"Socialism always fails, even so-called democratic socialism"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maxirad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JamesCaruso said:
A universal private-sector system will work better with government help in three areas: pre-existing conditions, people who cannot afford insurance, indigent people. Healthcare must become competitive with no bars to entry. Also, lawsuit reform and rules against price gouging by drug companies will help keep the cost of insurance down.

Not everyone should go to college but in terms of upward mobility, it helps for those capable. One can only go so far in most cases without education. Of course, there will always be exceptions.
Click to expand...
You will get no argument form me there…a healthier society would bring about change we cannot even imagine…nor fathom.

As much as we spend on weapons of war to kill people I would gladly look at a way to take monies from all departments of the government to provide healthcare to anyone in need and to heal people.
 
Kaninchen said:
I tend to see capitalism more as a phenomenon like weather which human beings try to cope with in various ways.
Click to expand...
This is an interesting view. I have sympathies with it. The force in capitalism does indeed appear to be human greed/selfishness unregulated. All the other systems are different forms of regulating or limiting this ‘force’ and its destructive potential while maintaining its creative power.

I never buy the myths touted by libertarian individualists that market forces will eventually solve everything. No, they did not solve the problems of slavery or child-labour or other forms of exploitation until people fought to impose regulation in forms of prohibitions.

They will not end abortion or unjust wars or the barbaric practices in animal breeding and killing in some of those factories/industries whose horrendous, unwatchable videos I’ve seen on youtube (to my eternal regret) or the destruction of the ecosystem. Morals-based regulation must always intervene to curb the destructive power of human greed and selfishness. The only question is how much.
 
Last edited:
Rubee said:
This is an interesting view. I have sympathies with it. The force in capitalism does indeed appear to be human greed/selfishness unregulated.
Click to expand...
Weather and capitalism are both complex systems with many different patterns going on at the same time and we have only rather primitive ways of understanding how they inter-react - many deal with it by a kind of religious view of economics - adopt a set of attitudes/do a set of activities and you’ll be ‘saved’, any failure being down to ‘sinners’ (those without the correct set of attitudes and who fail to do the set of activities) rather than the fact that the whole business is a lot more complicated than that. Lots of people like simple answers though.
Rubee said:
Morals-based regulation must always intervene to curb the destructive power of human greed and selfishness. The only question is how much.
Click to expand...
Perhaps we need to learn to live with the fact that we make mistakes, should always be prepared to make mistakes, always be prepared to acknowledge our mistakes and always be prepared to learn from them.
 
Last edited:
However that 100% tax rate can be at a high threshold. The existence of millionaires is not incompatible with distributism; the enemies of distributism are state ownership, industrial conglomerates, big business cartels etc, not private wealth per se.
 
Maximian said:
However that 100% tax rate can be at a high threshold. The existence of millionaires is not incompatible with distributism; the enemies of distributism are state ownership, industrial conglomerates, big business cartels etc, not private wealth per se.
Click to expand...
There isn’t one without the other and these businesses must be owned by somebody.

Naturally it would be subject to inflation changes, but I nice figure I’ve heard tossed around is 10-50 million dollars wealth.

Folks that wealthy can take whatever trips they want and live in pretty much any house they want. But they lack the wealth sufficient to single-handedly bully their industries and broader society.

Just my opinion, fallible as it is.
 
Last edited:

Once one of the richest countries in the world with a plethora of natural resources, Venezuela is now one of the poorest and at the bottom of the list for places to conduct business. With the backing of full-blown communist regimes, the slide toward socialism and the nationalization of entire industries by the government is directly to blame.
In 2006, former Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez ran on an openly socialist platform, won and immediately started a government takeover of every private industry in the country. The economics were immediately changed for the worst, eventually collapsing into what we’re seeing today with extreme poverty, starvation, lack of basic medical supplies and more. Adding insult to injury, Chavez’s successor, Maduro, has been blocking desperately needed humanitarian aid from entering the country.
The second lesson is about the Venezuelan government’s 2012 decision to force citizens to turn in their firearms under the guise of combating crime.
 
The Anti-Defamation League - which has no history of pro-Islamic bias - rejects the “Muslim invaders” thing as total nonsense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top