@averagejoe1 said"Please name them"
FINALLY!!! Someone who says the there are successful Socialist countries!! Please name them, but know that an average person expects a country which has a free people, who can work independently Without government controls and regulations which, in any way, restrict their freedom to make and keep as much money as they can.
You see, if that is not case, people like ...[text shortened]... sures success. I knew of no other way to make my point here, not other word that I could have used.
We did, repeatedly. I feel like i am talking to a goldfish. A particularly dumb one.
"but know that an average person expects a country which has a free people, who can work independently"
the citizens of said countries are free, they can work independently
"Without government controls and regulations which, in any way, restrict their freedom to make and keep as much money as they can."
a, and here your definition of success sours. Wtf do you mean "keep as much money as they can"? They can make more money if they don't implement any work safety rules. They can make more money if they are allowed to pay as little as possible. Banks can make more money if they just don't follow any regulation meant to protect investors. Toy makers can make more money if they just make toys out of asbestos.
Regulations are necessary. Government is supposed to control and regulate, to a certain degree, how society runs. That's its purpose, and we control the government. Much more than we control corporations anyway.
"You see, if that is not case, people like me and guys who are successful and create hundreds of jobs and buy lake houses for their families would not find success in countries which restrict successes, and, frankly, billionaires."
The fact that you are this dumb makes it clear you aren't a billionaire or even millionaire. Do you think France has no successful businesses? No wealthy CEO? How about Germany?
"It would not make sense for you to name countries that restrict freedom and liberty. I hope this makes sense."
It doesn't but not much of what you say makes sense.
" I respect that it is repugnant to socialists to have a man like me mention money, but money is the measuring stick, the vehicle, which measures success. "
No it fukin isn't. It's just a tool humans use to exchange it for services, rather than trade service for service which is impractical. I work for a company giving it my services, it pays me back money which i use to buy services from others, a grocer, a house builder, a plumber, whatever.
It's just a number which, after a certain amount, loses all its meaning. What the fuk does 200 billion mean to Bezos that 100 billion doesn't. He doesn't spend either. It is just value blocked that could be used to build a hospital somewhere or give fresh water to a village.
At some point money just becomes bragging rights between billionaires at the expense of working class individuals.
True success is measured by what you build, what you leave behind, what you add to the world.
" I knew of no other way to make my point here, not other word that I could have used."
That's because you're selfish and you can't see beyond your own interests.
@shavixmir saidNo, the Democrats want to control people. Do you not get the USA news over there? Google President Biden Executive Orders. Orders. All of them are indeed to control, ...he rules by fiat. The most in the history of presidents.
No. That is not freedom.
You want freedom to control people.
As I’ve stated earlier, the right-wint definition of freedom has nothing to do with freedom. It’s about narcissim.
I assume that you are saying that, as an employer, I want to control people. Well, yes. My employees.
The Right Wing def of freedom is "Absence of government control", among other things. Something tells me that in your countries, that the government 'owns' you. Sorry to use such a harsh word, but lets put it this way.....I never think about the government in my daily living, except at tax time when I have to pay my income tax. I assume, on the other hand, that you 'necessarily' have to think about your government, as it is a source, or The Source, of your sustenance.
So, there you have it. I never think about government. Of course, with Biden I'd better start! May ask you for some pointers.
@averagejoe1 said"(Who create may many jobs for the 'oppressed workers'😉. "
On your first sentence, ....the people like Jeff Bezos and Gates, et al. They are billionaires. What would have been a better plan for them under your government? Jesus. Are you fellers for real? They oppressed somebody???? Jesus. You fellers are emotional wrecks. Angry, too. Maybe jealous of the successful people?? (Who create may many jobs for the 'oppressed ...[text shortened]... ul. Dnt forget this link!!!
https://reason.com/2020/11/02/kamala-harris-equality-equity-outcomes/
A job where you have to pee in a bottle just to meet quotas for a crappy wage is no job at all.
" For purposes of debates, we must stipulate...there is no criminal tax dodging, murder or kidnapping. "
Wtf are you talking about. They dodge taxes all the time? Is your point that if it's legal it's ok? Who made those loopholes in the country where you can buy politicians for a fraction of what return investment they could give you?
"I do agree decent wages and good working conditions. "
Then you should be fine with government regulating and enforcing those conditions. Because sure as hell billionaires won't dole out good wages out of the goodness of their hearts.
