I think it sounds like a great idea, but wouldn't life be boring if we just had the basic necessities no matter how hard we worked? I understand that excessisve consumerism is a negative thing but we all like having nice things once in a while.
2006-11-27 16:34:44 · 8 answers · asked by AL IS ON VACATION AND HAS NO PIC 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Well the most socialist that includes a free market and democratically elected government that I know of is Sweden.. Their gov. guarantees all of what you said Housing, Education, Health care, retirement as well as child care. This government has gotten so large that 65- 70% of all workers work directly or indirectly for the government. then again close to 70% of their paycheck goes to taxes.
This is the best unbiased example I can give of a free socialist state.
That choice is a perfectly valid choice for some people and the Swedes seem reasonably happy with it.
That said, I am not an advocate of a similar system here. Here are my reasons why
-The Swedish economy per capita went from being one of europes strongest at the turn of the century to one of the weakest
- High taxation rate drives private capital elsewhere and is one reason why the Government itself is the majority employer in Sweden. This has greatly reduced individual opportunity to make any significant improvement in economic status..
-with the Government providing housing health care and child care there is little use for marriage as an institution. The primary purpose of marriage is to provide a financially stable and nurturing environment in order to raise a family. In Sweden the Government has taken over these rolls You may disagree with me but the statistics speak for themselves close to 50% of all couples in Sweden do not marry and the numbers are increasing. This in turn has lead to a negative population growth the birthrate in Sweden in among the lowest in the E.U.
- In the end with a negative population growth and huge entitlements from the govt the populace ages and the whole system begins to collapse on itself. this is already starting in Sweden. this to a much lesser degree is happening here when it comes to social security to give you an example.
I chose Sweden because it is a Socialist society born of democracy and not of totalitarianism as in such places as Cuba. this most embodies the path advocated by American socialist. I have tried to relate in an honest and unbiased presentation the facts and why I object to that type of system and left the rhetoric to others. My point is a socialist state such as Swedens when transfered to a much more populace state like the US has even more difficulty sustaining itself. Sweden has managed to do it only by having a modest population and having the good fortune of substantial Oil revenues to bolster the tax base. My other point is that The big brother government tends to break down basic social structures over time, stiffel entrepreneurship and personal wealth generation and lessen opportunity that is the back bone of what has made America what it is.
You might look at Sweden and say sounds like paradise and you are entitled to that choice it is as valid as mine. I am not saying socialism is wrong. I am saying it is wrong for me and I believe wrong for my fellow citizens.
2006-11-27 20:38:58 · answer #1 · answered by sooj 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Socialism is a good idea but a bad practice. It will never work because human nature won't let it. The idea behind socialism is that everybody shares the work equally. Everybody does what they are supposed to do and they all share the rewards equally. Sounds nice, huh? Yeah, well it just so happens that the general population are like cows; they need to be led, afraid to make decisions. Better let somebody else handle that stuff, lest I make a mistake.
Fortunately, there will always be someone willing to step up to the plate and take charge. The basic human survival instinct dictates (aside from reproducing) that you must be better than the rest to ensure survival. That means having more power than the rest (wealth, influence, etc). People are innately greedy so when they get more they want more. Pretty soon you have a person or persons in charge of the rest and making all the rules. It happens every time without fail. So much for socialism.
2006-11-28 01:16:10 · answer #2 · answered by dudezoid 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Oh brother, do you have this one wrong. Socializm does not just provide the basic necessities, far more than that. It would take me a long time to explain to you the concept, so I will say to you only that look at the lives of the Swedish people. They have had socialism for many years and are quite well off both financially and in health. All costs for health paid for, all education paid for (including University) and so on. The cost, high taxes.
2006-11-28 00:40:48 · answer #3 · answered by Ted 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Most Americans are socialist but do not realize it, because we Americans have been brainwashed into thinking that socialism is bad. Socialism is bad for big business and for the rich. under socialism taxes are higher,but education, health, are provided for by the government. socialism is more humanistic. Look at countries like The Netherlands, Sweden, Norway. probably the highest standard of living, most educated people,longest life expectancy. happiest, highly productive people. with minimum 6 weeks paid vacation. education, health care , care for the elderly
all subsided by the government,
2006-11-28 00:53:36 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No one would ever be hungry. No one would be homeless. No one would do with out healthcare and medicine. On the other hand, driving 5 different Bentleys and living in a 6.5 million dollar house ain't half bad either. But, who gets that opportunity? Not me and not you. Only 1% of the U.S. So....I think I might enjoy the free healthcare, food and shelter more.
2006-11-28 00:40:29 · answer #5 · answered by nikkinat 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Socialism means the Government takes from you whatever they can and give you the basic necessities if you are lucky. Try Cuba.
2006-11-28 02:53:30 · answer #6 · answered by Alex G 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Who says we'd have just the basic necessities? There is enough wealth in the world for everyone--EVERYONE--to have a couple chickens in the pot, a couple TVs in the house, a couple of cars in the garage......
2006-11-28 01:03:25 · answer #7 · answered by Joey's Back 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Socialism won't work in a nation as diversely populated as the US.
The nations we always use to compare are nearly homogenous in race, culture and lifestyle.
It won't work here.
Our freedoms are too dear.
2006-11-28 01:57:38 · answer #8 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