Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Under socialism, the state forces people to provide goods and services to others w/o compensation.
How can anyone look upon that favorably?
Hater dupes think socialism is communism.Those were good for the economy and in no way are they anti-capitalist. Socialists like to pretend capitalism is synonymous with greed and corruption.In reality, successful economies rely upon various approaches. As one example, the United States would not have developed as it has were it not for the "socialist" policies of land redistribution by the government (Homestead Act, railroads), the Rural Electrification Act (the rural red Midwestern states could never afford it on their own), and the many, many public works departments across the land that provide utility access.
Capitalists have wanted an educated healthy workforce for many years. What planet are you from?Interesting. Can you look favorably on not providing education and healthcare to children whose parents cannot otherwise pay for it?
Why would America be a better place when only those who can pay for the full cost of education and healthcare receive it?
I think the dictionary is a good go to source for word definitions. I think most people are referring to the primary one:All these posts on socialism and each seems to define the word socialism to fit his own political beliefs. For some time America, as many nations is considered to have an economic system of capitalism and socialism. As someone once said, Americans liked socialist programs but hates the word. Can anyone give an accepted scholarly definition of socialism? Might be informative to also list all the different types. Wonder why Marx hated most forms of socialism but his own?
Yeah thats horseshit.In reality, successful economies rely upon various approaches. As one example, the United States would not have developed as it has were it not for the "socialist" policies of land redistribution by the government (Homestead Act, railroads), the Rural Electrification Act (the rural red Midwestern states could never afford it on their own), and the many, many public works departments across the land that provide utility access.
Capitalists have wanted an educated healthy workforce for many years. What planet are you from?Interesting. Can you look favorably on not providing education and healthcare to children whose parents cannot otherwise pay for it?
Why would America be a better place when only those who can pay for the full cost of education and healthcare receive it?
Under socialism, the state forces people to provide goods and services to others w/o compensation.
How can anyone look upon that favorably?
Interesting. Can you look favorably on not providing education and healthcare to children whose parents cannot otherwise pay for it?
Why would America be a better place when only those who can pay for the full cost of education and healthcare receive it?
I'm not trying anything. I'm saying that isn't socialism. Using the term "elements of socialism" means that you don't think so either. Private health care is better than government health care, I've experienced it first hand. And private ed is kicking public ed's ass so even those "elements of socialism" is a big fail.Are you trying to claim that public education and Medicaid, etc., are not socialist programs, or are you conceding that Capitalism is better with elements of Socialism included?
Under socialism, the state forces people to provide goods and services to others w/o compensation.
How can anyone look upon that favorably?
Interesting. Can you look favorably on not providing education and healthcare to children whose parents cannot otherwise pay for it?
Why would America be a better place when only those who can pay for the full cost of education and healthcare receive it?
Your belief that those children are getting an education from the current system is laughable. A private system of education would actually educate children and not just warehouse them along along with a bunch of hoodlums where they will be assaulted on a daily basis. They wouldn't have their brains soaked in liberal Kool-Aid and be bombarded by propaganda and serve as the target of various agendas by numerous political groups.
I'm certain there are more than enough caring liberals willing to pool their funds and provide an education for those who can't afford it, right?
^^Hater dupe. Not a single truth. Charter schools are worse than public schools. Change the channel and read something.I'm not trying anything. I'm saying that isn't socialism. Using the term "elements of socialism" means that you don't think so either. Private health care is better than government health care, I've experienced it first hand. And private ed is kicking public ed's ass so even those "elements of socialism" is a big fail.Are you trying to claim that public education and Medicaid, etc., are not socialist programs, or are you conceding that Capitalism is better with elements of Socialism included?
Under socialism, the state forces people to provide goods and services to others w/o compensation.
How can anyone look upon that favorably?
Interesting. Can you look favorably on not providing education and healthcare to children whose parents cannot otherwise pay for it?
Why would America be a better place when only those who can pay for the full cost of education and healthcare receive it?
Your belief that those children are getting an education from the current system is laughable. A private system of education would actually educate children and not just warehouse them along along with a bunch of hoodlums where they will be assaulted on a daily basis. They wouldn't have their brains soaked in liberal Kool-Aid and be bombarded by propaganda and serve as the target of various agendas by numerous political groups.
I'm certain there are more than enough caring liberals willing to pool their funds and provide an education for those who can't afford it, right?
Ok, so we deny poor kids any education they can't pay for and then how soon will poor kids be better educated?
I'm not trying anything. I'm saying that isn't socialism. Using the term "elements of socialism" means that you don't think so either. Private health care is better than government health care, I've experienced it first hand. And private ed is kicking public ed's ass so even those "elements of socialism" is a big fail.Are you trying to claim that public education and Medicaid, etc., are not socialist programs, or are you conceding that Capitalism is better with elements of Socialism included?
In reality, successful economies rely upon various approaches. As one example, the United States would not have developed as it has were it not for the "socialist" policies of land redistribution by the government (Homestead Act, railroads), the Rural Electrification Act (the rural red Midwestern states could never afford it on their own), and the many, many public works departments across the land that provide utility access.
Can anyone give an accepted scholarly definition of socialism?
In reality, successful economies rely upon various approaches. As one example, the United States would not have developed as it has were it not for the "socialist" policies of land redistribution by the government (Homestead Act, railroads), the Rural Electrification Act (the rural red Midwestern states could never afford it on their own), and the many, many public works departments across the land that provide utility access.
Funny that those who say it will lead to our downfall don't have a problem driving to the store on government maintained highways.
There's strength in numbers.
Can anyone give an accepted scholarly definition of socialism?
Socialism which allows man to thrive with no effort from his own hand is a lot different than a socialism providing common infrastructure and protection of private property rights.
It is the former that is the issue.