" Funny you actually say that I can keep more money than you do, which is against Marx , which you are"
Just because you cannot comprehend the fact that socialism is a spectrum and is perfectly fine with incorporating capitalism (which is also a spectrum) doesn't mean that the world is comprised of marxists and randians (and nothing in between). Your ignorance on the subject is funny. Or maybe you know full well this is true but you can't debate against it so you reduce it to the simplest of terms.
"What is obscene, and how is it cheating the system and how is it at the 'expense of others'.? Walmart has rich owners, and employs near 100,000 people."
And many of them are on government welfare, welfare which you, the citizens pay for.
"Tell us that their money is made the 'expense of others'"
It is. Low wages, low prices, low quality products bought in bulk, driving other stores in the area out of business.
"I think your buddy Suzianne says on the 'the backs of others'."
For some reason she can't stand me but that's besides the point. Yes, it's an adequate expression, meant to signify what walmart workers (or amazon) are: wage slaves.
"Start about how we should attack the rich, and attack the corporations, who made your computer and your car"
"Attack", such a strong word for "making rich people pay their fair share of tax, share that has diminished constantly since eisenhower".
"Uhhh, your computer wouldn't have been made in the USA, would it?"
Probably China more likely. What's your point? If there is evil in the world i can't point it out until i have rid myself of all earthly possessions and live in a cage.
"Your next paragraph, abut Bezos, et al, not worth discussing. You need to get with the program. I bet your neighbor got an amazon pkg today. "
Some people live in ignorance. Some people don't know what suffering their comfort has caused. That doesn't make them bad people. People can choose what they get outraged about and it doesn't make them hypocrites because lots of things are built with pain and suffering.
"You prob never do order from Amazon, do you??"
I don't.
"What kind of world do you want, anyway?"
A better one than today.
"Do you think we should all just go into our basement and make what we need? "
No. This reminds me of a charicature of people using idiotic arguments like these. Someone says "Society is unfair and we should improve it somehwat" and an asshat like you says "Yet, you live in this unfair society and benefit from it. Curious. I am very smart"
"So if I invent the cure for AIDS, and give shots in my living room for $1000, should the government be able to tell me to lower my price?"
Glad you brought it up. Did you invent the cure for AIDS with research grants from the government (aka tax payer money)? Then of course the government should be able to tell you what to charge.
If you discovered AIDS cure on your own hoewever, you may charge whatever you want. But the government should be allowed to say "you want the protection of a patent? So that nobody else can manufacture it? Then you can't charge more than X". It would be the price you pay for a service the government provides.
@averagejoe1 saidThis is a followup to your idiotic "I discovered aids cure i should be able to charge what i want". Wanted it separately.
On your first sentence, ....the people like Jeff Bezos and Gates, et al. They are billionaires. What would have been a better plan for them under your government? Jesus. Are you fellers for real? They oppressed somebody???? Jesus. You fellers are emotional wrecks. Angry, too. Maybe jealous of the successful people?? (Who create may many jobs for the 'oppressed ...[text shortened]... ul. Dnt forget this link!!!
https://reason.com/2020/11/02/kamala-harris-equality-equity-outcomes/
Here is some information that you will totally not understand and completely ignore until i will link it again in a year or so.
https://www.vox.com/2019/4/3/18293950/why-is-insulin-so-expensive
"When inventor Frederick Banting discovered insulin in 1923, he refused to put his name on the patent. He felt it was unethical for a doctor to profit from a discovery that would save lives. Banting’s co-inventors, James Collip and Charles Best, sold the insulin patent to the University of Toronto for a mere $1. They wanted everyone who needed their medication to be able to afford it."
Now, the drug companies "improve" insulin in slight ways and charge as much as they want because, in the US, they can. It's a life saving drug and they charge this much because they have leverage, a person would pay a lot to survive, even though the cost of manufacturing doses of insulin is like under 10$.
Medicare is forbidden from negotiating prices (not very free market-ey, huh). The government can't negotiate prices. Politicians can't put forward new bills allowing price negotiation because, hey, free market rules say you can buy everything, politicians and bills included.
"The average US manufacturer price per standard unit across all insulins was $98.70, compared to $6.94 in Australia, $12.00 in Canada, and $7.52 in the UK."
this is why you need government regulation, this is why you have freaking elections. You elect politicians to GOVERN, to improve the lives of the citizens, not according to profit but to the wellbeing of people. Otherwise what is the point of governments, we should just live in cities ruled by corporations.
