Why are so many Americans this close-minded?

[QUOTE="fidosim"][QUOTE="Trinners"]

Anarchy IS on one end what are you talking about? and Divine right is synonymous with totalitarianism. Look again.

Trinners

I'm starting to think you know nothing about political science. You want a more detailed diagram?

And how does divine right kingship have nothing to do with totalitarianism? Both are cases in which the state/head of state has total control. Divine right is the most extreme ideology because the state/head of state is being viewed as a diety.

"Progressive" a libertarian philosphy? Whaaaat? And the Divine Right is more or less when the head of state declares himself under God's authority, and, thus, everything he says and does is approved by Holy Writ; it doesn't make him a deity, it just makes him a deity's favorite.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Free_Marxet"] Because in ww2 we fought and defeated socialism, to embrace it is ridiculous to a powerful country such as ours. we already do embrace small forms of a socialism anyway.

JustusCF

Okay my wording was off, what I meant to say was if such extreme socialist tactics are used by an evil man

Fascism is not a socialist extreme. :| Communism, if it could be applied, is a socialist extreme; fascism (which is a Capitalistic extreme) is on the polar opposite extreme of Communism.

And how does divine right kingship have nothing to do with totalitarianism? Both are cases in which the state/head of state has total control. Divine right is the most extreme ideology because the state/head of state is being viewed as a diety.

Trinners

[QUOTE="moose_knuckler"][QUOTE="Trinners"]

Past ideals have no relevance in today's society if they become obsolete. A country either adapts to the change of an era or it will fail.

Trinners

Socialist principles have been introduced to the USA ever since it's creation to evolve with the times. Public education, postal service, welfare, police/fire stations and now universal healthcare. See the pattern?

Due to technology, global village and the globalization of the market's are now in effect. Increasing population is also now a major issure than ever before. The ideals that the US founded does not work well in today's world especially during an economic crisis.

Socialist solutions are needed for today's economic crisis just like it was needed during FDR's depression. Letting the corporations fall is not a feasible idea in today's world even though it was perfectly fine 200 years ago.

Times change.

[QUOTE="JustusCF"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"] We didn't fight socialism in WWII; we fought tyranny and Fascism.

Theokhoth

Okay my wording was off, what I meant to say was if such extreme socialist tactics are used by an evil man

Fascism is not a socialist extreme. :| Communism, if it could be applied, is a socialist extreme; fascism (which is a Capitalistic extreme) is on the polar opposite extreme of Communism.

I'm not saying it is, what I'm saying is the tactics he used to garner support amongst his people were socialistic.

"Economically, socialism denotes an economic system of state ownership and/or worker ownership of the means of production and distribution"

Which is exactly what Hitler did to serve his people, he provided jobs, housing, food and distrubted them to the common folk, which in turn gave him the support he needed.

[QUOTE="JustusCF"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"] We didn't fight socialism in WWII; we fought tyranny and Fascism.

Theokhoth

Okay my wording was off, what I meant to say was if such extreme socialist tactics are used by an evil man

Fascism is not a socialist extreme. :| Communism, if it could be applied, is a socialist extreme; fascism (which is a Capitalistic extreme) is on the polar opposite extreme of Communism.

Well, i'd take that back if you're not talking about Communism as it has been applied before.

Totalitarianism is different from Authoritarianism.fidosim

Of course they are, i never said they were. The previous diagram was something i found from google to point out that my original placing of ideologies in my original mock political spectrum was in correct order from left to right.

Divine Right Kingship means that sovereignty rests with the monarch as a God's earthly lieutenant.fidosim

The most extreme case of DR is when the head of state is viewed as a god. IE King of Persia, God-king of india, mayans and aztecs, ancient egyptians. It's pretty much an extinct ideology.

Political spectrums aren't measured by how the leader is viewed. It's about how much control the state has in relation to the people.fidosim

Well of course, in which case DR and totalitarian are the same in this regard given history's examples.

What do you mean by conservatism?fidosim

Burke's conservatism of course where it favors the elite. Where not everyone is born equal and that some are better than others inherently.

There needs to be a mix. The Socialism practice in russia saw the country go down further than they ever thought it would, the extreme captalism the US practices has also done the same for their country.

[QUOTE="Wikipedian"]

[QUOTE="Free_Marxet"][QUOTE="Ryir554"]

actually, America was found on the principle of equality, so Socialism is more American then Capatalism which says that we should all compete to become richer and therefore "better" then one another.

