Are all subsidies "socialism"? (drugs, military, dollars, economy)
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 a group of people get redistributed money from the government, isn't it "socialism"?
For instance, farmers get subsidies from the government. Aren't they "socialists"?
When a group of people get redistributed money from the government, isn't it "socialism"?
For instance, farmers get subsidies from the government. Aren't they "socialists"?
Yes but you're kind of going to extremes here. I mean the Democrats don't support abolishing the US Army so doesn't that make the Democrats warmongers?
when a group of people get redistributed money from the government, isn't it "socialism"?
For instance, farmers get subsidies from the government. Aren't they "socialists"?
Maybe. But no one can agree on which subsidies are good, and which are bad.
Exactly.
When someone supports government funding, it is called a needed "subsidy".
When someone doesn't support government funding, it is called insiduous "socialism".
Exactly.
When someone supports government funding, it is called a needed "subsidy".
When someone doesn't support government funding, it is called insiduous "socialism".
Yep. Now are we all seeing how the inherent nature of our governing structure is designed to pin one half of Americans against the other?
Maybe both sides are right about certain issues, and if the other side would shut the F up for a minute and listen, we would finally understand who is wrong - the government.
When a group of people get redistributed money from the government, isn't it "socialism"?
For instance, farmers get subsidies from the government. Aren't they "socialists"?
The Dept. of Agri. also sets prices by determining what a farmer can grow each year. As part of a family that has farming interests, I would welcome the federal government to get out of my life in every way.
For starters, there is a difference between "Socialism" and social(ist) principles.
You are talking about social(ist) principles.
By default, humans acting upon a common goal MUST employ social(ist) principles. We NEED to pool our resources and work together in order to accomplish goals that an individual person can generally not accomplish when acting alone. It also serves our common interest to have "us, the people" exert control over certain basic necessities.
The military is one such example - one person alone can not defend the nation. Instead, we need a concerted effort by many, working together, within an organized structure, and toward a common goal.
Another great example are fire departments. Generally speaking, your taxes are used to pay for fire service - although some municipalities opt to have individual contributions. The latter, however, is only feasible IF population density is low. Imagine a dense city where the building of a non-contributor were to catch on fire. Fire does not simply stop at his house but will jump to neighboring buildings. If all neighboring buildings paid their contribution, the fire will likely be contained. However, if just one person did not contribute, the fire would simply start jumping from building to building until much of the city is destroyed.
Medieval Europe had some "fantastic" experiences in this regard...
In other words, it is in our common interest to employ social(its) principles.
In essence, something similar can be argued regarding farm subsidies. If farming repeatedly fails to yield profit, nobody will farm and will instead opt to sell the land for development or grow an alternative, profitable crop (drugs, anyone?). As a result, food production drops and food MUST be imported from abroad, thus creating a potentially problematic dependency on foreign entities. Imagine various foreign entities are in a crisis and decide to no longer export food stuffs to the US. Now you have a large population that will essentially face starvation UNTIL people decide to grow food again. Growing food does not happen overnight.
One could argue that people ought to simply be self-sufficient. Which is a great idea. Unfortunately, being self-sufficient takes a lot of effort and time. Thus, people must allocate more of their time to farming for themselves - which limits the time they can spend working elsewhere. Without that work, they lack financial resources while, at the same time, our economy will collapse.
In essence, farm subsidies are a necessity unless we all go back to an agricultural lifestyle without all the lovely conveniences of modern life... We have outgrown that stage in human development, though.
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.