@zahlanzi saidYour 3rd paragraph, no argument. In debates, unless crime is the issue, the participants are discussing issues as if there is no crime, nor misdeeds.
"Please name them"
We did, repeatedly. I feel like i am talking to a goldfish. A particularly dumb one.
"but know that an average person expects a country which has a free people, who can work independently"
the citizens of said countries are free, they can work independently
"Without government controls and regulations which, in any way, restrict their freedom to ma ...[text shortened]... that I could have used."
That's because you're selfish and you can't see beyond your own interests.
Your next paragraph suggests that France and Germany are Socialist countries. Then why haven't they failed as Venezuela has failed? Certainly you are not going to parse the def of Socialism and ruin this thread??
I get the facts of money in your next paragraph , but I will never get how one individual can think the money of another individual is his business. And that you can flippantly say what his money could be used for. Yeah, it would be great to 'get his money', wouldn't it. But there would be a fight about what to do with it...I know some folks that would rather spend it to campaign/get rid of Biden before our country becomes socialist. I guess I am one of those people.
I never know what you and Suzianne mean when you say "at the expense of workers".
Your last sentence....Are debates supposed to be about personal interests? I must have missed that, how can one write about personal interests when they are unknown to each other? I think debates are about issues of the world. What good does it do, when I say I am on 2 boards (children at risk) and you say I am lying? The issue falls flat, when no one knows!!!
Best to discuss issues, not personalities. Maybe take an exception with Sonhouse!!!!!
Edit: Yeah. you do tromp on my personal interest when I find out that my tax money is to be used to pay for several abortions that I have nothing to do with it. My interest is to use my money to buy my granddaughter (who is not pregnant) a bicycle....... Would your government take my bike money and give it to the abortion agency?? Downer. Yeah, a bit of 'my own interest' creeps in. Guess I am a bad guy after all. 😞
@averagejoe1 said"Here are the Kamala remarks."
On your first sentence, ....the people like Jeff Bezos and Gates, et al. They are billionaires. What would have been a better plan for them under your government? Jesus. Are you fellers for real? They oppressed somebody???? Jesus. You fellers are emotional wrecks. Angry, too. Maybe jealous of the successful people?? (Who create may many jobs for the 'oppressed ...[text shortened]... ul. Dnt forget this link!!!
https://reason.com/2020/11/02/kamala-harris-equality-equity-outcomes/
https://reason.com/2020/11/02/kamala-harris-equality-equity-outcomes/
It was entertaining to see how little you understood from Kamala's tweet.
It is not a communist manifesto (knowing even a little about Harris you would understand that) it's an attempt to explain affirmative action, albeit a clumsy one.
The two cartoons want to climb the mountain, but one of them (a black person, or a woman, or someone who didn't inherit anything) is starting from a hole. They need help getting out of that hole so he can start climbing that mountain. And it doesn't even have to be racially of gender motivated. Everyone can find themselves into that metaphorical hole.
Now, the dumb statement at the end "everybody eventually winds in the same place": do you honestly think it refers to billionaires? Do you think Bezos is waiting at the top of the mountain for you to get to him? Or does he climb higher and higher?
This is strictly referring to regular people and the mountain is just a reasonable job, education, a home.
That's what this refers to. So that everyone has the opportunity to be able to retire at 60 (or heaven forbid, earlier) and be able to have a home and live comfortably. This isn't about catching up to billionaires. Even the cartoon says so, help the second guy out of the hole, not boost him straight to the top of the mountain.
But you didn't actually watch the cartoon, did you? You just read the article around you and found "MARX" written there with exclamation points. You believed what the article said instead of digging a bit further and see what the actual quote is and draw your own conclusion.
My conclusion is what i explained above and i say the last sentence at the end is dumb and misleading and Harris should have known better than to say it, that it definitely would be misunderstood by poor gullible fools like you.
@averagejoe1 said"Your 3rd paragraph, no argument. In debates, unless crime is the issue, the participants are discussing issues as if there is no crime, nor misdeeds."
Your 3rd paragraph, no argument. In debates, unless crime is the issue, the participants are discussing issues as if there is no crime, nor misdeeds.
Your next paragraph suggests that France and Germany are Socialist countries. Then why haven't they failed as Venezuela has failed? Certainly you are not going to parse the def of Socialism and ruin this thread??
I g ...[text shortened]... agency?? Downer. Yeah, a bit of 'my own interest' creeps in. Guess I am a bad guy after all. 😞
Put some damn effort into your replies and quote the paragraph in question. Like i do. I don't make you go count your paragraphs and figure out which one i am addressing.