BTW I am American and am a registered Socialist. But thats what I love about America, we can all have different views and its okay.

Ryir554

so, some people have more rights than others?

[QUOTE="Trinners"]

[QUOTE="moose_knuckler"]Key word: adapt, socialism is far from an adaptation of what the U.S. is that's fundamentally changing how America is run. I have to disagree with your last sentence as well.moose_knuckler

Socialist principles have been introduced to the USA ever since it's creation to evolve with the times. Public education, postal service, welfare, police/fire stations and now universal healthcare. See the pattern?

Due to technology, global village and the globalization of the market's are now in effect. Increasing population is also now a major issure than ever before. The ideals that the US founded does not work well in today's world especially during an economic crisis.

Socialist solutions are needed for today's economic crisis just like it was needed during FDR's depression. Letting the corporations fall is not a feasible idea in today's world even though it was perfectly fine 200 years ago.

Times change.

I'm not saying that the USA should become a socialist country only that it needs to adpot socialist principles which some way, shape or form is necessary in most countries. Universal healthcare won't turn america into a socialist country. And i sincerely hope you don't seriously think that it will. In fact, you can't even specifically classify today's governments under a single political ideology consdering most governments borrow principles from other ideologies to best suit them.

ANd I seriously hope the USA get's universal healthcare, it's the only member of the G8 that doesn't have it which is quite embarassing by today's healthcare standards especially for such a wealthy nation.

[QUOTE="Free_Marxet"] Because in ww2 we fought and defeated socialism, to embrace it is ridiculous to a powerful country such as ours. we already do embrace small forms of a socialism anyway.

Theokhoth

America was founded upon individual rights and lockean principles. Not socialism, not equality.Free_Marxet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualism Individualism is not about having people be different than one and other. Its about negative liberty, and freedom from.

No, its not debatable. If the founders wanted anything other than individual rights, they would have created a system for that. but they didnt, they had capitalism and very limited government.

"Forty years after Charles's execution and just after the Declaration of Rights, John Locke wrote his Two Treatises of Government, defending the right of the people to revolt against violation of natural rights. Locke argued that men are by nature free and equal, owning their "persons [bodies] and possessions." Without laws, people cannot preserve these natural rights, so they "unite into a community for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living." It is the peo- ple's right, however, to dissolve a government that fails to protect them."

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=2&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.billofrightsinstitute.org%2Fpdf%2Fborday%2Fbory_u1_l1.pdf&ei=o0h-StGvE4GNtgfyt638AQ&rct=j&q=Founders+Individual+rights&usg=AFQjCNHL_qo8CcguhA-AUFYySChCEa02LA ^-about the constitution and has john locke stuff in it.

Oh, and I never said we fought against socialism in world war two. Please dont make things up anymore, ok?

Of course they are, i never said they were. The previous diagram was something i found from google to point out that my original placing of ideologies in my original mock political spectrum was in correct order from left to right.

Trinners

You said totalitarianism was synonymous with Divine Right Kingship. It is not.

No they aren't correct in a left to right line of state control vs. popular control. In socialist country, the state controls the economy, so it would not be further left than liberalism, and neither would communism.

The most extreme case of DR is when the head of state is viewed as a god. IE King of Persia, God-king of india, mayans and aztecs, ancient egyptians. It's pretty much an extinct ideology.

Trinners

Yeah. So what does that have to do with totalitarianism?

Well of course, in which case DR and totalitarian are the same in this regard given history's examples.

Trinners

? Divine Right Kingship ties in with absolutist monarchies, which were not totalitarian.

Burke's conservatism of course where it favors the elite. Where not everyone is born equal and that some are better than others inherently.

Trinners

Then that doesn't have much to do with how much control the government has in relation to popular control. You'd be better off labeling it as a monarchy.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Free_Marxet"] We didn't fight socialism in WWII; we fought tyranny and Fascism. [QUOTE="Free_Marxet"] America was founded upon individual rights and lockean principles. Not socialism, not equality.Free_Marxet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualism Individualism is not about having people be different than one and other. Its about negative liberty, and freedom from.

No, its not debatable. If the founders wanted anything other than individual rights, they would have created a system for that. but they didnt, they had capitalism and very limited government.

"Forty years after Charles's execution and just after the Declaration of Rights, John Locke wrote his Two Treatises of Government, defending the right of the people to revolt against violation of natural rights. Locke argued that men are by nature free and equal, owning their "persons and possessions." Without laws, people cannot preserve these natural rights, so they "unite into a community for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living." It is the peo- ple's right, however, to dissolve a government that fails to protect them."

about the constitution and has john locke stuff in it.

