Jump to content


Photo

Capitalism Vs. Socialism


  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

#21 Dark Wizard

Dark Wizard

    Lailander

  • NADC Assembly
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,091 posts
  • Location: Mars

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:Dark Wizard
  • Nation Name:New Carnoly

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 01 February 2013 - 09:22 PM - 0512821

I would just like to point out the various forms of socialism that the United States has.

 

-Military

-Road System

-Libraries

-Police Departments

-Fire Departments

-Public Street Lighting

-Student Aid

-GI Bill

-Farming Subsidies

-Snow removal from roads

-Compensation for natural disasters (FEMA among others)

 

That is just to name a few. One thing I cannot stand is when people come in and point at Obama for being a socialist and say how bad it is. Ok, fine, but try driving without publicly owned roads, try keeping people safe without a military and police department, enjoy putting out your own fires, feel free to put up your own street lamps. I'm not saying we need to go all out socialist, but you can't complain about a person and call him a socialist, when you cannot live without the things that is provided as a result. 


  • 0

#22 bgorre1013

bgorre1013

    Should be government by now

  • Former Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 983 posts

  • NDT Link:[ Link ]

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:bgorre1013
  • Nation Name:2nd try

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 01 February 2013 - 11:49 PM - 0512822

I would just like to point out the various forms of socialism that the United States has.

 

-Military

-Road System

-Libraries

-Police Departments

-Fire Departments

-Public Street Lighting

-Student Aid

-GI Bill

-Farming Subsidies

-Snow removal from roads

-Compensation for natural disasters (FEMA among others)

 

That is just to name a few. One thing I cannot stand is when people come in and point at Obama for being a socialist and say how bad it is. Ok, fine, but try driving without publicly owned roads, try keeping people safe without a military and police department, enjoy putting out your own fires, feel free to put up your own street lamps. I'm not saying we need to go all out socialist, but you can't complain about a person and call him a socialist, when you cannot live without the things that is provided as a result. 

 

 

Obama is being called socialist because he's a lot more socialist views compare to pass president. His Health Care bill (which i completely oppose btw.)


  • 0

#23 Mandystalin

Mandystalin

    TTK Patriarch

  • The Templar Knights
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 530 posts

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:Mandystalin
  • Nation Name:Lutonstan

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 04 February 2013 - 09:23 AM - 0512823

As to your local petrol stations, they are essentially an oligopoly operating in a kinked supply/demand curve.

 

Does that make them an Oiligopoly?

 

Sorry, back to serious business.


  • 0

#24 Dark Wizard

Dark Wizard

    Lailander

  • NADC Assembly
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,091 posts
  • Location: Mars

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:Dark Wizard
  • Nation Name:New Carnoly

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 04 February 2013 - 09:28 PM - 0512824

I would just like to point out the various forms of socialism that the United States has.

 

-Military

-Road System

-Libraries

-Police Departments

-Fire Departments

-Public Street Lighting

-Student Aid

-GI Bill

-Farming Subsidies

-Snow removal from roads

-Compensation for natural disasters (FEMA among others)

 

That is just to name a few. One thing I cannot stand is when people come in and point at Obama for being a socialist and say how bad it is. Ok, fine, but try driving without publicly owned roads, try keeping people safe without a military and police department, enjoy putting out your own fires, feel free to put up your own street lamps. I'm not saying we need to go all out socialist, but you can't complain about a person and call him a socialist, when you cannot live without the things that is provided as a result. 

 

 

Obama is being called socialist because he's a lot more socialist views compare to pass president. His Health Care bill (which i completely oppose btw.)

That is one reason he is being called that, but there are various others too. One is farming subsidies, and then in the same breathe they want subsidies for big oil....make sense.

 

I'm not going to get into ObamaCare because truthfully i'm not knowledgeable enough about it to fully argue. I don't like some parts, but I do like others, its neither here nor there with me. 


