03 Oct 22
I think this is a good issue, given we are all so different. If Society is such that the strong (the Rich in today's terms) make a world where the people are able to enjoy fruits of their labor, etc, would that not be better than a society where the government controls the comings and goings and production of these citizens? It would be a society of choices, to live lives of their choosing, free from govt directives and limits. To not be dependent on others, probably the most important element.
03 Oct 22
@averagejoe1 saidI quite agree.
I think this is a good issue, given we are all so different. If Society is such that the strong (the Rich in today's terms) make a world where the people are able to enjoy fruits of their labor, etc, would that not be better than a society where the government controls the comings and goings and production of these citizens? It would be a society of choices, to live li ...[text shortened]... from govt directives and limits. To not be dependent on others, probably the most important element.
But that doesn’t just go for the rich.
The people who are really needed in society should prosper: people working in infrastructure, nurses, builders, farmers, etc.
It also means shorter work weeks.
@averagejoe1 saidMost of the western societies, including virtually all of Europe, subscribe to this philsophy.
I think this is a good issue, given we are all so different. If Society is such that the strong (the Rich in today's terms) make a world where the people are able to enjoy fruits of their labor, etc, would that not be better than a society where the government controls the comings and goings and production of these citizens? It would be a society of choices, to live li ...[text shortened]... from govt directives and limits. To not be dependent on others, probably the most important element.
Countries like Norway, Sweden as well as the UK, Germany, France all have their wealthy.
These countries that you like to label as socialist.
The reason for government is that there has to be some kind of leash on the system, or you will have more fiascos like the US had in 2009.
I like to liken Capitalism as a dog.
There is a leash. The government holds the leash, which can be longer or shorter depending on the ideology.
At the extremes are Communism and cowboy Capitalism.
Communism seeks to get rid of the dog.
Cowboy Capitalism seeks to get rid of the leash.
In both cases the dog is gone.
03 Oct 22
@vivify saidNo question. There are many safeguards for that, so much so that we are overburdened with regulations. But the good regulations keep commerce and free exchange on an even keel, which is all that is necessary for a smooth running economy where everyone prospers.
People in power, who are usually the rich, tend to keep power at the expense of everyone else, not for the benefit of everyone else. Government is needed to keep such people in check and make sure no one is exploited.
03 Oct 22
@athousandyoung saidYes, 10,000 years ago it was the strong that kept it all together, and as they made themselves stronger to manage the society, currency was invented which was used by the society including the strong, who, when having a large amount, were called rich, which word cultivated people who did not like for them to be rich. But during the process, the strong had made them strong too. Rich would come later.
Strong =/= rich
@mghrn55 saidThe leash exists in govt-controlled countries, like the socialist ones. True, we fear the overbearing of the USA govt. They are supposed to protect us, military and FBI, they have agencies to approve our drugs, our water, air planes in the air, OSHA to be sure a 40 story office building will not cave in, and to to improve access for the handicapped. Also, to approve our food purveyors.
Most of the western societies, including virtually all of Europe, subscribe to this philsophy.
Countries like Norway, Sweden as well as the UK, Germany, France all have their wealthy.
These countries that you like to label as socialist.
The reason for government is that there has to be some kind of leash on the system, or you will have more fiascos like the US had in 2009. ...[text shortened]... et rid of the dog.
Cowboy Capitalism seeks to get rid of the leash.
In both cases the dog is gone.
So, we want all that in place, so that we can go about our business. But if they try to get involved in our personal lives, like abortion or how much money we have, and even tell us to give some of it to other people if we are more successful than they are, then that means they are putting us on a leash.
Like you say, capitalism seeks to fight off the leash.
Your leash is a good analogy. Y'all definitely have that over there, Cuba, Chile, et al. I learned that from folks such as Zahlanzi. I cannot imagine having a govt that is supposed to protect us, in our quests for prosperity, having us on leashes. How do y'all stand it?
03 Oct 22
So, to the OP. A society where people matriculate and have free exchange, capitalism, opportunity, unfettered access to getting ahead in the world, becoming successful with no government restrictions...........Is that a better world in which to live....OR
A society with all the trappings of the definition of socialism, won't bore you with typing it all out. Where you must answer to a controlling government, the socialists, if you will. Remember, the people who live under socialism are not socialists. They are, however told by the socialists what they are required to do.
Capitalists in the USA do not, as of yet, find themselves being told what to do. Can't quite tell, though, It may be just around the corner!!
Which would be the better government in this hypothetical society?
03 Oct 22
@averagejoe1 saidGovernment by the capitalists, of the capitalists and for the capitalists?
So, to the OP. A society where people matriculate and have free exchange, capitalism, opportunity, unfettered access to getting ahead in the world, becoming successful with no government restrictions...........Is that a better world in which to live....OR
A society with all the trappings of the definition of socialism, won't bore you with typing it all out. Wher ...[text shortened]... just around the corner!!
Which would be the better government in this hypothetical society?
I prefer one where the People make policy decisions.
03 Oct 22
@averagejoe1 said"But if they try to get involved in our personal lives, like abortion"
The leash exists in govt-controlled countries, like the socialist ones. True, we fear the overbearing of the USA govt. They are supposed to protect us, military and FBI, they have agencies to approve our drugs, our water, air planes in the air, OSHA to be sure a 40 story office building will not cave in, and to to improve access for the handicapped. Also, to approve our ...[text shortened]... supposed to protect us, in our quests for prosperity, having us on leashes. How do y'all stand it?
Telling people they can't have abortion IS getting involved in their personal lives.
03 Oct 22
@mghrn55 said"Countries like Norway, Sweden as well as the UK, Germany, France all have their wealthy.
Most of the western societies, including virtually all of Europe, subscribe to this philsophy.
Countries like Norway, Sweden as well as the UK, Germany, France all have their wealthy.
These countries that you like to label as socialist.
The reason for government is that there has to be some kind of leash on the system, or you will have more fiascos like the US had in 2009. ...[text shortened]... et rid of the dog.
Cowboy Capitalism seeks to get rid of the leash.
In both cases the dog is gone.
These countries that you like to label as socialist."
Except he doesn't mention them. It's always Cuba., Venezuela, whatever. Never a first world country with a higher standard of living.
03 Oct 22
@no1marauder saidI prefer one where the representatives of the people make the decisions, like it has been going on since Benjamin Franklin. And, oh, like it tells us to in the Constitution of the United States.
Government by the capitalists, of the capitalists and for the capitalists?
I prefer one where the People make policy decisions.
03 Oct 22
@zahlanzi saidRead it again. The whole SCOTUS decision said that the Federal Government has nothing to do with abortion. Hell,, they couldn't WAIT to get rid of it. They got OUT of our personal lives, not into it. Whew.
"But if they try to get involved in our personal lives, like abortion"
Telling people they can't have abortion IS getting involved in their personal lives.
03 Oct 22
@zahlanzi saidA good point, touche', but your def of a high standard of living is different than mine, with all due respect. You say above that I don't mention the idyllic bicycle riding countries, etc.? Well, you, you and the more learned such as Marauder, never mention the word Freedom. Independence. Self sufficiency. Personal prosperity. There are more words. Why? Because you don't need any of that in a Nanny state.
"Countries like Norway, Sweden as well as the UK, Germany, France all have their wealthy.
These countries that you like to label as socialist."
Except he doesn't mention them. It's always Cuba., Venezuela, whatever. Never a first world country with a higher standard of living.
So, those words above denote my kind of high standard of living. Nothing high about standards where those atrributes just don't measure up. Give me (freedom) or give me death!!! You fellers can't even keep what you earn without government interference. brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr