Democratic Socialism explained

[Fjordsen]

A good read if you're skeptical or curious about Socialism.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/12/11/explaining-socialism-to-a-republican/

And no, it's not ''spreading the wealth'' or ''Stealing from the rich and give to the poor''.

 

[Zephael_]

Govt funded collegiate education would be a godsend. It would encourage people to get higher education because often the barrier it's the inability to pay for the education. It would also stop universities from uselessly spending millions every year on advertising for more tuition and donation money. (Sounds counterintuitive but it's a vicious cycle)

 

[Jack_Reacher]

Pretty good article, EtKEnn. It is good to have some programs be socially funded. The big debate is: "Which programs should be socially funded?"

 

[Diavolo1988]

What is a country's biggest value? - The people. How to increase the value of the people? - Education. How do you get as many as possible educated? - Give education for free.

With free schools and higher education one gets a smarter country overall, which leads to smarter voters, better science and less spending on public health (since smarter people tend to take care of themselves better). Free schools pays it's price back to the country manyfold.

When it comes to free public health, it's all about keeping your investments safe from dying. (as every educated person is an asset)


Well, that was socialism viewed from a completely cynical and economical viewpoint. It's still profitable. However, the main reason for having socialism is that we are human, we have hearts, and we care.

 

[Zephael_]

But the cynical view is also a correct view. Why is thinking about it from the standpoint of money a bad thing? A wealthy country is better than a poor country.

The reason people don't like democratic socialism is because the programs are technically not free. The money comes out of either tax dollars or direct payment, as in the case of Obamacare. On an individual basis people may see it as the govt taking the people's money, or being forced to pay for services that you don't need. However a lot of people do not see that these programs make those services overall cheaper for everyone, and that these programs are a benefit for everyone to have.

 

[Kainzo]

Honestly,
The goal of the government should be to provide very basic infrastructure. Everyone agrees that this is true but where is the line of infrastructure, to some it's a good school system, to other it's basic roads and to some it's a complete encompassing medical care system.

Many states in America have free education for kids/teens who show that they are worth spending money on. Georgia uses its Lottery money/tax to provide free education to those who can complete a minimum amount of schooling in highschool and then you get a "free ride". This power should be a state power, not a federal mandate, much like marriage, schools, local enforcement and healthcare.

I would prefer to have as little as government interaction as possible. Any more than the raw-essentials and it's infringing on my rights, mask it whatever agenda you wish but it's still infringing.

 

[j2gay]

@EtKEnn As it is important to know both sides of an issue please also read Liberty and Tyranny and/or the Liberty amendments by Mark Levin. If you want to go back further you can read The Federalist Papers, the articles known as the Anti Federalist papers, the speeches of Melancton Smith or the works of Locke. Your author's definition of democracy is in error and the premise is naive. Democracy allows the majority to rule. If you put limits on this you no longer have democracy (which is good because democracy sucks, just ask Socrates). The author also forgets that governments are run by people. Corruption and mismanagement is inevitable. The larger the organization, the further removed it is from oversight and the greater the opportunity and occurrence for such things is. Another thing missed, perhaps deliberately perhaps naivety, is that not everyone needs the programs he proclaims to "benefit all". Asking someone who can afford certain resources to pay for someone who cannot, a person who they will then need to compete against for those same resources, benefits the one side at the expense of the other, a condition which republicanism and/or federalism (the basis for the US constitution) is specifically designed to remedy.
I will say no more for now save that if any of you are truly interested in politics and the philosophies behind them please do your own research and be informed, do not trust the modern media. The media outlets are owned by the same people who are running the governments and driving the policy. Despite what they may tell you there is not a single Republican or Democrat holding US office. The only real debate between the Rino's and the Dino's is how quickly each one thinks you can be stripped of your rights and given over to tyrants without a fight. The debates about healthcare and Conservative vs Progressive policies are just cover for the systematic transition from a system by which we the people grant unto the government certain limited rights that we may take back at any time, to a system by which they the government grants us at its discretion certain rights which they may strip away from all or some when the feeling strikes them. Please stop letting your feelings drive you and start using your mind while you still have the right to.

 

[lioIIoil]

The only reason we should have a government is to protect the peoples freedoms.

 

[Archestro]

The cycle of governments

revolution

rebuild on idealistic beliefs of the current revolution

fast or slow corruption of those beliefs to suit the rich

years of common people being discontent but unwilling to disrupt their day to day because they don't really want to be bothered with what everyone is doing

revolution

wash/rinse/repeat

Anyone who wants to be in charge probably shouldn't be

 

[j2gay]

The cycle of governments

revolution

rebuild on idealistic beliefs of the current revolution

fast or slow corruption of those beliefs to suit the rich

years of common people being discontent but unwilling to disrupt their day to day because they don't really want to be bothered with what everyone is doing

revolution

wash/rinse/repeat

Anyone who wants to be in charge probably shouldn't be

Yes, you can get an amen.