  • 0

#25 bgorre1013

bgorre1013

    Should be government by now

  • Former Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 983 posts

  • NDT Link:[ Link ]

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:bgorre1013
  • Nation Name:2nd try

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 11 February 2013 - 11:43 PM - 0512825

DW, we Republicans don't want to subsidies big oil, they just want to deregulate not because they don't care about the environment but because they believe in Laise Faire.

 

and also I just heard a speech by Obama calling Bush irresponsible for raising Debt back when he was Sen, but Obama created more debt then Bush in 4 years. Y is no1 calling him irresponsible?


  • 0

#26 Lebensmittelgeschft

Lebensmittelgeschft

    Grocery Store

  • Former Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 31 posts
  • Location: CA, United States

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:Lebensmittelgeschft
  • Nation Name:Zestorung

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 13 February 2013 - 10:21 PM - 0512826

DW, we Republicans don't want to subsidies big oil, they just want to deregulate not because they don't care about the environment but because they believe in Laise Faire.

 

and also I just heard a speech by Obama calling Bush irresponsible for raising Debt back when he was Sen, but Obama created more debt then Bush in 4 years. Y is no1 calling him irresponsible?

Big oil receives no subsidies, nor is anyone proposing giving them any (at least, I've never heard of anyone suggesting it). Big oil receives tax credits, as every other business does, related to the costs of doing business.

 

And to be precise, Obama said "That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic." George Bush added $4 trillion worth of debt in his 8 years in the White House. Obama has added $6 trillion in just his first 4 years in office. Double standards, Bgorre, that's why nobody (except us Conservatives) is calling him irresponsible. >.>


  • 0

#27 Lebensmittelgeschft

Lebensmittelgeschft

    Grocery Store

  • Former Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 31 posts
  • Location: CA, United States

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:Lebensmittelgeschft
  • Nation Name:Zestorung

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 13 February 2013 - 10:52 PM - 0512827

I would just like to point out the various forms of socialism that the United States has.

-Military
-Road System
-Libraries
-Police Departments
-Fire Departments
-Public Street Lighting
-Student Aid
-GI Bill
-Farming Subsidies
-Snow removal from roads
-Compensation for natural disasters (FEMA among others)

That is just to name a few. One thing I cannot stand is when people come in and point at Obama for being a socialist and say how bad it is. Ok, fine, but try driving without publicly owned roads, try keeping people safe without a military and police department, enjoy putting out your own fires, feel free to put up your own street lamps. I'm not saying we need to go all out socialist, but you can't complain about a person and call him a socialist, when you cannot live without the things that is provided as a result.


But we can survive without most of the things listed here being provided by government. One of the only proper roles of government is to protect its citizens. Military to protect from foreign invaders; police to protect from criminals; courts to protect rights and property from each other.

One of my favorite arguments in opposition to free markets is "but who will build the roads?" Roads could be built and maintained by private companies who can turn a profit off of it via toll roads, advertising, etc. Realistically, how prompt and efficient is government at filling your potholes? I'm going to throw street lamps and snow removal in here as well.

Libraries can also be maintained privately, more efficiently, and at better costs than public libraries.

I'm not saying they should be, but fire departments could also be privatized. After all, you're already charged a massive fee if the fire department has to come put out your fire on your property.

If student aid were eliminated, tuition costs might just be more affordable--enough that most people would be able to afford it without government assistance. After all, if I knew people were giving out free money to be used for my business, I'd raise my prices too! This takes me back to my earlier point about free markets: If few are able to afford education and no assistance is available, educational institutions would be forced to make their prices more affordable or risk going out of business.

I don't consider GI Bill to be socialism in the least bit. It ought to be part of the military's compensation for keeping our nation safe. As I said earlier, one of the only proper functions of government is to provide a military. The GI Bill is a part of that.

As for farming subsidies, they certainly aren't a socialist concept. They're a corporatist concept.

