Originally posted by jsobecky
, I would say that there are no historical examples of where Socialism worked.
After that, I would say that the basic tenets of Socialism are at first glance nice, but repugnant at deeper consideration.
Well there are a good number of welfare states like Sweden etc which are quite prosperous and quite competent economically and yet emulate many
Socialist measures. Moreover these nations are less wealthy than the US yet their citizens live much better lives with greater freedoms. Do you find
that repugnant ?
Originally posted by jsobecky
Egalitarianism says that all men are equal.
Americans believe that all men are created equal. That means we all have the same basic rights.
Socialism distorts that to say that all men are deserved of the same economic result regardless of contribution.
Egalitarianism means that all people should be treated as equals and have the same civil, social, legal and economic rights. Which the constitution
says all men are "created" equal, does that imply that after "creation" they become unequal ??
You are confusing Communistic Socialism from general social democracies. Socialism covers many theories, often most which hold contradictory beliefs.
While all attempts at Communism's socialism have failed, social democracies have thrived. No where does Socialism refer only to Karl Marx's
ideology. Socialism aims to promote social responsibility of each individual and their contribution to the society they live in.
Originally posted by jsobecky
Also, do you want to stop practices like Social Security, Medicaid, Medicaid etc because they help the majority more than it helps the individual ?
No. The problem is, people that have paid in, and are paying in, are being screwed because the fund has been raided. I support the privatization of
SS.
If Social Security had been privatized then, in the present market, people's social securities would essentially be at the risk of private companies
that would dime and nickel everybody for their deserved share just like private medical insurance even if they have been payng faithfully. Also, it
will push up retirement ages for Americans because companies will try raise their definitions of "old age", "disability" and "unemployment".
If the private Medical insurance is any reflection of the "private" sector's efficiency and social responsibility then private social security
would be yet another money making racket to rob the old, the disabled and others. In the name of capitalism are you willing to let this happen ?
Originally posted by jsobecky
Never. I would never let another human being starve to death. But giving taxes to the gov't so that they can dole it out is not the answer. Give it
directly to the charities.
What exactly is the difference between giving it to charities and giving it to the government?
Logically speaking, the government would be better suited to handing out food stamps etc because they already have resources and logistics to dispense
these things while charities would have to spend money to do the same things the government does thereby lessening their impact on society.