Oh, and I never said we fought against socialism in world war two. Please dont make things up anymore, ok?

I have a degree in philosophy and I'm well aware of our history. I never said Individualism is about people being different. Please don't make things up anymore, ok?

What was the thing about Locke for? The government was not found solely on his philosophies. :| Look up Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and their respective social contract theories and then look at how they influenced the Founding Fathers.

And the quote system messed up; I'm not making things up, ok?

[QUOTE="moose_knuckler"][QUOTE="Trinners"]

Socialist principles have been introduced to the USA ever since it's creation to evolve with the times. Public education, postal service, welfare, police/fire stations and now universal healthcare. See the pattern?

Due to technology, global village and the globalization of the market's are now in effect. Increasing population is also now a major issure than ever before. The ideals that the US founded does not work well in today's world especially during an economic crisis.

Socialist solutions are needed for today's economic crisis just like it was needed during FDR's depression. Letting the corporations fall is not a feasible idea in today's world even though it was perfectly fine 200 years ago.

Times change.

Trinners

I'm not saying that the USA should become a socialist country only that it needs to adpot socialist principles which some way, shape or form is necessary in most countries. Universal healthcare won't turn america into a socialist country. And i sincerely hope you don't seriously think that it will. In fact, you can't even specifically classify today's governments under a single political ideology consdering most governments borrow principles from other ideologies to best suit them.

ANd I seriously hope the USA get's universal healthcare, it's the only member of the G8 that doesn't have it which is quite embarassing by today's healthcare standards especially for such a wealthy nation.

When we have 300 million people, it's kind of hard... How exactly would we pay for it? the CBO has already said we would save no money...

[QUOTE="moose_knuckler"][QUOTE="Trinners"]

Socialist principles have been introduced to the USA ever since it's creation to evolve with the times. Public education, postal service, welfare, police/fire stations and now universal healthcare. See the pattern?

Due to technology, global village and the globalization of the market's are now in effect. Increasing population is also now a major issure than ever before. The ideals that the US founded does not work well in today's world especially during an economic crisis.

Socialist solutions are needed for today's economic crisis just like it was needed during FDR's depression. Letting the corporations fall is not a feasible idea in today's world even though it was perfectly fine 200 years ago.

Times change.

Trinners

I'm not saying that the USA should become a socialist country only that it needs to adpot socialist principles which some way, shape or form is necessary in most countries. Universal healthcare won't turn america into a socialist country. And i sincerely hope you don't seriously think that it will. In fact, you can't even specifically classify today's governments under a single political ideology consdering most governments borrow principles from other ideologies to best suit them.

ANd I seriously hope the USA get's universal healthcare, it's the only member of the G8 that doesn't have it which is quite embarassing by today's healthcare standards especially for such a wealthy nation.

You said totalitarianism was synonymous with Divine Right Kingship. It is not.fidosim

You said totalitarianism was synonymous with Divine Right Kingship. It is not.

That's semantics. I will then clarify, to what I originally meant, DR is similar to totalitarianism in terms of control.

No they aren't correct in a left to right line of state control vs. popular control. In socialist country, the state controls the economy, so it would not be further left than liberalism, and neither would communism.fidosim

This is where your understanding of the spectrum is flawed. "The left" of the political spectrum deals with the support of changing traditional cultural values while "the right" seeks to preserve said traditonal cultural values.

The left also seeks to achieve the distribution of wealth amongst the population in which socialism would correctly fall into "the left" whoever is in control of the economy is irrelevant. If the state controls the economy but still spreads the wealth amongst the population it will be considered to be in the left side (communism)

The right favors the elite and seeks to preserve traditional social heirarchy.

Yeah. So what does that have to do with totalitarianism?fidosim

Your comment was that DR is when the head of state is viewed as the leutenant of a diety, the above statement was my response to your comment.

? Divine Right Kingship ties in with absolutist monarchies, which were not totalitarian. fidosim

So the aztecs, mayans and ancient egyptian DR kingships weren't totalitarian at all? Or a more recent example, hirohito and tojo? :roll:

Then that doesn't have much to do with how much control the government has in relation to popular control. You'd be better off labeling it as a monarchy.fidosim

Again your understanding of the political spectrum is flawed.

I don't believe that many americans want America to end up like Russia. Also socialism goes much against freedom.