FEMA is truly a joke organization. They are inefficient and they waste money like there's an unlimited supply of it. Natural disaster cleanups could be privatized. You might be thinking that's unfair because they could make their service costs very high. That's true, but if there are multiple natural disaster companies, they will all compete for business by lowering their prices. Another option would be for insurance companies to help cover damage costs (as they already do). Realistically, people will rethink the locations they plan to settle in without unlimited disaster relief programs if they are considering living in a high-risk area of sorts and do not have the funds to help themselves in a disaster.

Just a few thoughts, feel free to rebuttal! :D


  • 0

#28 lonzomac

lonzomac

    Kajillionaire...

  • NADC Assembly
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 572 posts
  • Location: Oak Ridge, TN

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:lonzomac
  • Nation Name:Mushugga

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 29 July 2013 - 04:18 PM - 0512828

 

I would just like to point out the various forms of socialism that the United States has.

-Military
-Road System
-Libraries
-Police Departments
-Fire Departments
-Public Street Lighting
-Student Aid
-GI Bill
-Farming Subsidies
-Snow removal from roads
-Compensation for natural disasters (FEMA among others)

That is just to name a few. One thing I cannot stand is when people come in and point at Obama for being a socialist and say how bad it is. Ok, fine, but try driving without publicly owned roads, try keeping people safe without a military and police department, enjoy putting out your own fires, feel free to put up your own street lamps. I'm not saying we need to go all out socialist, but you can't complain about a person and call him a socialist, when you cannot live without the things that is provided as a result.

But we can survive without most of the things listed here being provided by government. One of the only proper roles of government is to protect its citizens. Military to protect from foreign invaders; police to protect from criminals; courts to protect rights and property from each other.

One of my favorite arguments in opposition to free markets is "but who will build the roads?" Roads could be built and maintained by private companies who can turn a profit off of it via toll roads, advertising, etc. Realistically, how prompt and efficient is government at filling your potholes? I'm going to throw street lamps and snow removal in here as well.

Libraries can also be maintained privately, more efficiently, and at better costs than public libraries.

I'm not saying they should be, but fire departments could also be privatized. After all, you're already charged a massive fee if the fire department has to come put out your fire on your property.

If student aid were eliminated, tuition costs might just be more affordable--enough that most people would be able to afford it without government assistance. After all, if I knew people were giving out free money to be used for my business, I'd raise my prices too! This takes me back to my earlier point about free markets: If few are able to afford education and no assistance is available, educational institutions would be forced to make their prices more affordable or risk going out of business.

I don't consider GI Bill to be socialism in the least bit. It ought to be part of the military's compensation for keeping our nation safe. As I said earlier, one of the only proper functions of government is to provide a military. The GI Bill is a part of that.

As for farming subsidies, they certainly aren't a socialist concept. They're a corporatist concept.

FEMA is truly a joke organization. They are inefficient and they waste money like there's an unlimited supply of it. Natural disaster cleanups could be privatized. You might be thinking that's unfair because they could make their service costs very high. That's true, but if there are multiple natural disaster companies, they will all compete for business by lowering their prices. Another option would be for insurance companies to help cover damage costs (as they already do). Realistically, people will rethink the locations they plan to settle in without unlimited disaster relief programs if they are considering living in a high-risk area of sorts and do not have the funds to help themselves in a disaster.

Just a few thoughts, feel free to rebuttal! :D

 

I totally agree with you. America used to get along better without some of these programs in place. And many of them would be much better privately owned because it would offer better degrees of service coupled with better pricing. Some of those things are helpful but most seem to rip the economy apart. FDR's New Deal wasn't planned out as being the American standard, it was developed as a patch to help Americans eat during the Depression. Welfare is a joke, it hurts taxpayers, if the government took away actual monetary checks from people instead of letting them and their 50 kids get a free ride, maybe the old people that worked hard and paid their SS wouldn't be getting cuts to their checks or medicine. Sure there are lots of socialist concepts integrated into our government, but they weren't there at the beginning and shouldn't be there now. Roads would still be built, people would still volunteer for military service, and we'd still be able to check out books :D


