".....it is also easily manipulated and can literally be made to say whatever someone wants it to say." You ought to know. If you believe it, then don't use Wikpedia anymore for your own links which agree with your point of view. Besides, a rose is a rose. They are democracies with major social benefits in place, so the label doesn't matter.
I was neither condescending nor snarky; simply curious. If you'd prefer not to answer, then fine. Oh, and I went to the University of Houston, but not sure what that has to do with anything.
Good point communism as a way to live isn't something I would like. Apparently going that route satisfies those that need government to control their lives. I'll try to phrase this so you won't be offended Do you support the agenda that AOC has proposed? Do you think open borders are in the best interest of America? Do you think government control of pricing is in the best interest of America.
Credentials don't matter here, and education doesn't help if it doesn't prepare you to make a good argument. Not a single one of the countries that you listed as successful socialist countries were actually socialist countries, so your argument is invalid, and all the degrees in the world wouldn't change that. Do they have some socialist policies or programs? Sure, but so does the United States. Actual socialist countries have histories of bloodshed, poverty, and corruption, which is what we could expect here if the leftists took full control of our government.
@Lulu Moppet @Bob Kirk "Do you think government control of pricing is in the best interest of America." I'm beginning to like this thread, finally! It has been stated by many that governmental wage and price controls are one of the most destructive of policies. Good arguments have also been made in favor of "backed" currency, backed by any chosen material ownable, barterable, and usable as "money" having a fixed value with regard to the currency it backs. FDR revealed true colors when he increased the "value" of gold from 20 to 35 dollars per ounce. 15/20 = 75%. He effectively "stole" 75% of Americans' money, right out of their pockets! Frank
If socialism by your definition, Ken or anyone else, means that the government controls the means of production, then I am not a socialist. I believe in democratic (not referring to party) values; capitalism; with social benefits not based on who is "deserving." Beth, I'll go through your questions later. Maybe it was me being a bit snarky---I was HUNGRY!
If it weren't for the government, some remote areas of the country would never have gotten landline phones, or electricity. Not cost efficient to string lines. Certain things are almost a necessity. In those cases, they shouldn't be priced out of reach for everyone. Similar thing with health care.
If you want to live in a remote part of the country go for it but why is it the governments job to supply your needs.
No problem, Lulu. I hope there are no hard feelings; I certainly didn't mean to patronize you. I am genuinely curious and I think it's time we all started listening to each other instead of talking louder. (And many times I do ask foolish questions or go off half-cocked, so I need to be admonished!!)
I will not at this time go very far into it but I do believe that the majority of people do not really realize what “our” government is supposed to do. The very main function of the Federal Government is to insure that our rights as U.S. citizens are being protected both from domestic and foreign interlopers. It isn’t there to run our everyday lives nor even to make new laws that are made to govern rather than protect. The overall question at this time is whether we choose to give more responsibility to the government than what it was designed to do. To simplify things, somewhere down the line it was decided that we needed community funds (taxes)in order to finance a good military and take care of those things that are needed for the general good but it has been expanded to help govern by exploiting the needs of people thereby making it’s citizenry totally dependent upon those who have taken on the mantle of power than that of a servant to the citizenry.
As an a onlooker to your system and thought it odd at first but was explained to me that a State has a view a point of view that other bigger States could not bulley them and had to take there views ...... the system made a fair balance. Pure Democracy
@Lulu Moppet Thus, I have "over-thunk" your one simple statement........ Consider how I might digest and disgorge some of the less mundane and more complex issues put forth! Frank
And I attended not just one, but THREE colleges, have lived a lifetime immersed completely in complex, dedicated technical activities....... But have never heard the term "snarky" before....... Frank