[QUOTE="Trinners"]

[QUOTE="moose_knuckler"]Your listing social principles that have been adapted before that anyway, of course U.S. is gonna adapt some ideas from England when they kicked them out of our country (givens). Yes there's a pattern but the key word is still adapt which is not what America would be doing if it were to become a socialist country. Healthcare isn't there yet (I pray to God it doesn't) so...........JustusCF

I'm not saying that the USA should become a socialist country only that it needs to adpot socialist principles which some way, shape or form is necessary in most countries. Universal healthcare won't turn america into a socialist country. And i sincerely hope you don't seriously think that it will. In fact, you can't even specifically classify today's governments under a single political ideology consdering most governments borrow principles from other ideologies to best suit them.

ANd I seriously hope the USA get's universal healthcare, it's the only member of the G8 that doesn't have it which is quite embarassing by today's healthcare standards especially for such a wealthy nation.

When we have 300 million people, it's kind of hard... How exactly would we pay for it? the CBO has already said we would save no money...

China has 1.3 billion people and has a system for universal healthcare. The size of the population is no excuse.

And every developed coutnry is suffering from the economic recession, not just the US.

That's semantics. I will then clarify,= to what I originally meant, DR is similar to totalitarianism in terms of control.

Trinners

Dude...no, it isn't. DR means sovereirgnty comes from God to the ruler. That's it. Nothing to do with how much of the society that ruler controls.

This is where your understanding of the spectrum is flawed. "The left" of the political spectrum deals with the support of changing traditional cultural values while "the right" seeks to preserve said traditonal cultural values.

The left also seeks to achieve the distribution of wealth amongst the population in which socialism would correctly fall into "the left" whoever is in control of the economy is irrelevant. If the state controls the economy but still spreads the wealth amongst the population it will be considered to be in the left side (communism)

The right favors the elite and seeks to preserve traditional social heirarchy.

Trinners

I'm not talking about left vs. right wing. I'm talking about popular control on one end, and government control on the other. Talking about the left and right wing, by the American definition, liberals want more control of the economy and less on social issues, conservatives want less on the economy and more on social issues.

So the aztecs, mayans and ancient egyptian DR kingships weren't totalitarian at all? Or a more recent example, hirohito and tojo? :roll:

Again your understanding of the political spectrum is flawed.

Trinners

It doesn't matter whether or not they were totalitarian. A country could theoretically be totalitarian AND have the concept of divine right, but they are not synonymous.

[QUOTE="Free_Marxet"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"] America was founded on the ideal for the best form of government for the people. Hence why the Constitution can be ratified and why the government can be changed as it is needed. America was founded on the principles of Locke, Rousseau, Hobbes, Luther, and many, many others; it was not founded on the philosophies of a single man. As for whether or not it was founded on individual rights, that's highly debatable--and it's arguable that a society that is equal produces greater individuality, as a society is a bunch of individuals.

Theokhoth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualism Individualism is not about having people be different than one and other. Its about negative liberty, and freedom from.

No, its not debatable. If the founders wanted anything other than individual rights, they would have created a system for that. but they didnt, they had capitalism and very limited government.

"Forty years after Charles's execution and just after the Declaration of Rights, John Locke wrote his Two Treatises of Government, defending the right of the people to revolt against violation of natural rights. Locke argued that men are by nature free and equal, owning their "persons and possessions." Without laws, people cannot preserve these natural rights, so they "unite into a community for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living." It is the peo- ple's right, however, to dissolve a government that fails to protect them."

about the constitution and has john locke stuff in it.

Oh, and I never said we fought against socialism in world war two. Please dont make things up anymore, ok?

I have a degree in philosophy and I'm well aware of our history. I never said Individualism is about people being different. Please don't make things up anymore, ok?

What was the thing about Locke for? The government was not found solely on his philosophies. :| Look up Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and their respective social contract theories and then look at how they influenced the Founding Fathers.

And the quote system messed up; I'm not making things up, ok?

Dude...no, it isn't. DR means sovereirgnty comes from God to the ruler. That's it. Nothing to do with how much of the society that ruler controls.

It doesn't matter whether or not they were totalitarian. A country could theoretically be totalitarian AND have the concept of divine right, but they are not synonymous.

fidosim

I guess I should have clarified further on my original comment, that governments that are ruled by DR and governments that are totalitarian tend to be similar in the control and power that they have.

I'm not talking about left vs. right wing. I'm talking about popular control on one end, and government control on the other. Talking about the left and right wing, by the American definition, liberals want more control of the economy and less on social issues, conservatives want less on the economy and more on social issues.fidosim

Well then I guess it was just a major misunderstanding from both of us and I apologize for lashing out earlier.

