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.
Independence from overbearing government and self reliance was though, two things that are the antithesis of socialism. Socialists can't stand someone succeeding on their own and have this bizarre belief that they somehow deserve the fruits of someone elses labor.
Anyone who thinks they do anything on their own without the help of others is naive. Think about your own successes in life and think of the people who have educated you, helped you along the way, heck even the guy who paves the road you drive on has helped you in your successes.
I have paid my own way and then some every day since my 18th birthday. That is the difference.
All populations are divided between those who are productive which means they contribute more to society than they receive in return, and those who are non productive which means they receive more from society than they produce.
Where you stand on the subject of how much socialism society needs usually depends on whether or not you are productive.
The more dependent you are on socialism the more you support taking what your neighbor has earned and the stronger your feeling you are entitled to a share.
If you are self sufficient you tend to support the idea of the free market as the major vehicle for social transactions. You are willing to pay for anything you cannot produce yourself.
That is not really an accurate description unless you also support child labor because it is socialism that let you be a dependent on others until you are 18, and there will be a point in your life where you are too old to care for yourself which there are programs designed to prevent the elderly from falling through the cracks into deep poverty.
The cost of socialism is individualism and private ownership of property for the greater good, supposedly. You pull down the achievers and independents to mediocre and average, so everybody is equally poor and struggling. You don't own the product of your labor, that State owns you and what you produce, to be dispensed as they choose.
Not good governance. Freedom for individuals is a much better plan, and the freedom to fail is left up to you, as it should be.
The cost of socialism is individualism and private ownership of property for the greater good, supposedly. You pull down the achievers and independents to mediocre and average, so everybody is equally poor and struggling. You don't own the product of your labor, that State owns you and what you produce, to be dispensed as they choose.
Not good governance. Freedom for individuals is a much better plan, and the freedom to fail is left up to you, as it should be.
You must hate public universities and public libraries as well if you think socialism brings down achievers.
I have long thought that our interstate highway system is socialistic. Just think about it; anybody can ride on it whether they pay are not. My mother-in-law road the roads for years with one or the other of her children and never bought a gallon of gas nor paid any road taxes. None of us minded, because granny took care of our children, cooked some great meals and in general made us feel like a real family.
Don't remember anyone bringing up the subject of it being socialism but it kinda was.
I have long thought that our interstate highway system is socialistic. Just think about it; anybody can ride on it whether they pay are not. My mother-in-law road the roads for years with one or the other of her children and never bought a gallon of gas nor paid any road taxes. None of us minded, because granny took care of our children, cooked some great meals and in general made us feel like a real family.
Don't remember anyone bringing up the subject of it being socialism but it kinda was.
Somebody had to pay the taxes to maintain the roads and put gas in the car. If you chose to do that for her, that is not akin to socialism. That is gov't collecting taxes for infrastructure.
Schools are socialist, in that they aren't my kids, why should I have to pay to educate them? That should be left up to their parents. If they want to pay for a schoolhouse and a teacher, fine.
Somebody had to pay the taxes to maintain the roads and put gas in the car. If you chose to do that for her, that is not akin to socialism. That is gov't collecting taxes for infrastructure.
Schools are socialist, in that they aren't my kids, why should I have to pay to educate them? That should be left up to their parents. If they want to pay for a schoolhouse and a teacher, fine.
Ah yes, sounds like you want to return to the era of only those with money can afford private education.
That is not really an accurate description unless you also support child labor because it is socialism that let you be a dependent on others until you are 18, and there will be a point in your life where you are too old to care for yourself which there are programs designed to prevent the elderly from falling through the cracks into deep poverty.
You are seriously confused. Parental care is not socialism. And I will never depend on social programs because I do not need to. I pay many many times more into this pathetic system than I will ever receive back from it.
That is not their mantra. I suspect you`re a bit shy on book learning yourself. Have you ever left the country to see how others live?
I dont need to leave the country to understand sarcasm, apparently you do.
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.