt mean our COMPLETE GOVERNMENT IS SOCIALIST.
Again is a balance, of capitalism and socialism.
Cuba is almost 100% capitalism.
US is not 100% capitalism, everytime the government gets involved in the economy is socialism.
Oh and please respond on the other post where I have plenty of links(and from 2 universities) talking about welfare=socialism
I now understand we are talking about individual ideas but you're begging the question.
Why is Obama a socialist if one of his ideas occurs in socialist societies?
Why don't you call McCain a socialist because he supported the bail-out?
Also, the links don't talk about how "welfare=socialism" they talk about the down-sides of socialism, welfare being one of them.
There's no point in having 2 open threads about this. Let's continue this on the other.
The judges overlooked the potentially rewarding initial post because the idiocy that followed by respondents' failure to consider the adjective "socialistic" in favor of the noun "socialism" to make sense of the, apparently, rapidly typed title displays a level of stupidity we rarely see.
What concerns me about welfare and why personally I'm against it is on the principal that it puts you at the mercy of the state when you are vulnerable.They are all kinds of arguments put forward that it exists to protect when you are dire straits. This is great so long as the state is willing to help but history has shown that the majority of governments can only conceive of you as a number to provide it with income(tax). During hard financial times the government will see you as a economic liability and further reduce its assistance. It is never in the interest of any citizen to be at the mercy of a possible uncaring government, if anything during hard times ideally the best solution is too pool your talents and resources with family and friends and local community. Create local live/work coops with your neighbours and take care of each other, similar to amish or mennonite communities but with electricity. Not only would it be better for self worth but can often help teach and learn essential life skills useful during disasters.
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,458,803 times
Reputation: 6670
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcmastersteve
What concerns me about welfare and why personally I'm against it is on the principal that it puts you at the mercy of the state when you are vulnerable.They are all kinds of arguments put forward that it exists to protect when you are dire straits. This is great so long as the state is willing to help but history has shown that the majority of governments can only conceive of you as a number to provide it with income(tax). During hard financial times the government will see you as a economic liability and further reduce its assistance. It is never in the interest of any citizen to be at the mercy of a possible uncaring government, if anything during hard times ideally the best solution is too pool your talents and resources with family and friends and local community. Create local live/work coops with your neighbours and take care of each other, similar to amish or mennonite communities but with electricity. Not only would it be better for self worth but can often help teach and learn essential life skills useful during disasters.
So what is it, you're getting tired of that free Canadian health care system up there? Hey, if it bothers you so much, don't accept it!
Or better yet, move down here where you won't have to worry about having those kinds of pesky "choices", from an "uncaring government".
Somebody should define socialism. A key element in its most pedestrian (and perhaps least relevant) definition involves varying elements of state ownership of the means of production. By that standard, half the things in <cjma79>'s list simply disappear from it. In its basic (and perhaps most relevant) form, the definition of socialism covers any degree of cooperation between individuals in pursuit of common goals.
At this more general level, the choice is not between socialism and capitalism, but between socialism and anarchy, such that the formation of societies at all becomes a socialist act. Societies have been reliably formed by humans (as social animals) since the very earliest of their evolutionary days. The primary purposes of these societies have been to accomplish such things as risk-sharing and redistribtutions of income. Whether to establish justice, insure domestic traquility, provide for the common defense, or promote the general welfare, every society enagages in and promotes socialism. It is how these things get done. Such objectives are far too important to be left to market vicissitudes, particualrly under something so narrow and fickle as capitalism, the sole purpose and focus of which is the accrual of more capital.
No society meanwhile wisely ignores the potential effectiveness and efficiency of markets. But these are hardly unique to capitalism. Markets can and do exist and function successfully under any number of alternate political and economic paradigms, and there is no a priori reason at all why one should be exclusively associated one with the other. Capitalism itself meanwhile offers a potentially effective model for accumulating the means by which society might realize further economic growth. It does not however offer any guaranty that such will be delivered. It can and has been diverted to other ends, such as the building of huge private and corporate repositories of wealth and power that might and often do operate to the detriment of society as a whole. This is not a provident outcome.
In such light, a common sense approach might be to recognize that the society of which we are all members is in and of itself a socialist construct, and that under it, both the energies of capitalism and and the dynamism of markets are elements to be managed and directed, just as a coach driver must manage and direct the efforts of two fine horses in order that passengers be delivered safely and assuredly to their destinations. Too tight a grip on the rein, and progress is slowed. Too loose, and there is the growing risk of a runaway. There is ample room for debate over a driver's proper approach...the conditions of the road, horses, coach, and passengers all coming into play. There would not however appear to be room for arguing that there shouldn't be a driver at all.
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.