In the american political spectrum then yes communism and socialism would be on the right while in the traditional political spectrium they would fall on the left. In terms of economic control then socialism and fascism and communism would be the same but in terms of ideology socialism and fascism are radically different.

Well then I guess it was just a major misunderstanding from both of us and I apologize for lashing out earlier.

In the american political spectrum then yes communism and socialism would be on the right while in the traditional political spectrium they would fall on the left. In terms of economic control then socialism and fascism and communism would be the same but in terms of ideology socialism and fascism are radically different.

[QUOTE="Trinners"]

Well then I guess it was just a major misunderstanding from both of us and I apologize for lashing out earlier.

In the american political spectrum then yes communism and socialism would be on the right while in the traditional political spectrium they would fall on the left. In terms of economic control then socialism and fascism and communism would be the same but in terms of ideology socialism and fascism are radically different.

fidosim

True that, like USSR and The third reich.

It has a lot to do with propaganda, at least in my opinion. During the cold war, there was all the crap about how fantastic capitalism was and how horrible socialism was, but then again LBJ was still able to pass medicare and medicaid at what was really the height of the cold war in the 60's, despite the right's cries of socialism (who can forgetoperation coffee cup?). So I think the real turning point was 1980 with the election of Reagan, when he declared that government was the problem, and created a very strong stigma against government, and a mentality began to develop that the government couldn't do anything right.

I'm not saying that the USA should become a socialist country only that it needs to adpot socialist principles which some way, shape or form is necessary in most countries. Universal healthcare won't turn america into a socialist country. And i sincerely hope you don't seriously think that it will. In fact, you can't even specifically classify today's governments under a single political ideology consdering most governments borrow principles from other ideologies to best suit them.

ANd I seriously hope the USA get's universal healthcare, it's the only member of the G8 that doesn't have it which is quite embarassing by today's healthcare standards especially for such a wealthy nation.

Trinners

Your kidding me, right?

And I just want to know how much the healthcare will cover? Seriously. Will it cover say, lung cancer for people that smoke? Or a skateboarder who breaks his arm? If so, then why should we pay for some idiot that does stuff like that.

[QUOTE="Trinners"]

I'm not saying that the USA should become a socialist country only that it needs to adpot socialist principles which some way, shape or form is necessary in most countries. Universal healthcare won't turn america into a socialist country. And i sincerely hope you don't seriously think that it will. In fact, you can't even specifically classify today's governments under a single political ideology consdering most governments borrow principles from other ideologies to best suit them.

ANd I seriously hope the USA get's universal healthcare, it's the only member of the G8 that doesn't have it which is quite embarassing by today's healthcare standards especially for such a wealthy nation.

Enchanting_Tim

Your kidding me, right?

And I just want to know how much the healthcare will cover? Seriously. Will it cover say, lung cancer for people that smoke? Or a skateboarder who breaks his arm? If so, then why should we pay for some idiot that does stuff like that.

oh right, spending money to help others and save lives is a bad thing :roll:

Really now, is that your main argument against universal healthcare? So the good honest people who tire day and night jsut to make ends meet but can't afford healthcare have to suffer because of a select few morons?

It has a lot to do with propaganda, at least in my opinion. During the cold war, there was all the crap about how fantastic capitalism was and how horrible socialism was, but then again LBJ was still able to pass medicare and medicaid at what was really the height of the cold war in the 60's, despite the right's cries of socialism (who can forgetoperation coffee cup?). So I think the real turning point was 1980 with the election of Reagan, when he declared that government was the problem, and created a very strong stigma against government, and a mentality began to develop that the government couldn't do anything right.

-Sun_Tzu-

Fear of the Reds :P It kind of sucks. I'm Socialist (probably more towards Communist but we won't talk about that) and I feel I'm not represented in this country at all. I have no problem with the current economic system but I do have many problems with how our people are cared for in this country and the lack of control the government and people have in certain situations.

Whatever makes most Americans hate Socialism is the same thing that makes them hate Gay Rights I think.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

It has a lot to do with propaganda, at least in my opinion. During the cold war, there was all the crap about how fantastic capitalism was and how horrible socialism was, but then again LBJ was still able to pass medicare and medicaid at what was really the height of the cold war in the 60's, despite the right's cries of socialism (who can forgetoperation coffee cup?). So I think the real turning point was 1980 with the election of Reagan, when he declared that government was the problem, and created a very strong stigma against government, and a mentality began to develop that the government couldn't do anything right.

fidosim

[QUOTE="Trinners"]

I'm not saying that the USA should become a socialist country only that it needs to adpot socialist principles which some way, shape or form is necessary in most countries. Universal healthcare won't turn america into a socialist country. And i sincerely hope you don't seriously think that it will. In fact, you can't even specifically classify today's governments under a single political ideology consdering most governments borrow principles from other ideologies to best suit them.

