You mean who pays for the nice stuff, or the unemployment benefits?
Intel i7 5820K (4.5 GHz) | MSI X99A MPower | 32GB Kingston HyperX Fury 2666MHz | Gigabyte Windforcex3 HD 7950 | Samsung 951PRO nVME 512GB | Crucial M550 256GB | Crucial MX200 1TB | Western Digital Caviar Black 2000GB | Samson SR 850 | Zalman ZM-Mic1 | Noctua NH-D15 | Fractal Define R5 | Seasonic X850
Former author of the TankSpot.com Protection Paladin guide
Socialism is a good thing in a reasonable amount, just as capitalism and many other isms are. None of these work 100%, we're too random for that.
It's just too simplistic to slap these labels on when you're talking about a species with an uncharacteristic egoitistic/individualistic streak coupled with the traditional group living, down on a core level. Especially things like socialism will never ever work 100% while human beings have an ego, simply because there is no standard 'human' for everybody to be.
But I do think that some practices within its field is good. There are way too many that think that communism for example is bad through and through, while praising the greatly flawed capitalism to extremes - both have their good sides, and both certainly have their bad sides too, as we prove in the real world day after day.
and no you can not do what every you want in America.go try and start up a car compain and watch what the big 3 "ford,gm,dodge" do to you.they will make you go threw hell and back so you do not have the chance compete against them at all.its happens before,
Preston Tucker for example.walmart what do you think they are doing to mom and pop shop owners?and they have the backing of the American goverment lol.sure from time to time someone can make it big,but you can do that anywhere.
o and i would like to add i never brought up communism at all,you did.if you want to know what i think is/was the best ran government that earths has every seen?well i would have to say the socialist government we seen in Germany when Hitler was in power. and no im not talking about the wars and all that.im talking about the way the government ran and did things for its people.Germany was the first county to have social security,worker rights,pensions plans,ect. it took Germany from one of the poorest nations post ww1-to the richest most powerful,most advanced nation on earth.so that alone should show you that socialism can and does work.hell our capitalist goverment had to steal german techs lol,we had to copy the german highway system.we had to copy there ss system,worker rights ect.dont let our goverment fool you and trick you into thinking that capitalism is the only goverment that works,because its not.
Last edited by meathead; 2012-07-14 at 03:42 AM.
40 hour standard work week with overtime compensation.
I lean towards anarchocapitalism personally, but I do enjoy some of the finer, smaller contributions of labour-centric socialism, particularly (and exclusively) as they pertain to the rights of the individual labourer. I don't support "big union" labour though.
EDIT: As far as the minimum wage point goes though, I think it should be enough that if somebody is paid minimum wage they should be able to subsist by working 40 hours a week, I don't support 'run-away' minimum wages that just end up driving inflation and screwing over the middle class.
Last edited by Gheld; 2012-07-14 at 04:00 AM.
Socialism is nice in principal but next to impossible to adequately enact.
All socialism means is the government takes over certain things in our society, like schools, military, and hospitals. You know, things that shouldn't be run for profit! Too many people here in America have this impression that the free market is perfect and best left alone. The brainwashing they receive from groups like the Tea Party that strongly imply that if you need the government to help you, then you aren't having a tough time finding a job or getting health care, you are just lazy. True socialism brings equality to (mostly) everyone, but leaves very little room for personal advancement.
hell I'm in the 15% bracket (married filing jointly) and I only paid 3% after deductions..
---------- Post added 2012-07-14 at 05:01 AM ----------
---------- Post added 2012-07-14 at 05:06 AM ----------
I find a slight irony that some of this discussion has transgressed into a Capitalism vs Socialism/Communism. While Capitalism is pretty much a contradition of those two societies, it feels like people are saying the United States' government is Capitalism... it's a Republic the last time I checked, with capitalistic tendacies.
While we can get into a whole discussion over which system we would prefer to live under (and if you like the form of government in your country, far be it from me to tell you that you're wrong, it's your country!), as a citizen of the US I'd prefer the country to remain a Republic. I will admit that our form of government has begun to stray from what the Founders intended, however they knew exactly what would happen. Many of the great minds behind the US Constitution didn't just make up a form of government randomly, they had studied many forms of government and decided on our special form of a Republic (attempts at Democracies, monarchies, and socialistic forms of government have been around for thousands of years). If you want true insight into what they were thinking, please feel free to read documents such as the Federalist papers to see what they really meant.