  • 0

#29 Leonas Kedzierski

Leonas Kedzierski

    Deputy Minister of Education

  • Former Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 44 posts
  • Location: United States

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:Leonas Kedzierski
  • Nation Name:Thaendor

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 29 July 2013 - 11:09 PM - 0512829

I just have to say that there has never been a true Socialist state. The USSR in the beginning was Leninist (despite Lenin marketing it as modified Marxism), under Stalin it became Stalinist (but one could argue Fascist). Cuba is/was a presidential dictatorship. North Korea is just plain old Fascist. Most "Socialist" states (except for the USSR during Lenin's reign) turn into a totalitarian or quasi-fascist state. The whole point of Socialism as I've found it is that it is a classless society, meaning no one is better/has more things than any other person, but if you look at all of these states, they have leaders who are "worshipped" (i.e. Kim Il Sung in North Korea) and that live a life of luxury whilst their people suffer the blight of production quotas and over industrialization, and if they fail to meet the expectations of the state, they are punished...severely.

 

I know most of this is just ramblings by a fairly capitalist person, but I mean if you look at it, the only true Socialist states must be small, not on a national level, but on a communal level. Look at Robert Owen, he successfully created a socialist community that was a representation of what Socialism was supposed to be, but after it grew beyond a certain point, people began wanting power, and more. It is human instinct to want more, to be comfortable. Those are things that Socialism doesn't allow, that's why "Socialist" nations don't last very long, they people get tired of not being able to succeed. It's why most modern powers are considered capitalist, because they allow their citizens to succeed in business.

 

While capitalism does allow for homelessness to be an issue, especially in socialist states, people were not getting what they need to survive. The fact of the matter is, capitalism has many flaws, but it works. Socialism in its true form will not ever be able to be utilized on a national scale, history proves that. In any case, I hope my quite historical view on the matter is a good contribution to this discussion. 


  • 0

#30 Aloysius

Aloysius

    Onward Atlantica!!

  • NADC Assembly
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,769 posts

  • NDT Link:[ Link ]

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:Aloysius
  • Nation Name:Halicarnassus

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 30 July 2013 - 12:54 AM - 0512830

I just have to say that there has never been a true Socialist state. The USSR in the beginning was Leninist (despite Lenin marketing it as modified Marxism), under Stalin it became Stalinist (but one could argue Fascist). Cuba is/was a presidential dictatorship. North Korea is just plain old Fascist. Most "Socialist" states (except for the USSR during Lenin's reign) turn into a totalitarian or quasi-fascist state. The whole point of Socialism as I've found it is that it is a classless society, meaning no one is better/has more things than any other person, but if you look at all of these states, they have leaders who are "worshipped" (i.e. Kim Il Sung in North Korea) and that live a life of luxury whilst their people suffer the blight of production quotas and over industrialization, and if they fail to meet the expectations of the state, they are punished...severely.

 

I know most of this is just ramblings by a fairly capitalist person, but I mean if you look at it, the only true Socialist states must be small, not on a national level, but on a communal level. Look at Robert Owen, he successfully created a socialist community that was a representation of what Socialism was supposed to be, but after it grew beyond a certain point, people began wanting power, and more. It is human instinct to want more, to be comfortable. Those are things that Socialism doesn't allow, that's why "Socialist" nations don't last very long, they people get tired of not being able to succeed. It's why most modern powers are considered capitalist, because they allow their citizens to succeed in business.

 

While capitalism does allow for homelessness to be an issue, especially in socialist states, people were not getting what they need to survive. The fact of the matter is, capitalism has many flaws, but it works. Socialism in its true form will not ever be able to be utilized on a national scale, history proves that. In any case, I hope my quite historical view on the matter is a good contribution to this discussion. 

 

Very well put. As you say, the problem is not Socialism, its people hehe


  • 0

#31 Dark Wizard

Dark Wizard

    Lailander

  • NADC Assembly
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,091 posts
  • Location: Mars

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:Dark Wizard
  • Nation Name:New Carnoly

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 30 July 2013 - 04:03 AM - 0512831

 

I would just like to point out the various forms of socialism that the United States has.