ANd I seriously hope the USA get's universal healthcare, it's the only member of the G8 that doesn't have it which is quite embarassing by today's healthcare standards especially for such a wealthy nation.

Your kidding me, right?

And I just want to know how much the healthcare will cover? Seriously. Will it cover say, lung cancer for people that smoke? Or a skateboarder who breaks his arm? If so, then why should we pay for some idiot that does stuff like that.

[QUOTE="Enchanting_Tim"]

[QUOTE="Trinners"]

I'm not saying that the USA should become a socialist country only that it needs to adpot socialist principles which some way, shape or form is necessary in most countries. Universal healthcare won't turn america into a socialist country. And i sincerely hope you don't seriously think that it will. In fact, you can't even specifically classify today's governments under a single political ideology consdering most governments borrow principles from other ideologies to best suit them.

ANd I seriously hope the USA get's universal healthcare, it's the only member of the G8 that doesn't have it which is quite embarassing by today's healthcare standards especially for such a wealthy nation.

Trinners

Your kidding me, right?

And I just want to know how much the healthcare will cover? Seriously. Will it cover say, lung cancer for people that smoke? Or a skateboarder who breaks his arm? If so, then why should we pay for some idiot that does stuff like that.

oh right, spending money to help others and save lives is a bad thing :roll:

Really now, is that your main argument against universal healthcare? So the good honest people who tire day and night jsut to make ends meet but can't afford healthcare have to suffer because of a select few morons?

Next you'll be saying it's our responsibility to clothe them, feed them, house them, and tuck them in at night. Sorry, there's a balance. People should be given the opportunity, but they should not become a burden on societyif they refuse to take it.

It is because we have been brainwashed into thinking that Democratic Socialism is like 1984 or Brave New World. After the Soviet Union fell we needed something else to be scared of. Terrorists and Socialists.

It seems to me that the majority of Americans are unanimously enraged at the slightest mention of socialism. I'm not saying socialism is good or bad, but I find that if any policy/bill brought up has properties that even resemble being socialist, everyone yells "NO!" before even weighing the pros and cons of said policy.

Edit: Changed the title to something more appropriate ;)

Edit 2: I am NOT saying in any way, shape or form that the States should be socialist, on the contrary they should stay capitalist. I'm just saying that certain ideas shouldn't be shut down without consideration.

bballm10

Well I accepted the fact long ago that 90% of all people are idiots, and since America has roughly 300 million people that's 270 million idiots. For some reason I think most people don't really know what socialism even really is.

As far as Health Care is concerned I don't really know why people would be against government health care other than blatant ignorance. We are the only first world country that doesn't have government healthcare. We spend the most on health care with the least benefit. We have the lowest (or one of the lowest) infant mortality rates among first world countries. Yet, people seem to think that insurance coorperations, who make a habit of dropping people from care when they start to cost to much, are better than a government plan.

Lastly, I would say looking at many decisions and arguments and agendas in Congress that we are not moving towards Socialism nearly as much as we are already Corpratism with most representatives bought and paid for on one issue or another.

[QUOTE="Trinners"]

[QUOTE="Enchanting_Tim"]

Your kidding me, right?

And I just want to know how much the healthcare will cover? Seriously. Will it cover say, lung cancer for people that smoke? Or a skateboarder who breaks his arm? If so, then why should we pay for some idiot that does stuff like that.

psychobrew

oh right, spending money to help others and save lives is a bad thing :roll:

Really now, is that your main argument against universal healthcare? So the good honest people who tire day and night jsut to make ends meet but can't afford healthcare have to suffer because of a select few morons?

Next you'll be saying it's our responsibility to clothe them, feed them, house them, and tuck them in at night. Sorry, there's a balance. People should be given the opportunity, but they should not become a burden on societyif they refuse to take it.