I cannot do justice with such limited space, but I can generalize as best as possible the reasons why the Founders decided upon this form of government over things like democratic, socialistic, or authoritarian societies. I noticed quite a few posts citing the problems with all governments, and that is man can become corrupted... well, the Founders knew the governments (and the people that run the governments) tend to want to grow in power and become corrupt, hence the lengths at which the US Constitution goes to make sure the government cannot wrest the liberties of the people away. This lead to the separation of the governmental powers, checks/balances, the election system, the enumerated powers of branches of government/states/people, etc. The government is designed to be inefficient as to prevent them from assuming power over its citizens. However, even with all these systems in place, the Founders knew this system of government could still be corrupted. So what was to keep the government from doing so?
The citizens of the United States. It is the responsibility of the US citizens to ensure that their government remains as the Republic envisioned in the US Constitution. This is why the right to vote is supposed to be the most important duty of a citizen.
Now, I believe the US government is sliding towards a socialistic version of itself. This has been a slow process, starting over a hundred years ago, and the current result is what we have today. The two-word summation is soft despotism, feel free to look up what that is. Only the citizens of the country can rectify the situation, and those wishing for the country to degrade into a socialistic society know this. That is why tiny things have been added to the US government over the years, and while they are supposedly "for the good of the people," in the end they are a form of control. In order to prevent people from voting those in power out, the people are conditioned so that such occurrences do not happened.
If you want the most recent version of such control, as it's a pretty popular subject now, is nationalized healthcare. Well, first and foremost, dating back as far as Plato and his version of a Utopian society, Hobbe's Leviathan, and to more modern conceptions of Communism and Socialism, the big cornerstone of control lies in the centralized control of the health and well-being of the populace by whoever ran their respective societies. While I'd recommend people read these instead of taking my word for it, their concept of healthcare always resulted in a form of control by those in charge of the society. You think rationed healthcare based on what the government deems necessary and "death panels" are new concepts? They're needed for these societies to function, and these men stated explicitly why, the summarized version being for the good of the society. However, starting as early as Plato, the forms of government failed because they would all oppress the governed people in the end. Again, I'm doing broad stroke summaries, feel free to read each individual work to get the exact details.
I'd also like to tackle a different aspect of people's points of a socialistic society spreading the wealth and providing for everyone.
Having been part of a government-run healthcare system before, I'll let you know right now: it does NOT give everyone healthcare as advertised. If you're even lucky enough to get healthcare (yes, you can still be denied care with nationalized healthcare), compared to private healthcare you wait much longer to receive care and the quality of care is worse. Have you ever been told by your doctor, "Well, I want to do this procedure for you since it's better and has a higher success rate, but the regulations say I can't do that for you. I can perform this other procedure for you, but it's likely a waste of time and won't work."? Guess what... I was told that. Welcome to government-run healthcare.
The next argument that will be thrown around is how the poor cannot afford X and Y, some of which is healthcare. While it'd be easy for me to say that many cases of being "poor" are severely relative, especially in the US compared to other countries, I'll offer up my own personal experience. Yes, when growing up in the US I was poor as a child... we're talking "dinner is saltine crackers with a dab of ketchup" poor, assuming there was dinner that night. However, government didn't help my family out of poverty, our church and community did. Little by little, we worked hard and bettered our condition of living to where we are today. There was no sense of entitlement, in fact we hated receiving free things and made sure we earned what we got. No, I wasn't a criminal because of my poor upbringing, if you're wondering.
The whole concept of people working together for the betterment of other people is very good and alive, but its place is with the people, not a government. If the government comes along and says you need something, chances are it's something you can already get, whatever your circumstances may be. In the US (and likely elsewhere), if I asked you if you would trust a politician, what would you say? Likely, one would say no. If you say no, why do you think it's a good idea to let someone you don't trust control aspects of your life?
In closing, I'll offer a little bit of American history since it relates to the discussion at hand. When the US Constitution was being formed, there were mainly two sides to the discussion, the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. Some may automatically think these directly translate into Republican/Democrat, but that's actually not true as the current parties have evolved quite a bit over time. The Federalists wanted a weak, centralized government while leaving the bulk of the power to the States/citizens, and the Anti-Federalists wanted more of a confederacy of States with no central government. Notice something? Both sides were in agreement that the US did not want a big, centralized government holding the majority of power (like what the US has today). Unfortunately, in socialistic societies, the government must retain most, if not all, the power over the people... which is the exact same thing as oppression, the opposite of what the country was founded upon.
Last edited by exochaft; 2012-07-14 at 05:34 AM. Reason: clarifications