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.
This is why they’re failing. They point to countries like the following below as true democratic socialism. And claim have a better quality of life compared to the US. I’ve never lived in the following countries so I can’t comment either way. What do you say.
Denmark Finland Netherlands Canada Sweden Norway Ireland New Zealand Belgium
The two countries you complained about are subjected to severe economic embargos. The others you list are not. Their relationships to the US are the determining factor in the split. The two countries obviously have very attractive economic assets which are coveted by other governments.
You nailed it! Scandanavian countries would all go bankrupt w/o oil. Most people there don't have kids until late in life because they cannot afford kids. Their birth rates are very low. The cost of living is very high.
Again, not all Scandinavian countries have oil. Sweden and Finland don't have oil, Denmark doesn't have a lot. Norway does have a lot.
Castro led the revolution "for the people". Any system that puts too much power in the hands of government is vulnerable to becoming a dictatorship. Our own nation is moving toward socialism every election cycle, and I have no reason to believe that we will get there eventually. Then a few generations people will have to shoot their way out.
Yes, it does look like we are heading in that direction. The central government partners with Big Tech to control our access to information, for one thing.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,493,065 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnesthesiaMD
I have been to every country on your list except New Zealand. They are all wonderful places to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there.
In my opinion, they do probably have a better quality of life for the less ambitious people of society. I would even go as far to say that their form of government promotes laziness in people that might otherwise be ambitious in a more capitalist country. But if you are middle class or upper class, the quality of life in the USA is far superior.
Also, I have been to Cuba, with Cuban friends from here in the states. So I got to see the REAL Cuba, and not just the fancy hotel where we stayed. We spent most of our time with their families and friends. Again, that form of government promotes laziness and punishes ambition. In recent years, they started allowing Cubans to own their own homes and businesses to a limited degree. But just dont make too much money. If you buy something expensive, or if a neighbor calls the government on you, the government will send people to search your home and confiscate your stash of money.
The bolded paragraph is where conservatives and liberals differ biggest in thought.
Conservatives view of economics is that people have to have a metaphorical boot pressed down on their necks, and have things as difficult and stressful as possible in order to have any "motivation" to do better. The end result is a few people are very successful while the rest suffer for simply not being as smart or as talented.
While most liberals (not extremists) deal with reality that most are not smart enough or talented enough to be successful without some safety net. So while the 1% may just be semi well off instead of stupid rich, the masses are at least somewhat comfortable without having to worry about how to pay for Healthcare or education etc
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,493,065 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by beach43ofus
You nailed it! Scandanavian countries would all go bankrupt w/o oil. Most people there don't have kids until late in life because they cannot afford kids. Their birth rates are very low. The cost of living is very high.
People can't afford to have kids here in the US anymore either. Get with the times
The bolded paragraph is where conservatives and liberals differ biggest in thought.
Conservatives view of economics is that people have to have a metaphorical boot pressed down on their necks, and have things as difficult and stressful as possible in order to have any "motivation" to do better. The end result is a few people are very successful while the rest suffer for simply not being as smart or as talented.
While most liberals (not extremists) deal with reality that most are not smart enough or talented enough to be successful without some safety net. So while the 1% may just be semi well off instead of stupid rich, the masses are at least somewhat comfortable without having to worry about how to pay for Healthcare or education etc
There's a difference between a safety net and outright rewarding people for pumping out kids and acting in an irresponsible manner. We need safety nets that encourage good behavior such as obeying laws, getting jobs, having sex with responsible people who might make good parents in a nuclear family type setup, etc.
In the same way bailing out corporations when they went into debt buying back their stock.. I just see that as rewarding bad behavior. At some point people need to be allowed to fail because a lot of learning and growth come from failure. Preventing failure at all costs will lead to societies that decay over time. Allowing people on section 8 already to stay on it for 10+ years while still pumping out kids should be unacceptable. Irresponsible behavior should be punished or you encourage it to repeat.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,493,065 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by sholomar
There's a difference between a safety net and outright rewarding people for pumping out kids and acting in an irresponsible manner. We need safety nets that encourage good behavior such as obeying laws, getting jobs, having sex with responsible people who might make good parents in a nuclear family type setup, etc.
In the same way bailing out corporations when they went into debt buying back their stock.. I just see that as rewarding bad behavior. At some point people need to be allowed to fail because a lot of learning and growth come from failure. Preventing failure at all costs will lead to societies that decay over time. Allowing people on section 8 already to stay on it for 10+ years while still pumping out kids should be unacceptable. Irresponsible behavior should be punished or you encourage it to repeat.
That's another difference conservatives and liberals have about people.
Conservatives think that most people are, left to their own devices, lazy, stupid and evil
While most liberals think the majority of people are good and well intentioned
People can't afford to have kids here in the US anymore either. Get with the times
Can’t win with these people. Complain that Scandinavians don’t have kids until later because they can’t afford them and then complain about Americans having kids they can’t afford.
I doubt the OP has met many socialists as there are not many. Conservatives don’t seem to understand the difference between socialism and advocating for a stronger social safety net within a strong capitalist country.
I’ve been to many of those countries. Not perfect, but people are definitely happy. Less stressed. Not stressing about paying for healthcare and college is a big deal. We are a bigger, wealthier country. I bet we can do better.
This is why they’re failing. They point to countries like the following below as true democratic socialism. And claim have a better quality of life compared to the US. I’ve never lived in the following countries so I can’t comment either way. What do you say.
Denmark
Finland
Netherlands
Canada
Sweden
Norway
Ireland
New Zealand
Belgium
Add
Spain
Italy
Greece
Holland
Germany
Czech Republic
France
to your list.
Almost all of Europe is now democratic socialist.
Dictators arise when socialism collapses in a democracy.
Dictators also arise when conservatism collapses in a democracy.
Democracies need both in rough balance to stay healthy. There has to be strong opposition to a slightly stronger social direction to keep a democracy from becoming a dictatorship.
The social direction can be toward fascism as readily as toward socialism. The direction doesn't matter.
The collapse happens once the opposition is overwhelmed to the point it cannot reorganize and continue to oppose.
But if the leader at that moment allows the opposition to re-form and reorganize itself, and does not seize the government, the democracy will continue on, stronger than it was before.
A dictator has to be present before a dictatorship can happen.
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.
