With the criticism of capitalism typical of every major cyclical downturn, what hope do socialists have of seeing socialism revive? I say history has not been kind to the failed policies of the past, here's what wiki lists as some of the aspects of socialism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism#Economics
"In the West, neoclassical liberal economists such as Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman said that socialist planned economies would fail, because planners could not have the business information inherent to a market economy (cf. economic calculation problem), nor would managers in Soviet-style socialist economies match the motivation of profit. Consequent to Soviet economic stagnation in the 1970s and 1980s, socialists began to accept parts of their critique. "
"In the economic calculation debate, classical liberal Friedrich Hayek argued that a socialist command economy could not adequately transmit information about prices and productive quotas due to the lack of a price mechanism, and as a result it could not make rational economic decisions. Ludwig von Mises argued that a socialist economy was not possible at all, because of the impossibility of rational pricing of capital goods in a socialist economy since the state is the only owner of the capital goods. Hayek further argued that the social control over distribution of wealth and private property advocated by socialists cannot be achieved without reduced prosperity for the general populace, and a loss of political and economic freedoms.[90][91]
Hayek's views were echoed by Winston Churchill in an electoral broadcast prior to the British general election of 1945:
“ . . . a socialist policy is abhorrent to the British ideas of freedom. Socialism is inseparably interwoven with totalitarianism and the abject worship of the state. It will prescribe for every one where they are to work, what they are to work at, where they may go and what they may say. Socialism is an attack on the right to breathe freely. No socialist system can be established without a political police. They would have to fall back on some form of Gestapo, no doubt very humanely directed in the first instance.[92]"
Originally posted by shavixmirThere always has been, and always must be, a free health safety net to provide for the disabled, and even for the inadequates and dropouts in a civilised society. But those who can pay should pay for this as for any other service via insurance policies or otherwise.
Isn't your government trying to adopt a health care bill?
Originally posted by Sartor ResartusWhy not through taxation?
There always has been, and always must be, a free health safety net to provide for the disabled, and even for the inadequates and dropouts in a civilised society. But those who can pay should pay for this as for any other service via insurance policies or otherwise.
And if that reason is acceptable, why should an army not fall under the same argumentation?
Originally posted by Sartor ResartusI agree. A "free" health safety net for those who need it with those who can pay for this service doing so via National Insurance, private insurance policies or by subscribing in other ways to private sector servoces etc.
There always has been, and always must be, a free health safety net to provide for the disabled, and even for the inadequates and dropouts in a civilised society. But those who can pay should pay for this as for any other service via insurance policies or otherwise.
Originally posted by shavixmirSimply because taxes are used to pay for anything a Government decides to spend them on like buying votes by allowing the uncontrolled mass immigration of impoverished persons from backward countries, and other wasteful policies such as we have witnessed over the last decade in the Uk with the likes of Blair and Broon at the helm.
Why not through taxation?
And if that reason is acceptable, why should an army not fall under the same argumentation?
Originally posted by Sartor ResartusGovernments let in immigrants so they vote for them? Well, that's a... creative idea.
Simply because taxes are used to pay for anything a Government decides to spend them on like buying votes by allowing the uncontrolled mass immigration of impoverished persons from backward countries, and other wasteful policies such as we have witnessed over the last decade in the Uk with the likes of Blair and Broon at the helm.
Originally posted by Sartor ResartusAnswer the bloody question.
Simply because taxes are used to pay for anything a Government decides to spend them on like buying votes by allowing the uncontrolled mass immigration of impoverished persons from backward countries, and other wasteful policies such as we have witnessed over the last decade in the Uk with the likes of Blair and Broon at the helm.
Originally posted by eljefejesusBrilliant quote. You assume, of course, that the socialist cares anything about practicality or economic growth. WHat it all comes down to is money and power. Take Barney Madoff, for example. He was a very smart man and no doubt saw that his ponzi scheme was doomed because historically ALL ponzi schemes are doomed. Yet he could not help himself. Perhaps he convinced himself that ALL other ponzi schemes were doomed to failure EXCEPT his. In like manner, those who favor socialism/communism pat theirselves on the back saying that it didn't work then because of x, y, and z. However, if it were done my way it would work.
:
“ . . . a socialist policy is abhorrent to the British ideas of freedom. Socialism is inseparably interwoven with totalitarianism and the abject worship of the state. It will prescribe for every one where they are to work, what they are to work at, where they may go and what they may say. Socialism is an attack on the right to breathe freely. No socialis ...[text shortened]... fall back on some form of Gestapo, no doubt very humanely directed in the first instance.[92]"[/b]
Speaking of ponzi shemes, is social security belly up yet?
Originally posted by shavixmirI thought we were talking about health care.That is what you referred to in your post about a proposed USA government measure and to which I replied.
If I read your response correctly, you oppose taxes to pay for warfare.
Do you oppose taxation in the whole then?
No police force?