 

[xxxCTHULHUxxx]

The problem is not within the education system. The problem is the amount of jobs available. Lets say everyone becomes educated on a collegiate level. This factor does not produce more jobs. Capitalism, Socialism, and communism are all double edged swords. Meaning they all have great benefits and great problems. On paper they can all work. The problem is human corruption and mismanagement that ruins all three systems. The first reason capitalism exists is due to people wanting social mobility ( historically their was no middle class until capitalism look it up). The other two systems greatly hinder a person's ability to better themselves. The second reason capitalism exists is because every scientific advancement over the last 150 years is directly correlated to the competition and opportunity that capitalism provides. I'm not saying that the good things outweigh the bad, because in many cases they do not. I'm just saying that no matter which system people follow their will always be a group of people who exploit the rest. If I have my choice I'd rather have the opportunity to advance my status while being exploited.

 

[Kainzo]

Working for yourself is the best way to go.

Am I currently punching the clock? Yes.

Will I break away and do my own thing 24/7, yes! (Herocraft save meee)

 

[Fjordsen]

The problem is not within the education system. The problem is the amount of jobs available. Lets say everyone becomes educated on a collegiate level. This factor does not produce more jobs. Capitalism, Socialism, and communism are all double edged swords. Meaning they all have great benefits and great problems. On paper they can all work. The problem is human corruption and mismanagement that ruins all three systems. The first reason capitalism exists is due to people wanting social mobility ( historically their was no middle class until capitalism look it up). The other two systems greatly hinder a person's ability to better themselves. The second reason capitalism exists is because every scientific advancement over the last 150 years is directly correlated to the competition and opportunity that capitalism provides. I'm not saying that the good things outweigh the bad, because in many cases they do not. I'm just saying that no matter which system people follow their will always be a group of people who exploit the rest. If I have my choice I'd rather have the opportunity to advance my status while being exploited.

Democratic Socialism seem to work great for countries like New Zealand, Sweden, Norway and Denmark though. The rich pay higher percentage of tax, so the social differences are minimal. Yet they are capitalist states built on welfare, so you can still work your way to the top like in any other capitalist state. However the big difference is that there is much more support for the average person.

 

[j2gay]

Democratic Socialism seem to work great for countries like New Zealand, Sweden, Norway and Denmark though. The rich pay higher percentage of tax, so the social differences are minimal. Yet they are capitalist states built on welfare, so you can still work your way to the top like in any other capitalist state. However the big difference is that there is much more support for the average person.

Great for who? What is the benefit of working to the top and how much harder is it than it should be? Also Democratic Socialism is an oxymoron.
Who moves the world?

 

[lioIIoil]

Democratic Socialism seem to work great for countries like New Zealand, Sweden, Norway and Denmark though. The rich pay higher percentage of tax, so the social differences are minimal. Yet they are capitalist states built on welfare, so you can still work your way to the top like in any other capitalist state. However the big difference is that there is much more support for the average person.

I don't think that socialism supports the average person. It is supposed to do that but what happens eventually everyone gets poorer. Why work if you can get most things for free?

 

[Fjordsen]

Great for who? What is the benefit of working to the top and how much harder is it than it should be? ?

People who earn more pay more percentage tax, people who earn less, pay less percentage tax. Should also mention that a politician sitting in the parliament earns about the same as an average norwegian. You can still get super rich and live a life in luxury, but if you earn 300 million a year, it only means that there will be 150 000 million more money for society to use. (50% income tax).

I don't think that socialism supports the average person. It is supposed to do that but what happens eventually everyone gets poorer. Why work if you can get most things for free?

Good thing the countries I mentioned aren't socialist then.

 

[Jack_Reacher]

Why work if you can get most things for free?

This is very important, and it is the reason Communism doesn't work and Socialism is inefficient.

 

[Fjordsen]

This is very important, and it is the reason Communism doesn't work and Socialism is inefficient.

Yet Social Democratic countries have the best living standards in the world and less social differences than in pure capitalist countries.

 

[j2gay]

He who would take from one man that which was earned, in order to do with it as he pleases, is a thief. It is good as a general rule not to associate with thieves. I ask again; Who moves the world?

 

[Fjordsen]

He who would take from one man that which was earned, in order to do with it as he pleases, is a thief. It is good as a general rule not to associate with thieves. I ask again; Who moves the world?

If that is so, I'd rather live in a country lead by thieves.

Who moves the world? How would I know? I posted this thread so I could talk about the benefits of Democratic Socialism. Your posts are getting off topic.