There are immigrants with master's degrees in chemical engineering who are stuck being taxi drivers. In fact goto NYC, holler a taxi, ask the person if he/she is an immigrant, then ask his/her educational background, chances are they are academically achieved in their country. This world isn't perfect where if the opprtunity arises you will always succeed, heck opportunity isn't even provided at times. And yet people still labor sometimes 60 hours a week and still can't afford medical care. That's how astronomically high the health care cost is in the USA even for something simple as a routine check-up. A simple operation such as tonsils getting removed ha the potential to drive someone into financial ruin. The cost is ridiculous and the greedy alliance of medical firms, pharmaceutical companies, and hospitals are to blame.

These people contribute to society by paying taxes and working they deserve healthcareand for those who don't, they shouldn't ruin it for the rest of the hard workers. As the polls show, the majority wouldn't mind paying a little extra from their paycheque to support the universal healthcare system because in the end it will be cheaper for everybody.

It is because we have been brainwashed into thinking that Democratic Socialism is like 1984 or Brave New World. After the Soviet Union fell we needed something else to be scared of. Terrorists and Socialists.

[QUOTE="honkyjoe"]

It is because we have been brainwashed into thinking that Democratic Socialism is like 1984 or Brave New World. After the Soviet Union fell we needed something else to be scared of. Terrorists and Socialists.

psychobrew

No he was not. Karl Marx was a philosopher and a Political Economist that saw socialism as a transitional stage to his ideal of Communism, where the workers set the production of goods. he believed that socialism was a good and necessary change but he was a Communist not a socialist.

To date, a competent socialist country is a fairytale. All countries who claim "socialist" ideals turn directly into totalitarian states. North Korea, Cuba, China, etc...

[QUOTE="psychobrew"]

[QUOTE="Trinners"]

oh right, spending money to help others and save lives is a bad thing :roll:

Really now, is that your main argument against universal healthcare? So the good honest people who tire day and night jsut to make ends meet but can't afford healthcare have to suffer because of a select few morons?

Trinners

Next you'll be saying it's our responsibility to clothe them, feed them, house them, and tuck them in at night. Sorry, there's a balance. People should be given the opportunity, but they should not become a burden on societyif they refuse to take it.

You still didn't answer my question.

Sure I did. What part of the answer didn't you understand?

While I agree people need better access to health care in instancessuch as ifthey've beenlaid off (cobra is too expensive to be accessible), people are free to find new employment if they want health care. That's the great thing about this country -- you're free to improve your situation if you're willing to work for it.

[QUOTE="psychobrew"][QUOTE="honkyjoe"]

It is because we have been brainwashed into thinking that Democratic Socialism is like 1984 or Brave New World. After the Soviet Union fell we needed something else to be scared of. Terrorists and Socialists.

No he was not. Karl Marx was a philosopher and a Political Economist that saw socialism as a transitional stage to his ideal of Communism, where the workers set the production of goods. he believed that socialism was a good and necessary change but he was a Communist not a socialist.

To date, a competent socialist country is a fairytale. All countries who claim "socialist" ideals turn directly into totalitarian states. North Korea, Cuba, China, etc...

[QUOTE="fidosim"][QUOTE="Trinners"]

They also stood for being strongly opposed to democracy, communism and capitalism and was basically a party for elitist parasites. Are they still socialist? :roll:

And every state has some control over their economy.

Trinners

No they are not. The Nazi party stood against the ideals of socialism the moment they became extreme right-wing elitist racists. They were not socialists they were fascists.

Political spectrum

Anarchy-Communism-Socialism-Liberalism-Moderate-Conservatism-Fascism-Divine Right (where the state/leader is basically viewed as god)

I think it's better to picture it as a circle, with the far right meeting the far left at anarchy, since I know far more small government 'conservatives' who describe themselves as 'anarchists,' and I live in Oregon (which is quite conservative in the rural areas, outside the liberal bastions).

Yes, because we all know the rest of the world isn't.

[QUOTE="Hot-Tamale"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"] America was founded on the ideal for the best form of government for the people. Hence why the Constitution can be ratified and why the government can be changed as it is needed. America was founded on the principles of Locke, Rousseau, Hobbes, Luther, and many, many others; it was not founded on the philosophies of a single man. As for whether or not it was founded on individual rights, that's highly debatable--and it's arguable that a society that is equal produces greater individuality, as a society is a bunch of individuals.

Theokhoth

True, but if you have taken a psychology class (perhaps you have) you would realize that socialization between humans and community participation are among the healthiest things one can do for themselves. Individualism, since it often corresponds to physical isolation and cynicism, is inherently unhealthy for humanity, according to many prominent psychologists.