-Military
-Road System
-Libraries
-Police Departments
-Fire Departments
-Public Street Lighting
-Student Aid
-GI Bill
-Farming Subsidies
-Snow removal from roads
-Compensation for natural disasters (FEMA among others)

That is just to name a few. One thing I cannot stand is when people come in and point at Obama for being a socialist and say how bad it is. Ok, fine, but try driving without publicly owned roads, try keeping people safe without a military and police department, enjoy putting out your own fires, feel free to put up your own street lamps. I'm not saying we need to go all out socialist, but you can't complain about a person and call him a socialist, when you cannot live without the things that is provided as a result.

But we can survive without most of the things listed here being provided by government. One of the only proper roles of government is to protect its citizens. Military to protect from foreign invaders; police to protect from criminals; courts to protect rights and property from each other.

One of my favorite arguments in opposition to free markets is "but who will build the roads?" Roads could be built and maintained by private companies who can turn a profit off of it via toll roads, advertising, etc. Realistically, how prompt and efficient is government at filling your potholes? I'm going to throw street lamps and snow removal in here as well.

Libraries can also be maintained privately, more efficiently, and at better costs than public libraries.

I'm not saying they should be, but fire departments could also be privatized. After all, you're already charged a massive fee if the fire department has to come put out your fire on your property.

If student aid were eliminated, tuition costs might just be more affordable--enough that most people would be able to afford it without government assistance. After all, if I knew people were giving out free money to be used for my business, I'd raise my prices too! This takes me back to my earlier point about free markets: If few are able to afford education and no assistance is available, educational institutions would be forced to make their prices more affordable or risk going out of business.

I don't consider GI Bill to be socialism in the least bit. It ought to be part of the military's compensation for keeping our nation safe. As I said earlier, one of the only proper functions of government is to provide a military. The GI Bill is a part of that.

As for farming subsidies, they certainly aren't a socialist concept. They're a corporatist concept.

FEMA is truly a joke organization. They are inefficient and they waste money like there's an unlimited supply of it. Natural disaster cleanups could be privatized. You might be thinking that's unfair because they could make their service costs very high. That's true, but if there are multiple natural disaster companies, they will all compete for business by lowering their prices. Another option would be for insurance companies to help cover damage costs (as they already do). Realistically, people will rethink the locations they plan to settle in without unlimited disaster relief programs if they are considering living in a high-risk area of sorts and do not have the funds to help themselves in a disaster.

Just a few thoughts, feel free to rebuttal! :D

 

I honestly didn't even notice you responded, sorry about the lack of response. 

 

While I agree that everything I mentioned above COULD be privately owned, the problem is they would all be currently if they were a profitable endeavor. You don't see private companies clamoring to light our streets or clear our roads of snow. All of those things above are tough to make a profit in, and there is a lack of interest in private companies taking them over. Those are the things the government covers that frankly, no logical businessman would venture into. Without small amounts of socialism these things would go unchecked, leaving people at a disadvantage. 

 

The one I will give you is roads, I could see that working out with a private company. But that poses major problems, because the company would be allowed to neglect anybody passage if the felt, which would surely cripple our transportation system. 


  • 0

#32 Don Supremo

Don Supremo

    Member

  • Foreign Diplomat
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:Don Supremo
  • Nation Name:RichPortWaves

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 31 July 2013 - 03:42 PM - 0512832



I just have to say that there has never been a true Socialist state. The USSR in the beginning was Leninist (despite Lenin marketing it as modified Marxism), under Stalin it became Stalinist (but one could argue Fascist). Cuba is/was a presidential dictatorship. North Korea is just plain old Fascist. Most "Socialist" states (except for the USSR during Lenin's reign) turn into a totalitarian or quasi-fascist state. The whole point of Socialism as I've found it is that it is a classless society, meaning no one is better/has more things than any other person, but if you look at all of these states, they have leaders who are "worshipped" (i.e. Kim Il Sung in North Korea) and that live a life of luxury whilst their people suffer the blight of production quotas and over industrialization, and if they fail to meet the expectations of the state, they are punished...severely.

