| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Socialism | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 30 2008, 10:23 PM (320 Views) | |
| somerled | Apr 30 2008, 10:23 PM Post #1 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
No. Mod : please delete the do you consider social bad ? poll. This should read : do you consider socialism bad ? Bad typing ....
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| rowskid86 | Apr 30 2008, 10:45 PM Post #2 |
|
Suck my Spock
|
socialism is a bad thing, gives the government too much power, it should have very very limited control. the less the better! |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Franko | May 1 2008, 01:18 AM Post #3 |
|
Shower Moderator
|
It's usually our own laziness that invites the totality of a socialist society. We keep allowing more and more taxation, programs, and laws which control more and more of what we do. Statists also know how gullible people are. Offer them free health care, subsidized trips to Disneyworld, and free donuts once a week and the masses will hand over every single right they ever had. Then there is the guilting process. I mean, somewhere, there must be someone less fortunate than yourself. How can you sleep at night? Where is your conscience ? Only the STATE can guarantee "fairness" and "justice" for all. This is the eerie message I see at a subtle level every time I turn on the news. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Hoss | May 1 2008, 07:55 AM Post #4 |
![]()
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
|
Socialism = tyranny of the do-gooders. (Bad) |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| 24thcenstfan | May 1 2008, 08:14 AM Post #5 |
|
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
|
Other. Too much socialism is bad IMO. Too much of anything can often be bad. I have no problem with some aspects of socialism being applied to our society (as there already is). I like that there are social nets in place for some of our more disadvantaged (e.g. elderly, handicapped, and extremely poor). I do think its always good to reevaluate those social nets to see if they are operating as efficiently as possible. This will hopefully guard against fraud and waste. An issue that needs to be addressed more firmly by the candidates currently running for President (here in the US). |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | May 1 2008, 11:24 AM Post #6 |
|
Time to put something here
|
Other; I can be, it has been, it doesnt have to be, there are places where it is not, its not for me. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| STC | May 1 2008, 11:48 AM Post #7 |
![]()
Commodore
|
No. But this doesn't mean I want government to have total control over my life. Of course not. Socialism can be practised in degrees, like most other things. It's not about absolutes such as 'Freedom' vs 'Socialism'. Also, a little bit of Socialism, well-managed and targeted, significantly improves the lives and freedom of some while only having a small effect on others. The net gain to society is often worth it. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Minuet | May 1 2008, 11:59 AM Post #8 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
You have summed things up beautifully STC
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| HistoryDude | May 1 2008, 01:06 PM Post #9 |
![]()
Shaken, not stirred...
|
I would offer instead that if you give your government degrees and no absolutes, then they just take a little bit more each year until they will get total control over your life. Instead, a little bit of private charity, well-managed and targeted, significantly improves the lives and freedom of others without having to give up any of our freedoms or being told what to do with our money. I say no to Socialism. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Data's Cat's Sister | May 1 2008, 01:43 PM Post #10 |
|
Commodore
|
I vote no in line with STC's points. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| STC | May 1 2008, 02:28 PM Post #11 |
![]()
Commodore
|
Government, like any institution, will of course extend its influence if allowed, to preserve its own survival and influence. But when they start to extend that influence, isn't that what the ballot box is for? To throw a government out when they go too far? Or do you have such little faith in the democratic process? As regards charity, I accept your points to an extent. However, to give but one example, if there is poverty in an area where incomes are low across the board, how can a charity hope to have a significant effect given that its ability to raise funds will be limited by the fact that the area is low income? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| HistoryDude | May 1 2008, 02:38 PM Post #12 |
![]()
Shaken, not stirred...
|
Yes, I do have that little faith in democracy - at least in today's apathetic America. So when I speak of today's socialistic government, it will not be changed at the ballot box. It will only be changed by upheaval, I'm afraid.
Well, one, charity for one area does not have to come from within that area alone. The organization I probably give the most of my money to is Nazarene World Missions. They gather donations from all over the world and put it to good effect all over the world. Second, all this is doing is replacing one question with another in a different system. Socialism has its own problems in reaching certain people. Not everyone will be helped, whether by government or private charity. Both have their drawbacks. So since neither are perfect, I prefer the one that does not take away my freedoms. Third, I also do really believe that private organizations are much more efficient than our cumbersome government. The private sector can make the dollar go a lot farther. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | May 1 2008, 06:53 PM Post #13 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
I agree in part. It is difficult to raise significant funds in a low income area. However, that doesn't mean the amount as a percentage of what people have to give is not large. When I was in the non-profit world, I was constantly humbled by the people who had little, but were willing to share what they had with those in need. My favorite charity is the Salvation Army who excel at making miracles with a dollar or two. It's what is done with the money that is important at the end of the day, not how much money there was at the start. I am not going to wander into the general topic (socialism) here. On this topic, I respect the right of others to make different choices than I would and hope that others would accord me the same freedom. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Franko | May 1 2008, 09:18 PM Post #14 |
|
Shower Moderator
|
Actually, having a social safety net for the most impoverished is not necessarily socialism. Sometimes poverty and economic depression in an area is a RESULT of too much government regulation, interference and awarding industrial contracts to "somewhere else". In this case, the state should cough up and address the results of their horrendous blunders, which of course opens up another can of worms. Some government policies in my province have directly led to the dissolution of smaller forestry companies in favour of the monolithic ones, plunging many forestry workers into unemployment and retraining. People tend to think that impoverished areas and high unemployment are somehow the fault of the "free enterprise system", when in fact (while this may sometimes be true) if you dig deeper you can see all sorts of other factors than involve unnecessary and biased policies of regulators and regional government authority. Helping out impoverished families and a reasonable health and wefare system for the poor has never been a problem with me; most of these folks are struggling likely due to inept government interference in various ways. Even in my own town, the eastern sector have wanted to rebuild and refurbish the business area to boost the economy and create more local jobs (my community is growing at a phenomenal rate) but guess who keeps throwing up roadblocks to impede this ????? You guessed correctly. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |





9:31 AM Jul 11