Because it inherently promotes laziness and non-productivity by providing a welfare state for those that do not work as hard as others. The wealthy, hard-working citizens of a socialist country must sacrifice their money for those that do not work. An example could be found in the free (or cheap, I can't remember) medical care available in Canada. The lazy people know they get this care regardless and are thus unmotivated to contribute to the program through their employment and taxes.
It also promotes labor unionization as found in Britain that can lead to massive strikes and can easily cripple a nation's commercial infrastructure. Although their situation has gotten better under Blair, the threat of strikes have historically worried the businesspeople of Britain.
2006-07-27 04:53:45
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
First of all, the USSR was communist, even though in the name it says Socialist. In theory, Socialism is a great idea, but so is communism. Theory however when practiced does not always work. Most of Western Europe is socialist nowadays, and where is western europe besides poor. There's money there sure, but its all old money, All new immigrants to these countries are living in slums with no money. This is part of what caused the whole Arab riots last year. And look as some of the socialistic programs developed and implemented in the USA. Welfare, yeah that's working out great, with mom's having more babies just to keep getting the checks. Medicare, another whopper. Cost government billions and its impossible to understand all the restrictions and the like. I'm not saying its the worst possible form of government. I'd take it over fascism any day. But for my money, capitalism is key. You can make money and keep most of it. The government doesn't have to worry about taking care of the marketplace, because the markets do that themselves. And private business always does things better than government. Its called efficiency and if you don't have it in a capitalistic society, the market will chew you up and spit you out. It is a high risk high reward society.
2006-07-27 12:03:31
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Socialism is contrary to human nature. It should now be obvious to all that individuals are happiest when they are most free. Socialism requires an ever growing government power to manage relations between people and between people and employment.
In a socialist society it is the government that controls all business and therefore all employment and as such requires the elimination, by force if necessary, of all individual creativity and incentive.
Take note that all businesses would run as the Post Office runs, which should reinforce the point that the government that governs least, governs best.
As for the difference between Communism and socialism, some would say there is none, they are just at different stages of development. Communism is the logical extension of Socialism, after the State has been given all of the power and eventually exercises that power to benefit the State (and the few who run it) and to now control the people. (read Animal farm by George Orwell-properly understood as a warning to Socialists who dream of nirvana.)
You might now ask a simple question. Why would you, or anybody, give more power to any government, to use that power, however benign, against you
2006-07-27 12:51:53
·
answer #3
·
answered by smkahoo 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Socialism runs on the idea that the government is there to take care of you. They should provide healthcare, education, and other services in return for hefty taxes. Supporters say it all pans out, because the money you would spend on medicine, you just pay it in taxes, so you're not really paying any extra.
This is a bit different from Communism. In Communism, the government knows what is best for you -- what job you do for a living, how much you're allowed to earn, etc. Socialism is more of letting the government have more services.
I am opposed to Socialism for many reasons. Number one reason is I like having competition for my dollar.
Look at public schools in America; you have to send your child to the school they designate, whether or not it's a good reputable school. And even then, it's not free. You have to pay for the books, all the personal supplies, the teacher is asking for donations every year, etc. If you could choose which school to go to, your child would be much happier.
The same applies to healthcare. What if there was only one type of medicine you could get? What if you had to go to one certain clinic for your care? Some people don't mind paying extra to speak with a doctor they trust.
Which leads me to my next point. Some people don't want to put their taxes into the mix.
If I have no kids, why do I pay to keep the schools open? What am I getting out of it? If I'm healthy and I don't need a lot of medicine, why do I have to fund the healthcare system? Because someday I might get sick? Paying a few bucks for a one-time visit sure beats half my taxes every paycheck.
And lastly, the government doesn't have a habit of paying for the best. Like every other government program, they would put healthcare on a budget.
If medicine was too expensive, they wouldn't pay for it. If a new surgery was too risky, they wouldn't let their doctors do it. Canada has socialised healthcare, and their people have been known to come here to find specialised treatments.
And what would happen if a doctor messed up? You think you could sue them as easily as you can now?
At this juncture, people like to point to the millions of uninsured Americans who can't afford to see a doctor. I admit, that is a problem. But socialising the whole system is not the answer. What about the millions of kids who are getting crappy educations from our socialised school system? What about the lousy shape our roads and highways are in, thanks to government funding? What about the millions of retirees who can't get a dime in social security, depsite the government funding? What about the stand-up job our government did protecting New Orleans from a flood? And what about the millions of poor people who can't get foodstamps, despite the tax dollars poured into that program?
The bottom line is, people should take a more active role in helping their fellow neighbor. Don't pass it off as being the government's job.
2006-07-27 12:15:30
·
answer #4
·
answered by cirque de lune 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Socialism and Communism are both based on idealism.
They believe in Laboring Lower Class to rise up and bring equality to the society. Communism is a more radical form of socialism.
Since they believe in Equality, they believe in equal distribution of wealth. That means individuality has to give a way to the common good.
That's why socialist countries in Eurpoe tax their citizens 80% of their salary and use the money for the common. That helps to get rid of homeless and provide universal healthcare.
However, people are depended on government, which means less creativity and less productivity. Many economists believe that the Euro.markets are becoming less and less competitive against the US. Capitalistic freemarket demoncracy.
I hope it helps. There are so much to say, but I just came up with this spontaneously.
2006-07-27 11:55:32
·
answer #5
·
answered by American Superman 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Socialism looks at people as though there were two groups: Doers and takers.
Doers are the one who produce the goods and services that keep society going.
Takers are those people who consume the good and services.
The problem is that there is no connection between the doing and the taking. Soon there are too many takers and too few doers to keep a good standard of living for everybody.
Read these for examples.
2006-07-27 13:16:18
·
answer #6
·
answered by SPLATT 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Socialism puts too much control in the hands of government. A good example of why socialism doesn't work is our public school system. I recently read a report that said that 60% of high school grads could not point out China on a map. When you put the government in control it usually messes things up
2006-07-27 11:56:49
·
answer #7
·
answered by Ethan M 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Stella... Germany and Sweden are NOT socialist countries. They have extensive social welfare systems, but both have capitalist economic systems.
Former east germany was a socialist country. Just FYI.
I wish people would bother to read up what socialism is.
2006-07-27 11:53:15
·
answer #8
·
answered by scubalady01 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Al Quida
Look what happens when people with high and lofty ideas organize a social services support group for Islam
2006-07-27 11:57:08
·
answer #9
·
answered by 43 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Usually in socialism you have to pay higher taxes to fund all those benefits like free health care, etc.. I'm talking about socialism in countries like Germany & Sweden.
2006-07-27 11:51:01
·
answer #10
·
answered by Stella Blue 3
·
0⤊
0⤋