"Your next paragraph suggests that France and Germany are Socialist countries. Then why haven't they failed as Venezuela has failed?"
Heh, maybe this is progress. BECAUSE, as we have stated before, time and time again, Venezuela was also AUTHARITARIAN. Also had a massive corruption problem. Also had outside interference by the US who wants its oil.
France and Germany are examples of "socialist" countries in the sense they have capitalism and they have socialism. Socialism in some areas where appropriate, capitalism in other areas where appropriate, with certain regulations in place.
Like i said, it's a spectrum, not black and white. Don't call yourself socialist if that bothers you, just be more like France, Denmark, Norway, Canada, Australia.
"I get the facts of money in your next paragraph , but I will never get how one individual can think the money of another individual is his business. "
Because there are common goods and services that need to be build that is everybody's business . Roads don't spontaneously come into existence. They need to be build and the people who build them need to be paid. Paid with tax money, money gathered from the citizens of a country who will benefit from said road.
"But there would be a fight about what to do with it"
Yes, that is what we're doing. Some people (the ones you call SOCIALIST MARXIST COMMIES) want it spent on crazy things such as healthcare and education. Other people (like you) are perfectly fine with spending it on military and helping rich people (but not poor people) keep more of their money.
We fight on what to spend tax money on.
"I know some folks that would rather spend it to campaign/get rid of Biden before our country becomes socialist"
You are free to do so. After you pay your taxes. And i might add, you should be limited to a certain amount. In a democracy everyone should have an equal voice. The fact one can spend more to increase one's voice is anti-democratic.
"Your last sentence....Are debates supposed to be about personal interests?"
No, it's just an explanation on why you have the views that you do. You only care about your interests so you identify as a follower of Ayn Rand, the very personification of being selfish. The problem is Ayn Rand was a hypocrite who was perfectly fine with accepting government assistance when she needed it. And you are too ignorant to see that we are all connected and depend on each other to make society work.
"What good does it do, when I say I am on 2 boards (children at risk) and you say I am lying? The issue falls flat, when no one knows!!!"
That was a specific claim that I have no way of verifying. When i say you are selfish and can't see beyond your own interests i do so based on everything you said so far in this forum.
"Yeah. you do tromp on my personal interest when I find out that my tax money is to be used to pay for several abortions that I have nothing to do with it"
Would you rather your tax money be used to provide child care assistance for that child? Housing? Education? Or you don't want that either.
Other people don't want their tax money to be used to fund an ever increasing military budget. Deal with it.
"My interest is to use my money to buy my granddaughter (who is not pregnant) a bicycle"
She will need someone to build and maintain a good sidewalk or bicycle lane. Maybe someone who doesn't have a granddaughter with a bicycle would object his tax payer money be used to build said bicycle lane.
(i am humoring you and using your term "one's tax money". In reality taxes are everybody's money)
@zahlanzi saidGot a Board meeting haha all day, no texting. I feel like I can sum all of this up in a paragraph. You are comfortable with government dependency whereas I am not comfortable with government dependency. So all of your arguments come from that springboard, when mine come from more of a level ground that I want to walk on, self-reliant, always considering the little guy and making charitable contributions along the way. I know for a fact that there’s no way to have a perfect world, or as your sentences seem to suggest, everything would be all resolved with simple things like taking money from the rich and shutting down corporations. Of course I’m against all of that and recognize that there’s no way for everyone to be equal or have all the comforts of life.. That is why I think that the USA could support all of the destitute people, 40 M of them, and I think the rest of the country should take care of them selves, with the basic protections of the government. ......notice I say protections, not entitlements. Another clear difference between our two philosophies. .
"Your 3rd paragraph, no argument. In debates, unless crime is the issue, the participants are discussing issues as if there is no crime, nor misdeeds."
Put some damn effort into your replies and quote the paragraph in question. Like i do. I don't make you go count your paragraphs and figure out which one i am addressing.
"Your next paragraph suggests that France and Ge ...[text shortened]...
(i am humoring you and using your term "one's tax money". In reality taxes are everybody's money)
@averagejoe1 said"You are comfortable with government dependency whereas I am not comfortable with government dependency"
Got a Board meeting haha all day, no texting. I feel like I can sum all of this up in a paragraph. You are comfortable with government dependency whereas I am not comfortable with government dependency. So all of your arguments come from that springboard, when mine come from more of a level ground that I want to walk on, self-reliant, always considering the little guy and ...[text shortened]... notice I say protections, not entitlements. Another clear difference between our two philosophies. .
