Who rather have the government take care of all your needs vs the freedom to choose and the options you have from choices? Isn't wanting more intervention from the government asking for socialism?
2007-07-31 08:19:42 · 13 answers · asked by a2z_alterego 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Government is bigger cuz more socialist thinkers beg for it.. Patriot..
2007-07-31 08:49:13 · update #1
You missed the point nigel, but thats ok, education was an option too past high school..
2007-07-31 08:51:09 · update #2
Aviator, Hmmm where to begin with you..? Those are volunteer programs which is freedom of choice. You missed the point too, next...
2007-07-31 08:53:16 · update #3
Stick to the point Henry, it was a comparission question, Next....
2007-07-31 08:54:48 · update #4
Ted Kennedy- what an appropriate nick name, that already says it all, no comment for you, next...
2007-07-31 08:56:18 · update #5
ducky- there is no such thing as give up a small amount of freedom for something better. Nothing is better than freedom...next...
2007-07-31 08:58:00 · update #6
tim t- you are exactly right!
2007-07-31 09:00:21 · update #7
Alf- study third world and socialized medicine and see how people would gladly go in debt to save their health over being placed in a long line which you may die waiting and there are no alternatives. By the way Freedom is not free. Socialism is not Freedom.
2007-07-31 09:03:28 · update #8
People make the mistake of thinking the Governments can actually do things well. THEY CAN'T and DON'T. They might have programs that people THINK are usful but they are run terribly! "For the Greater Good , or For the Good of Society" are socialist slogans and they make me sick!
government efficiency - THATS A BIG JOKE!
2007-07-31 08:31:19 · answer #1 · answered by TyranusXX 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Our system of government attempts to find a middle ground. Yes, it is good to have the freedom to choose. The free market helps drive competition, which leads to a better product (supposedly). However, there are some things that need to be handled by the government to achieve efficiency (also not always true). You could say we have a "socialized" postal service and road commission, but we can all agree that is a good thing. Utilities are heavily regulated by the government, and this is good because no one wants electric/cable lines from every company running through their neighborhood.
Wanting more intervention from the government (like asking for universal health care) is merely asking to tip the balance between a competitive free market and government efficiency in favor of government efficiency. The real question is where in the middle should our country fall.
2007-07-31 08:30:12 · answer #2 · answered by Charles15589 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
economic freedom is just as important as social freedom. High taxes are a form of oppression. Our founding fathers knew this. That doesn't mean that a two tiered system cannot work, though. The uninsured should not have to go without care.
Before health insurance was a huge industry, drugs and medical attention were affordable without having to have insurance pay for it. This is a case where greed has taken over an entire industry and destroyed it.
2007-07-31 09:03:48 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Socialism is an economic policy it has little to do with freedom or lack of it. If you had studied history you would know this. Not all capitalist countries are totally free and not all socialist countries are dictatorships. I would like you to convince a Frenchman or a Swede that they are not free yet they have a Socialis economic system. There is much capitalism in Communist China and Communist Viet Nam. Don't confuse Socialism, an economic system, with a form of government. They are different.
2007-07-31 08:25:51 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
sThere are no choices. Do you have a private and expensive health insurance or you are dead. So there are 50 millions Americans without health, and 100 millions with a very low level of attention. If have a decent Health System in the richest country is to be socialist, you will found that 50% of americans are.
2007-07-31 08:55:47 · answer #5 · answered by Sudamérica Puede 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Socialism and freedom are not incompatible in any way.
Medicare, pensions, and social security are purely "socialistic" programs and have thrived quite well in a democracy.
These programs are not "intervention". What a peculiar term for them.
If the job of the government isn't to protect you, what the hell do you even want a government for?
2007-07-31 08:23:21 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
No. you can compromise, and have government programs as a means to ensure continued freedom. Our military, police, firemen, social security and other government controlled programs are examples of this.
2007-07-31 08:23:22 · answer #7 · answered by Take it from Toby 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
good point - were do we draw the line ?
Are our HMO's the best America can offer ?
Was socialist "style" telephone company Ma'Bell something we should have kept ?
Should we give up a Small amount of freedom to get something that works Much better ?
-------------------------------------------
like the freedom to get ripped off by phone company's ?
I would rather have ma'bell back.
so.. the Patriot Act must really piss you off then ?
Me to, that's a Real infringement of our freedoms - thanks bush !
2007-07-31 08:26:57 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I support freedom and personal choice.
I'd rather have the govt take 5% of what they take now in taxes, pay for roads, law enforcement, and criminal courts and leave everybody to fend for themselves and pay for what they want.
2007-07-31 08:22:27 · answer #9 · answered by coragryph 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
"Medicare, pensions, and social security are purely "socialistic" programs and have thrived quite well in a democracy. "
You mean the ones going bankrupt?
You mean the government confiscating my money that I could more successfully invest myself is a net benefit?
LOL
2007-07-31 08:26:51 · answer #10 · answered by Ted Kennedy 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