I know most of this is just ramblings by a fairly capitalist person, but I mean if you look at it, the only true Socialist states must be small, not on a national level, but on a communal level. Look at Robert Owen, he successfully created a socialist community that was a representation of what Socialism was supposed to be, but after it grew beyond a certain point, people began wanting power, and more. It is human instinct to want more, to be comfortable. Those are things that Socialism doesn't allow, that's why "Socialist" nations don't last very long, they people get tired of not being able to succeed. It's why most modern powers are considered capitalist, because they allow their citizens to succeed in business.

While capitalism does allow for homelessness to be an issue, especially in socialist states, people were not getting what they need to survive. The fact of the matter is, capitalism has many flaws, but it works. Socialism in its true form will not ever be able to be utilized on a national scale, history proves that. In any case, I hope my quite historical view on the matter is a good contribution to this discussion.

 





I just have to say that there has never been a true Socialist state. The USSR in the beginning was Leninist (despite Lenin marketing it as modified Marxism), under Stalin it became Stalinist (but one could argue Fascist). Cuba is/was a presidential dictatorship. North Korea is just plain old Fascist. Most "Socialist" states (except for the USSR during Lenin's reign) turn into a totalitarian or quasi-fascist state. The whole point of Socialism as I've found it is that it is a classless society, meaning no one is better/has more things than any other person, but if you look at all of these states, they have leaders who are "worshipped" (i.e. Kim Il Sung in North Korea) and that live a life of luxury whilst their people suffer the blight of production quotas and over industrialization, and if they fail to meet the expectations of the state, they are punished...severely.

I know most of this is just ramblings by a fairly capitalist person, but I mean if you look at it, the only true Socialist states must be small, not on a national level, but on a communal level. Look at Robert Owen, he successfully created a socialist community that was a representation of what Socialism was supposed to be, but after it grew beyond a certain point, people began wanting power, and more. It is human instinct to want more, to be comfortable. Those are things that Socialism doesn't allow, that's why "Socialist" nations don't last very long, they people get tired of not being able to succeed. It's why most modern powers are considered capitalist, because they allow their citizens to succeed in business.

While capitalism does allow for homelessness to be an issue, especially in socialist states, people were not getting what they need to survive. The fact of the matter is, capitalism has many flaws, but it works. Socialism in its true form will not ever be able to be utilized on a national scale, history proves that. In any case, I hope my quite historical view on the matter is a good contribution to this discussion.


Very well put. As you say, the problem is not Socialism, its people hehe

B)

Hi There, economists...!(Lol) Leonas, I,like Aloysius, believe you are hitting it right flat on the Head...! ;)

Plus, if we think about what Communism is (or expected to be) I come to an easy conclusion: that those Great political-economy think-ers just --now I remember Martin L.King,jr.-- had "a Dream"... A very attractive and Idyllic one at it! Something like this to be well placed and working, need to get rid of what we know as the human "Desire" for abundance without restrains... But for this, you need to be able to produce that response from them,individually,one by one, from their insides (Heart!) and still feel glad with, doing it...! HOW'd you get that...!? You need to Convince them totally to pull a class-less society,or better yet, a JUSTICE grown one!
Isn't precisely That what is looked for, with all these theories and Ideas?

Economy, Politics, Philosophy, even Religion, I see'ths as manifestations of the human 'Dream' for Justice... and it's main corollary, Peace!

Now, under Humanity's present circumstances ( not too different from Past circumstances), HOW Plausible it is to achieve this 'From the Heart' change, convincedness, TOTAL giving up of the Will(desires etc.) -if you will-(lol!), to this Goal...? :) :book:

_________


Now this :

Let's say, in rounded numbers, that the total economy of the World is .... Hmm, 50Trillion $$$...! :vote: And that the population is ... 7 Billions People... :doh: Will that cash flow be enough for the goal of world wide poverty vanquishment...?
<present>


  • 0

#33 Don Supremo

Don Supremo

    Member

  • Foreign Diplomat
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:Don Supremo
  • Nation Name:RichPortWaves

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 31 July 2013 - 03:51 PM - 0512833

 

 

I would just like to point out the various forms of socialism that the United States has.

