You've basically brought this conversation down to accusing me of disliking your position because I have a psychological problem. Thereby invalidating my concerns rather than addressing them.
If that's the way you chose to "debate" those who disagree with you I see no point in continuing.
SteveInCO, terms like those you used describe defenses no debate can address. Only introspection can penetrate them.
"I oppose unlimited democracy." You oppose what does not exist.
Humans decide what to have for dinner. Wolves and sheep don't.
Democracy and fetish? The magical connotation of "fetish" makes it and a decision-making process an odd pair.
No amount of reason can counter even the above illogic, let alone the rest.
Blaine, you hit a home run.
The most vigorous defenses of competitive free enterprise I've ever heard were made by public employees I've known. Also, two veterans I know stand out from the hundreds of veterans I know. Like most of us, they rely on the VA for at least some of their health care, yet I heard those two attack socialized medicine.
I like to confront Republicans on that score. I often tell them that Democrats once spent money like drunken sailors but that Republicans now spend money like drunken Democrats.
My concern with the American form of capitalism is that it seems the health of the system is dependent upon continual growth. There is constant referrals to GDP and that if we can create MORE jobs we can produce MORE product and then sell MORE stuff to other countries, etc. With the realization that we live on a relatively small rock with finite and actually dwindling resources the idea of MORE cannot be sustained indefinitely into the future. Our civilization has huge problems we are starting to realize, water and environmental pollution being two of them. The use and discard way of life in the USA is not sustainable. Eventually huge changes will become necessary.
The productivity of America's workforce has went way up in the last twenty five years. But look at the wage scale in relation. It remains a flat line on the chart. Capitalism is not compassionate.
Socialism appeals to me in the sense that the lust and greed of capitalism and it's desire for more could be put into check. Living in a society where we meet the individual basic needs of our citizenry, protecting our environment by wisely using it's resources, and controlling population growth. Unfortunately the lust for power and dominion over others and the subsequent killing of innocents is the reality we must face.
Ah, brilliant. I'll have to watch that episode! A Republican nightmare, and my dream come true :)
He did turn out to be insightful in a negotiation with the Romulans; some skills carry over just fine.
I agree completely. People forget (or ignore) the fact that unrestrained capitalism will inevitably lead to waste, and also the depletion of many resources. If we're all moderate and conservative (in the literal sense, not the political), we can preserve our resources and the ecosystems that we affect. I'm just not sure humans can totally override their instinct to procreate and dominate. They feel it's an inherent right to have babies, and as many as they want. I can imagine the outcry if our government made one little people about only allowing each family two children. Wow. They'd go nuts.
Pay people to be voluntarily sterilized. Paying several thousand would be a bargain in the long term.
"...it seems the health of the system is dependent upon continual growth."
The health of the system? No, the health (economic health) of the people in the system, who depend on it to satisfy their needs. Most, if not all, of them feel economically insecure. They put their personal efforts into feeling more secure and the system works...for some of them.
Why have American workers allowed their wages to flat line?
"...all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
Do those words from the Declaration of Independence answer my question?
Have capitalism's rulers succeeded in dividing us enough that they have conquered us?
Tacitus, the Roman statesman, said "Were the people to rule themselves they would create trust. May they ever have distrust for one another, for as our need for power hurries us on, fortune can give us no greater gift than their mutual distrust."
Let's see Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Putin, Helle Thorning Smith and North Korea.
And if that is not enough, I live in a country with a socialist government and they have been in office for 1.5 year and they have made the GDP fall with 11.5%, they make more laws (and stupid once), they wast money on random things like people on social services (Student Financial Services not include), they have given more money to people who have been with out work for a long period, 1.5 year and longer and said AIIH you don't have too apply for as many jobs, and because of that they have to cut on other more relevant areas like hospitals, schools and so on.
In short they are mental
But is that due to socialism or to the idiocy of the particular socialists in control in your country?
BTW, by all accounts socialist countries are better places to live. I found this list of the 10 happiest countries. Most are what we Americans would call socialistic:
Here is the source.
From the same article: "They are all borderline socialist states, with generous welfare benefits and lots of redistribution of wealth. Yet they don’t let that socialism cross the line into autocracy. Civil liberties are abundant (consider decriminalized drugs and prostitution in the Netherlands). There are few restrictions on the flow of capital or of labor. Legatum’s scholars point out that Denmark, for example, has little job protection, but generous unemployment benefits. So business owners can keep the right number of workers, while workers can have a safety net while they muck around looking for that fulfilling job."
Most of the countries you listed in your first paragraph were/are run by dictators.