You depend on the government already, you are simply ignorant of it.
"self-reliant,"
you are not self-reliant, nobody is.
"always considering the little guy and making charitable contributions along the way."
you're not considering the little guy, else you wouldn't be fine with denying them healthcare and education and a clean environment and a decennt workplace.
Charitable contributions aren't charitable. They will help someone get a meal one time while still leaving them in the same situation that made him need the charity in the first place.
A world where a parent has to rely on charity to pay for their child chemo is a horrible place to live in and for every individual managing to pay for his medical procedures through GoFundMe, there are a hundred others for whom the help came too late.
"I know for a fact that there’s no way to have a perfect world,"
Especially with people like you working against it.
"there’s no way for everyone to be equal"
which is not what i am advocating
"or have all the comforts of life"
healthcare is not a comfort it is a necessity. Most countries realize that. Better countries. Not the US though.
"That is why I think that the USA could support all of the destitute people, 40 M of them, "
It doesn't.
"and I think the rest of the country should take care of them selves, with the basic protections of the government. ......notice I say protections, not entitlements."
Meaningless words. What the fuk are your "protections" and what are "entitlements".
How is a worker "protected" if he can be fired at any point and lose his healthcare which you consider perfectly fine to be through his employer. How is a worker protected if his employer can pay him as little as possible, with no government interference, effectively making them live paycheck to paycheck.
@zahlanzi said"Depend on Government..." My point is that you depend on it for sustenance. Over here we call that a "Nanny Government". Go for it. We DO indeed depend on the government for military, various agencies to test our food and drugs, an Agency to guide our thousands of airplanes from crashing into each other, an agency which checks our building constructions so that they do not fall down, Emergency vehicles, and several others which are universal for all of our citizens, all used together and paid for together, with our taxes. And, one of those agencies is for ROADS! You ask what are protections?? All of the above. A nice definition, don't you think?? Notice these government functions dont get involved personally in people's lives, not one of them. You are suggesting that they should? Nanny??
"You are comfortable with government dependency whereas I am not comfortable with government dependency"
You depend on the government already, you are simply ignorant of it.
"self-reliant,"
you are not self-reliant, nobody is.
"always considering the little guy and making charitable contributions along the way."
you're not considering the little guy, else you woul ...[text shortened]... tle as possible, with no government interference, effectively making them live paycheck to paycheck.
You ask what are entitlements? Government programs which give 'sustenance' to people in need. Our problem here, Zahlanzi, is that your country hands out entitlements to everyone, including you, apparently. You eschew the phrase 'Self-Reliant'. I have to assume that you are not, since you say nobody is. Then why is there a definition for it??, and why am I self-reliant?. So here we have it. Romania...No self reliance, wherever you look. USA, it abounds. I and my friends and family get NOTHING from the government. You do. We dont even think about it. We are self reliant, I started married life with a $50 loan from my father in law. Anyone can do it.
Your other paragraphs wax on about people in need, which you find in all countries. You write about charitables, hospital needs, healthcare on and on....all like it is an easy quick fix. Ir may work in your country, but this is capitalistic society, not so easy here. But Wait!!!! You think the uSA needs to change everything about us so that we can become a Nanny State. We can agree to disagree on that. Gives me the creeps, to tell you the truth. Sounds like a lot of dependence, Zahlanzi. Weakness abounds. Americans like strength. Oh, well.
I will say again, that I THINK we should support those 40M impoverished people,, but no one else. You from a socialist mind-set call that selfish. I call it stupid to support people who choose to not be self-reliant. This concept is impossible for you to grasp. Read this to your friends at the Pub and see what they think is wrong with it. It is logical common sense.
"No way for everyone to be equal" Uhh, if you want to get money from the rich to cover the needs of the poor, then you indeed advocate what Kamala is talking about. Everyone to be equal. If you get a group of 10 guys and the rich ones give the poor ones money, then in the end they are ALL EQUAL, Geeez
I agree that healthcare is a necessity , right up there with food and clothing. You gonna get all the covered? Do you never think things through? Better Countries? Maybe in some ways. But wonder, if you will, why people want to move here?