-Military
-Road System
-Libraries
-Police Departments
-Fire Departments
-Public Street Lighting
-Student Aid
-GI Bill
-Farming Subsidies
-Snow removal from roads
-Compensation for natural disasters (FEMA among others)

That is just to name a few. One thing I cannot stand is when people come in and point at Obama for being a socialist and say how bad it is. Ok, fine, but try driving without publicly owned roads, try keeping people safe without a military and police department, enjoy putting out your own fires, feel free to put up your own street lamps. I'm not saying we need to go all out socialist, but you can't complain about a person and call him a socialist, when you cannot live without the things that is provided as a result.

But we can survive without most of the things listed here being provided by government. One of the only proper roles of government is to protect its citizens. Military to protect from foreign invaders; police to protect from criminals; courts to protect rights and property from each other.

One of my favorite arguments in opposition to free markets is "but who will build the roads?" Roads could be built and maintained by private companies who can turn a profit off of it via toll roads, advertising, etc. Realistically, how prompt and efficient is government at filling your potholes? I'm going to throw street lamps and snow removal in here as well.

Libraries can also be maintained privately, more efficiently, and at better costs than public libraries.

I'm not saying they should be, but fire departments could also be privatized. After all, you're already charged a massive fee if the fire department has to come put out your fire on your property.

If student aid were eliminated, tuition costs might just be more affordable--enough that most people would be able to afford it without government assistance. After all, if I knew people were giving out free money to be used for my business, I'd raise my prices too! This takes me back to my earlier point about free markets: If few are able to afford education and no assistance is available, educational institutions would be forced to make their prices more affordable or risk going out of business.

I don't consider GI Bill to be socialism in the least bit. It ought to be part of the military's compensation for keeping our nation safe. As I said earlier, one of the only proper functions of government is to provide a military. The GI Bill is a part of that.

As for farming subsidies, they certainly aren't a socialist concept. They're a corporatist concept.

FEMA is truly a joke organization. They are inefficient and they waste money like there's an unlimited supply of it. Natural disaster cleanups could be privatized. You might be thinking that's unfair because they could make their service costs very high. That's true, but if there are multiple natural disaster companies, they will all compete for business by lowering their prices. Another option would be for insurance companies to help cover damage costs (as they already do). Realistically, people will rethink the locations they plan to settle in without unlimited disaster relief programs if they are considering living in a high-risk area of sorts and do not have the funds to help themselves in a disaster.

Just a few thoughts, feel free to rebuttal! :D

 

I honestly didn't even notice you responded, sorry about the lack of response. 

 

While I agree that everything I mentioned above COULD be privately owned, the problem is they would all be currently if they were a profitable endeavor. You don't see private companies clamoring to light our streets or clear our roads of snow. All of those things above are tough to make a profit in, and there is a lack of interest in private companies taking them over. Those are the things the government covers that frankly, no logical businessman would venture into. Without small amounts of socialism these things would go unchecked, leaving people at a disadvantage. 

 

The one I will give you is roads, I could see that working out with a private company. But that poses major problems, because the company would be allowed to neglect anybody passage if the felt, which would surely cripple our transportation system. 

 

 

B)

 

             As Aloysius said when interpreting Leonas : "the problem is not Socialism, its people hehe." Same with ANY Gov.type I'd add...! B)


  • 0

#34 Aloysius

Aloysius

    Onward Atlantica!!

  • NADC Assembly
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,769 posts

  • NDT Link:[ Link ]

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:Aloysius
  • Nation Name:Halicarnassus

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 01 August 2013 - 12:42 AM - 0512834

true dat :P


  • 0