Quote:
Originally Posted by albania
I don't think there is any fault with your logic, at least in so far as I can see, and it seems perfectly plausible to look at it that way. Unfortunately, I see it much differently. To me socialism is about forgoing individual freedoms to uphold an unrealistic standard of morality with respect to the acquisition of property.
|
Ah, but it's not necessarily unrealistic. Various European nations and even Canada operate with recognizable levels of socialism in their government and economy. As for individual freedoms.... socialism is not standing in the way of free speech, free religion, free press, freedom to assemble, freedom to arms, freedom from military quarter, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, freedom from giving self incriminating testimony, freedom to have fair trials, etc. The only real restriction is that you only have multimillionaires instead of multibillionaires with the benefit of no starvation or poverty. I'd hardly call that a loss of freedom. The funny thing is that socialism saves you money. Socialized medicine, police, fire protection, streets, etc. all are shown to be much more expensive when private. Compare the costs of medicine in the UK to the US for proof.