Your last para about workers 'being protected'. I already said the govt protects them from tainted food and plane crashes. You, as a Nanny guy, think a govt should protect them from cradle to grave in every way. Even in their jobs!?!? Other than the govt being sure the corporation obeys laws, the govt has nothing to do with the worker who chooses to work for the corps. I dont get you there. If they don't make enough, they can work 2 jobs. I hope they didn't choose to have more children than they could afford. If they did, then Zahlanzi would want the Nanny government to take care of his kids. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
@AverageJoe1
As a little featurette, go over to thread ‘should families be forced by the authoritative govt to have just one car” and get where the libs are questioning my thinking of burying gold for my family’s future. I mean.......
Isnt everyone doing that?!??
How is a worker "protected" if he can be fired at any point and lose his healthcare which you consider perfectly fine to be through his employer. How is a worker protected if his employer can pay him as little as possible, with no government interference, effectively making them live paycheck to paycheck.Get this. Here Zahlsnzi suggests that the govt sholuld ‘protect’ someone from an employer who gave him a job, which, after having accepted the terms, the employee complains about pay and healthcare. Zahlsnzi Also suggests that the employer is making the employee live from paycheck to paycheck......when in fact he can choose to walk away. There is no ‘making’.
At least Zahlanzi is correct to say that there is no, and never should be, any government interference in the contractual arrangement between the employer and employee
So I don’t get Zalhanzi ‘s point with the above stated facts.
@averagejoe1 saidYet you think it is alright for you to own people. You disinherit your kid and sack your employees if they don’t bend to your will.
No, the Democrats want to control people. Do you not get the USA news over there? Google President Biden Executive Orders. Orders. All of them are indeed to control, ...he rules by fiat. The most in the history of presidents.
I assume that you are saying that, as an employer, I want to control people. Well, yes. My employees.
The Right Wing def of freedom ...[text shortened]... ver think about government. Of course, with Biden I'd better start! May ask you for some pointers.
So again, what freedoms am I as European missing out on? Food kitchens? Losing my house to healthcare bills? Being shot in a mall? 2 weeks paid vacation a year?
Yeah... your US really sounds like a capitalist paradise.
@averagejoe1 said"Here Zahlsnzi suggests that the govt sholuld ‘protect’ someone from an employer who gave him a job, which, after having accepted the terms, the employee complains about pay and healthcare"
Get this. Here Zahlsnzi suggests that the govt sholuld ‘protect’ someone from an employer who gave him a job, which, after having accepted the terms, the employee complains about pay and healthcare. Zahlsnzi Also suggests that the employer is making the employee live from paycheck to paycheck......when in fact he can choose to walk away. There is no ‘making’.
At ...[text shortened]... etween the employer and employee
So I don’t get Zalhanzi ‘s point with the above stated facts.
Yes. Individuals have no negotiating power for most jobs. An individual has to eat. A company can hire someone else who needs to eat.
The government should step in and decree people who are desperate to eat shouldn't be taken advantage of.
"Zahlsnzi Also suggests that the employer is making the employee live from paycheck to paycheck......when in fact he can choose to walk away. "
if he is living paycheck to paycheck how the flying fuk can he walk away? Do you understand what living paycheck to paycheck means?
"At least Zahlanzi is correct to say that there is no, and never should be, any government interference in the contractual arrangement between the employer and employee"
WTF. Where have i said that?
" So I don’t get Zalhanzi ‘s point with the above stated facts"
I know you don't. This is an exercise in futility on my part. I know i am not going to convince you. I know i won't make you move a millimeter towards my stance. It's simply a hobby. Some people watch reality shows, I like to show right wing nutjobs how fuked up they are.
@shavixmir saidYou are missing out on opportunity and prosperity which is a mainstay of the USA. There are no limitations on what one can do to succeed. The countries you champion are too involved in your life, requiring stringent rules, resulting in less freedom. Look up definition of Freedom for clarification. If you depend on govt for your sustenance, then it follows that you are controlled by the government. This is being attempted by our present administration, beginning with implementing societal divisiveness, then taking money from the rich, and then attack corporations, all of which will bring the USA down........the era of big government is back. Funny, Bill Clinton promised the era of big government is over.
Yet you think it is alright for you to own people. You disinherit your kid and sack your employees if they don’t bend to your will.
So again, what freedoms am I as European missing out on? Food kitchens? Losing my house to healthcare bills? Being shot in a mall? 2 weeks paid vacation a year?
Yeah... your US really sounds like a capitalist paradise.
Anyway, my common point on the forum...we want limited government Unlike your government(s).