This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Tatsumi · 31-35, M
Under the states which have employed socialism? None. Except perhaps Sweden, which is socialist; however, I've heard arguments that it's unsustainable or that . Even so. It exists, and it seems to be working pretty well, aside from [b]claimed[/b] funding issues.
But you likely already live under socialism. Socialism is an economic system which establishes the priority on humanity. Capitalism is an economic system which establishes the priority on profit and infinite consumption.
Let's start off by saying that it is [b]very clear[/b] which economic system has ultimately benefited humanity the most, to this point. Capitalism has brought us a great deal--however, it has also stolen it from many others.
Anyway, you already live under socialism. Most economies are "mixed economies", meaning they employ aspects of socialism and capitalism. For instance, medicare/caid, police, firefighters, public libraries, public parks, community colleges. These are socialist bills. They are government controlled and operated businesses which charge significantly less or nothing for public services which we all enjoy than the private sector.
U.S. healthcare is an example of what happens in unrestrained capitalism.
1 in 4 Americans will unwillingly miss meals. 1 in 5 children in the U.S. will unwillingly miss meals. And we are an exorbitantly wealthy country.
The goal of socialism is to make that impossible. If nothing else, to provide these safety nets which won't allow people to starve or live on the street. Or, in my case, be unable to fix potentially life threatening conditions without being rich, even though I'm a hard-ass worker and am in college studying Computer Science. i.e. A benefit to society.
My question to you is, why wouldn't anyone want to make sure the less fortunate do not starve and suffer? If you're simply very self-centered, then even within that context, you should want everyone to be as stable as possible, so your children don't get shot by a crazed lunatic who's desperate and beaten down.
But you likely already live under socialism. Socialism is an economic system which establishes the priority on humanity. Capitalism is an economic system which establishes the priority on profit and infinite consumption.
Let's start off by saying that it is [b]very clear[/b] which economic system has ultimately benefited humanity the most, to this point. Capitalism has brought us a great deal--however, it has also stolen it from many others.
Anyway, you already live under socialism. Most economies are "mixed economies", meaning they employ aspects of socialism and capitalism. For instance, medicare/caid, police, firefighters, public libraries, public parks, community colleges. These are socialist bills. They are government controlled and operated businesses which charge significantly less or nothing for public services which we all enjoy than the private sector.
U.S. healthcare is an example of what happens in unrestrained capitalism.
1 in 4 Americans will unwillingly miss meals. 1 in 5 children in the U.S. will unwillingly miss meals. And we are an exorbitantly wealthy country.
The goal of socialism is to make that impossible. If nothing else, to provide these safety nets which won't allow people to starve or live on the street. Or, in my case, be unable to fix potentially life threatening conditions without being rich, even though I'm a hard-ass worker and am in college studying Computer Science. i.e. A benefit to society.
My question to you is, why wouldn't anyone want to make sure the less fortunate do not starve and suffer? If you're simply very self-centered, then even within that context, you should want everyone to be as stable as possible, so your children don't get shot by a crazed lunatic who's desperate and beaten down.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
StrictSouthernHOH · 46-50, M
@Tatsumi With the possible exception of national defense, anything the U.S. federal government does can be, and often is, done better and at a lower cost by the private sector. The profit motive is the reason.
PicturesOfABetterTomorrow · 41-45, M
@StrictSouthernHOH lol. It is so cute that you actually believe that. Where do you get your info PragerU youtube channel? lol
PicturesOfABetterTomorrow · 41-45, M
@JAYS21 The very reason they don't have it is because you live in a country that values shareholder dividends and profits over human lives. And actually pretty much all public healthcare in the world does it better and cheaper. Hell a 10 year study proved that the richest Americans get the same level of care as welfare recipients in the UK on NHS and the Americans pay double for the same result.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
PicturesOfABetterTomorrow · 41-45, M
@JAYS21 Says the person who can't even spell.
And Mick Jagger is hardly the definition of making intelligent health decisions. lol
And Mick Jagger is hardly the definition of making intelligent health decisions. lol
StrictSouthernHOH · 46-50, M
@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow Do you really want people to die from illnesses that could be managed or cured just so nobody earns a profit? Do you get paid for the work you do?
PicturesOfABetterTomorrow · 41-45, M
@StrictSouthernHOH Actually. That is most likely to happen in a for profit healthcare system like in the US. Objectively speaking that is what happens based on the evidence. And thousands if not millions who don't die that day are in financial ruin which it is not a stretch to suggest they have a much more likely chance of dying next time around because they are broke. Based on the facts alone public healthcare does a much better job. In fact a for profit system increases the likelihood of a serious pandemic because people will avoid going to a doctor because they can't afford it and will go to work sick because they can't afford not to.
Unlike you I don't have to base my ideology on a fictional situation.
Unlike you I don't have to base my ideology on a fictional situation.
StrictSouthernHOH · 46-50, M
@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow How would people needing medication to live or function well do so if those drugs did not exist?
PicturesOfABetterTomorrow · 41-45, M
@StrictSouthernHOH Lol. You are seriously making that argument? That is cute. You are not even aware that that argument actually goes against your ideology. Look up the facts genius. The vast majority of R&D for drugs around the world is funded mostly by public funds not private corporations. About the only part in the process corporations play is marketing. In fact certain drugs were buried in the US all because the big pharma corporations couldn't make money of the patents. Do any of you clowns actually read because throwing out own goal arguments like this?
PicturesOfABetterTomorrow · 41-45, M
@StrictSouthernHOH And in the US most of those people you speak of cross the border into Canada where we don't allow companies to extort our citizens for shareholder profits.