Rant

Post Reply New Topic

Part of the problem is that liberalism, socialism, progressivism and communism all creep into each other. Socialism does not work because people are corrupt. Ask the "National Socialists," the "Union of Soviet Socialists," or, if that is too extreme for you, look at Greece, Spain or U.S.A. Socialism does not work because people are greedy and corrupt. I'm sure you can name a number of countries that it is currently working in... Give it time. If given the opportunity, people will destroy themselves and socialism gives them that opportunity. It reminds me of the fall of ancient Greece.

"Strong public sector" is a bit vague. I don't think that you could call the WTO protestors libertarians. I'm sure plenty of them are, but there are pleanty of reasons to not like the WTO.

Liberalism does not speak to the nature of governance. I understand that some governing is necessary to keep people from stealing and hurting each other, but it should be kept to a minimum, but you are right the difference may not be worth mentioning for the means of this dialogue.

That is a rather simple definition of capitalism that you are proposing; however, it is very accurate.

Agreed, capitalist systems in many other countries are frightening. I was being a bit rash in defending all capitalism. I am a bit biased being only exposed to "American Capitalism," but still no one has offered a viable alternative.

Just for clarification: greed: excessive or rapacious desire, especially for wealth or possessions.

I agree with you almost entirely, but it's the government taking from one to give to another that I can not agree with, at least in the case where the receiver perpetually receives. Is it more moral for the government to commit the theft for them?

american capitalism proides less economic freedom according to the freedom index compared to many more socialistic countries,

you are right, coruption is hurtfull in socialism, and capi8talism, and, and, and,

ther real issue here has nothing to do with economic or political systems but the people participating in it, unless you want to screen that things wont change.

Which is exactly why I am a libertarian. The less power the government has the less it can abuse it.

You think that U.S.A. isn't a socialist country. Where have you been for the last three years? We are pratically the a communist country.

Last edited by TheBrain on 22 Sep 2011, 8:07 am, edited 2 times in total.

without thought that only leave others to do the abusing,
there is no absolute way to make these things work, which is why the demonisation of any one side is wrong.

i agree anything that only affects you or those that choose to should be able to do just that, however there is plenty of places and ways we as humans need oversight to function(as a society)

I will hold up Canada and Germany as counter arguments. Both countries practice imporant elements of socialism. We tax progressively and our public sector is a significant participant in wide ranging social programs. And despite our socialistic tendancies, we lead the the G8 in major trend indicators.

Socialism works when the governments that practice it temper socialism with prudent fiscal policy, it fails when they do not.
Capitalism fails when governments that practice it fail to exercise prudent policy, it succeeds when they do.



I appreciate that it's vague, but I will try to put some more detail on that. I believe that there are sectors of the economy where services benefit everyone, but it is in noone's direct commercial interest to provide it. In these areas government must ensure provision of that service, either by becoming a direct service provider, or by providing someone with a commercial interest to do so. The list of these sectors, in my view, includes: law enforcement and security (police, fire and military), transportation infrastructure, primary and secondary education free to the consumer at the point of delivery, medically necessary health care, and income support (public pensions, welfare and employment insurance).

That doesn't mean that government has to run the schools and hospitals. Vouchers for education, and a public framework for medical insurance may just as readily fit the bill--but government must ensure that the service is provided, and that means paying for most of them or at least the difference between a reasonable cost to the consumer and the actual cost of delivery.

As for the WTO, I think I will let your later statement about "defending all capitalism" close that off.



That is precisely what Liberalism speaks to. Liberalism is, at its root, the belief in the freedom of the individual--and in particular the freedom of the individual from government interference. The American and French revolutions were the pinnacle of Liberal thought overthrowing systems of governance that failed to extend freedom to individuals. The freedom of capital that is the root belief of capitalism is the financial analog to freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of association and freedom of thought, belief and opinion.

The trick comes in finding that "minimum."



Now we are on a much more reasonable argument--is there a proper role for government in the redistribution of wealth, and if so, what is the scope of that role?

Well, the former is the easier question. There is most assuredly a proper role. public pensions, unemployment insurance, and the enforcement of maintainance for children are all examples of the government exercising coercive force to move money from one pocket into another. Only the fiercest conservative would suggest that these are not proper activities for government.

So really we are down to a question of scale, and here I think we can agree to disagree. I believe that we have achieved a better balance in this country than you have in yours--but my view is subject to the same bias as yours. But even with universal, government funded medical insurance we are still capitalist and here you and I can find common cause.

my personal view is tht a government should make the starting grounds as even for people as possible,

free education, free healthcare and a healthy economic growth are all prerequisites for that.

free education so everyone has a proper chance at showing their potential, no matter where they were born in the social spektrum,

healthcare so that potential talent isnt wasted before its begun and the economic growth is a prerequisite for a healthy job market.