Where does liberalism end and socialism begin?

Question

In the past, liberals were dedicated to leveling the playing field so all people had equal opportunity to succeed. They fought and won battles against racism, sexist bias, robber barons, and ignorance. The ideal was to give each person the means to rise up out of poverty through their own efforts.
The notion supported by many people who call themselves liberals today is far from the selfless ideals of liberals in the past. Many so-called liberals today believe simply because they pay taxes they should get free services from the government. The idea of government providing for basic needs is socialism. The idea that the government needs to insure that people are educated and provided skills to succeed is liberalism.
The idea that the average American can earn enough money to buy the services they need is liberalism. The idea that theses services should be provided by the government is socialism.
Liberalism is a noble concept. Socialism is a selfish concept, in my opinion.

BTW. I am a moderate, not a conservative. So, don't go bashing conservatives for what I think.

Answer 1

I don't believe that wanting to help a sick child is selfish.

No children should be denied medical care because their parents are poor.

However, I believe it is stunningly selfish to suggest the greatest good is to keep taxes low, and if a few dead children are the price of that, then that's okay. That's not family values in my book.

But beyond the basic moral argument, there is the practical one. No one is arguing that the government should provide everything, but the employer-provided health care system is killing our industrial competitiveness. The cost of providing employees health care adds to the production cost of every product we make, and thus all our manufacturers start at a price disadvantage compared to other countries.

A single-payer health care system would be a fantastic boon for U.S. capitalism. This is why many corporate CEO's (Including Ford) have come out in support of this plan. And I'd hardly accuse such people of being "socialist".

Answer 2

Even Adam Smith said that pure capitalism would not provide for all social needs in a society. Where is your compassion for those less fortunate. Not everyone has the same opportunities that you may have had or myself. You Americans talk free trade and the like but when other countries can produce things like agricultural goods cheaper, then you subsidise your farmers. Why don't you practice what you preech. Your country says it's the best country in the world but how come there is so much poverty amongst marginalised groups? Wake up!!!!!

Answer 3

Political Liberalism although facilitates the loose marketplace as foundation of a regulated type of capitalism the position the earnings reason continues to be the overriding monetary incentive. monetary liberalism is unregulated capitalism with little or no interference by authorities interior the workings of the loose marketplace. Liberals do no longer call themselves socialists or communists because of the very reality they do no longer seem to be socialists or communists. Socialism is a society the position any surplus is used for the effortless sturdy and not man or woman enrichment.

Answer 4

That line drawn between liberalism and socialism is different for each of us. Many of the liberal ideals I see being promoted today are socialistic to me, but obviously not to the average democrat.