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.
Now, we buying huge planes at $50 million a pop only to roll them directly from the factories into mothballs because no one wants them. To make this even more incomprehensible, we are not even making the cargo planes. Like the Russian helicopters that the Afghans cannot fly, we are buying the cargo planes from Italy . . . and we are continuing to order more as we struggle to find places to dump them.
Still we have to have a military(albeit perhaps not such a big one). But we don't have to have government owning and operating health care, education, mass transit, or even the Post Office.
Government control eventually kills a society. Here is a good example;
-----------------------------
Whether a state has a more corporatist flavor or a more “socialist†flavor (crony systems typically have both) it is the denial of prices, the denial of reality, which leads ultimately to disaster. If the pricing mechanism isn’t allowed to work distortions in the economy arise. Distortions make the system wobbly, and sooner or later the system is off the rails.
And out of toilet paper.
You believe capitalism cannot fail? Isn't the economic crash of 2007 an example of a failure of capitalism?
"If we examine the activities of governments, we begin to realize how far we are from living in a “capitalist†world; that the economies of most countries are subject to substantial government intervention. In last year’s Economic Freedom of the World report produced by Canada’s Fraser Institute, Hong Kong was found to have the freest economy, South Africa was 87th and Zimbabwe 141st. The difference in government policies between the freest to the least free is enormous."
Over 2,000 years ago ancient Rome built the first highways so by your definition they were a socialist society?
Not hardly.
Socialism is when the state gives an individual something he didn't earn when he has the ability to earn it on his own.
This is wrong. The definition of socialism is government (or collective) ownership of the means of production. Here is a definition I have posted before from a financial writer named Doug Casey:
Quote:
A "communist" is one who believes in. state ownership and control of both the means of production and distribution(factories, fields, stores and the like), and of consumer goods (houses, cars and the like). Mao's China, Kim's North Korea, and Hoxha's Albania came close to that ideal.
A "socialist" is one who also believes in state ownership and control of the means of production, but allows private ownership of consumer goods. The old Soviet Union and today's Cuba are fair examples.
A "fascist," from a strictly legal point of view, is one who allows the private ownership of both the means of production and consumer goods, but strict state control of both. In economic reality, fascism tends to foster a regime of economic regulation so extensive that private ownership is reduced to
little more than a legal formality.
Either you didn't read the post to which you responded, or your reading comprehension is slim to none.
I understand perfectly well.
The point being interstates are a prime example of what some categorize as socialism in this forum. That definition is also especially used in describing some sort of national healthcare for this country.
No, roads are not given to a single person they belong to everyone unlike the free healthcare and free food and free housing some seem to believe the government owes them.
What I said was "Socialism is when the state gives an individual something he didn't earn when he has the ability to earn it on his own." with emphasis on "individual".
No, roads are not given to a single person they belong to everyone unlike the free healthcare and free food and free housing some seem to believe the government owes them.
What I said was "Socialism is when the state gives an individual something he didn't earn when he has the ability to earn it on his own." with emphasis on "individual".
There is a difference in free healthcare and a national healthcare system. Nothing is free. Particularly healthcare and interstates.
But accepting one (the concept of gov't providing for the common good) is implicitly accepting the other.
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.