That's essentially what I just said. >.>

I was a hardcore individualist until recently. I realised that every meaningful human ideal, moral, philosophy, and political system is rooted in the collective, including individualism. Everything people come up with to better the world--whether they succeed, fail, or never try--is based on what is best for society and humanity as a whole.

Oh wow. I went through a similar change in high school - basically I went in a pretty cynical guy, but was fortunate enough to befriend all the right people, who despite being adolescent males, and mostly jocks, continued to surprise me with their intelligence and observancy. I gradually regained my faith in humanity and as a result, my senior year was the best time of my life. I couldn't go back to calling myself an 'individualist' and stay sane.

Good job 'seeing the light,' to put it factionally.

[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"][QUOTE="Lindsosaurus"]

To a certain point, but it is also inherintly unhealthy to be enmeshed with your community and have no sense of individualism...It is more about a balance than anything else

JustusCF

Wrong. We are a very generous nation, to everyone and all. Some of us don't believe the government should take our money and give it to those who choose not to work, there is a lot of corruption and fraud in the welfare system, I think without all of these slobs and with donations alone, we could achieve a system where people who are legitimately unable to work will receive help by people who choose to help them without the government stepping in.

Unfortunately it will never happen, without welfare there can be no class warfare, which means it will be harder for one side or another to look human enough to get more votes than the other.

--

We did earn it, do you have a problem with that? I don't believe we should look down on anyone that earns their money honestly, we shouldn't require them to pain more of a % tax, I believe in a flat tax where everyone pays the same %.

Look at any welfare statistics. You will be surprised that these 'slobs' are actually hardworking Americans who find themselves slaves to an unfair and predatory financial system.

Socialist solutions are needed for today's economic crisis just like it was needed during FDR's depression.

Trinners

We werenearly out of the great depression until FDR's new deal sunk us back inagain.

[QUOTE="Trinners"]

And how does divine right kingship have nothing to do with totalitarianism? Both are cases in which the state/head of state has total control. Divine right is the most extreme ideology because the state/head of state is being viewed as a diety.

fidosim

That's pretty damn idealistic to say that American conservatism is a 'brand' os classical liberalism. Classical liberals would have no problems with gay marriage, abortions, stem cell research, or any of these controversial social issues that stigmatize the Republican party. Wouldn't you agree? I realize that the cult of personality around Ron Paul os growing strong, and that THEY are far closer to classical liberals (but are still wrong on most issues...:P).

What can I say? Red scare propaganda has been around since the days of McCarthyism, and before that...

Well I've always seen it this way - The United States socializes risk while privatizing profits. Look at every major recession this country has ever had, and tell me this is untrue. Everything from the Long Depression of the Gilded Age to the Enron scandal was the cause of financial institutions making cuts to workers, services, and funding during the downtimes, while pocketing the profits in times of economic growth.

There needs to be a mix. The Socialism practice in russia saw the country go down further than they ever thought it would, the extreme captalism the US practices has also done the same for their country.

Espada12

[QUOTE="Enchanting_Tim"]

[QUOTE="Trinners"]

I'm not saying that the USA should become a socialist country only that it needs to adpot socialist principles which some way, shape or form is necessary in most countries. Universal healthcare won't turn america into a socialist country. And i sincerely hope you don't seriously think that it will. In fact, you can't even specifically classify today's governments under a single political ideology consdering most governments borrow principles from other ideologies to best suit them.

ANd I seriously hope the USA get's universal healthcare, it's the only member of the G8 that doesn't have it which is quite embarassing by today's healthcare standards especially for such a wealthy nation.

Trinners

Your kidding me, right?

And I just want to know how much the healthcare will cover? Seriously. Will it cover say, lung cancer for people that smoke? Or a skateboarder who breaks his arm? If so, then why should we pay for some idiot that does stuff like that.

oh right, spending money to help others and save lives is a bad thing :roll:

Really now, is that your main argument against universal healthcare? So the good honest people who tire day and night jsut to make ends meet but can't afford healthcare have to suffer because of a select few morons?

Spending my hard earned money to help others is a bad thing let them get their own money.The good folk who tire day and night should make their own choices about what their priorities are.

We know a lot about our history.

Socialism is not the bedrock foundation of our nation.

Any citizen here is free to believe in socialism, but to attempt to cause it to be written into our laws is contrary to all that we believe.

We don't want it to be in any part of our government, and we don't want the government peddling it to us either.

If anyone wants socialism that badly, there are many countries one can choose from. All anyone needs is a passport, a visa, and a means to travel there.:)