This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
hartfire · 61-69
I'm not sure that it is, except to those who are not in favour of publicly funded social safety nets.
Socialism now bears no resemblance to its historical roots in Marxism - but the right love to characterise it as some kind of communist dictatorial agenda. The modern version incorporates democracy. It could still be regarded as having a general policy of "from each according to ability, to each according to need," but this is softened into a form that can work within a re-regulated form of capitalism with a social and environmental conscience. It would regulate to remove the laws that permit psychopathic behaviours in big business. It would not stop companies from making profits, but a greater share would go to the workers who produce that wealth. At least - that's how I understand it.
On the other hand - there are hundreds of forms of socialism, some so divergent that they're not even on the spectrum from centre to far left.
There are right-wing think tanks. I believe they are responsible for the media policies that promote the demonisation of the left and liberal agendas.
They don't work in secret - like conspiracies - but openly, publically.
Some examples include the: American Enterprise Institute, Ludwig von Mises Institute, RAND Corporation, Hoover Institution, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Heartland Institute, Discovery Institute, Acton Institute and many others.
They are funded by big business, international business cartels and private billionaires. They employ top-ranking right-wing intellectuals to do research and come up with ways of promoting capitalist agendas and sabotaging leftist politics.
There are also leftist, centrist and specialist think tanks - but sometimes I think the left are not doing a very good job. We should not sink to the same levels of name calling.
Rather, we should be explaining how the policies work, and showing the examples of success in other countries.
Socialism now bears no resemblance to its historical roots in Marxism - but the right love to characterise it as some kind of communist dictatorial agenda. The modern version incorporates democracy. It could still be regarded as having a general policy of "from each according to ability, to each according to need," but this is softened into a form that can work within a re-regulated form of capitalism with a social and environmental conscience. It would regulate to remove the laws that permit psychopathic behaviours in big business. It would not stop companies from making profits, but a greater share would go to the workers who produce that wealth. At least - that's how I understand it.
On the other hand - there are hundreds of forms of socialism, some so divergent that they're not even on the spectrum from centre to far left.
There are right-wing think tanks. I believe they are responsible for the media policies that promote the demonisation of the left and liberal agendas.
They don't work in secret - like conspiracies - but openly, publically.
Some examples include the: American Enterprise Institute, Ludwig von Mises Institute, RAND Corporation, Hoover Institution, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Heartland Institute, Discovery Institute, Acton Institute and many others.
They are funded by big business, international business cartels and private billionaires. They employ top-ranking right-wing intellectuals to do research and come up with ways of promoting capitalist agendas and sabotaging leftist politics.
There are also leftist, centrist and specialist think tanks - but sometimes I think the left are not doing a very good job. We should not sink to the same levels of name calling.
Rather, we should be explaining how the policies work, and showing the examples of success in other countries.
Lickitysplit · 70-79, M
@hartfire Capitalists do not oppose the "Social Safety Net." Many capitalists privately support privately funded social safety nets. I am an avid capitalist. I believe that as a wealthy nation with great resources, we as a nation must take care of those who are not capable of taking care of themselves. These include people who are aged, severely handicapped; those too ill or infirm to care for themselves; those who through no fault of their own cannot support themselves.
The social safety net should not include those who chose not to avail themselves of the free education our society provides. It should not include those who repeatedly father or mother children they are unable to support.
The US definitely has implemented "socialist" types of programs, social security, medicare, Medicaid, and various "social welfare" programs. I do not advocate, and most capitalists do not advocate doing away with these programs. Rather, we believe that the size, complexity, and power of government at all levels must be checked. We believe that the powers of the US Federal Government must be limited only to those powers enumerated in the US Constitution. I know this is not an original thought but it is true none-the-less: Any government that is powerful enough to give you everything you want, also is powerful enough to take everything you have.
The social safety net should not include those who chose not to avail themselves of the free education our society provides. It should not include those who repeatedly father or mother children they are unable to support.
The US definitely has implemented "socialist" types of programs, social security, medicare, Medicaid, and various "social welfare" programs. I do not advocate, and most capitalists do not advocate doing away with these programs. Rather, we believe that the size, complexity, and power of government at all levels must be checked. We believe that the powers of the US Federal Government must be limited only to those powers enumerated in the US Constitution. I know this is not an original thought but it is true none-the-less: Any government that is powerful enough to give you everything you want, also is powerful enough to take everything you have.
hartfire · 61-69
@Lickitysplit Thanks for your reply. I can't tell you how much I appreciate its polite and factual tone compared to some of the deliberately nasty language that is so prevalent on this site.
I see pros and cons in both private and publicly funded safety nets. Inefficiency, fraud and corruption seems common to both. This is part of the fallibility of human nature. I think we need to invent better ways of preventing it.
If this site is an example of what public education produces, then it is operating at a very low standard. The spelling, grammar and vocabulary wouldn't pass at K6 level. Few users here seem to understand the differences between fact, logic, belief and opinion, and few show a willingness to research or solve problems. I regard these as the most essential skills of a sound education.
As for people breeding when they can't take care of their kids - this is quite a complex issue. Most people's IQ clusters around the 100 mark, which is not very high at all - it's just enough for independence and a modicum of practicality providing there is enormous help from the wider society. 50% of people fall below the 100 mark. That means that those above will always be carrying the rest. But a good education can help improve all mental skills.
The WHO has found that if women have access to good free education and medicine, the birth rate drops to 1.5 children per couple within one generation. It is the highest predictor of improved economic growth and standard of living.
I see pros and cons in both private and publicly funded safety nets. Inefficiency, fraud and corruption seems common to both. This is part of the fallibility of human nature. I think we need to invent better ways of preventing it.
If this site is an example of what public education produces, then it is operating at a very low standard. The spelling, grammar and vocabulary wouldn't pass at K6 level. Few users here seem to understand the differences between fact, logic, belief and opinion, and few show a willingness to research or solve problems. I regard these as the most essential skills of a sound education.
As for people breeding when they can't take care of their kids - this is quite a complex issue. Most people's IQ clusters around the 100 mark, which is not very high at all - it's just enough for independence and a modicum of practicality providing there is enormous help from the wider society. 50% of people fall below the 100 mark. That means that those above will always be carrying the rest. But a good education can help improve all mental skills.
The WHO has found that if women have access to good free education and medicine, the birth rate drops to 1.5 children per couple within one generation. It is the highest predictor of improved economic growth and standard of living.