Heinlein, fascinating article

[Alien826]

Nope. Tis a violation of Revoltistanian law.
Social liberty without economic liberty is rather in
the "liberal" (in the N Ameristanian sense) domain.
Libertarianism has both social & economic liberty.
Also, history shows that replacing capitalism with
socialism has always resulted in authoritarianism
(an emergent property of socialism).

I don't see why we can't have both at the same time, unless you are just quibbling over the meaning of the words. We can have capitalism where we spend some of the money on social things, and also allow people liberty in their personal lives, which costs nothing, just a few laws passed. Note that I'm not talking about the freedom to not be taxed or similar, just things like being allowed to use contraceptives or have sex with whomever we want. Actually we do have that now.

As far as socialism devolving into authoritarianism, I agree. That's human nature I fear. I could say the same thing about unchecked capitalism though. Without rules, we get huge discrepancies in wealth, which allows the rich to run the place to their own benefit.

My personal view is that the problem is rapid change, which opens the door to those that would use the situation to their own benefit, rather than the new system itself. There are plenty of examples of countries that have working socialist systems (Scandinavia?) but none that I can think of where it succeeded after a violent revolution.

I'm not in favor of it philosophically.
However, it's politically impossible to do without
social welfare cuz of where democracy leads,
& it's necessary for a country's political stability.
So I advocate it in the political realm.

You don't see any benefit in helping the less fortunate for no other reason than that they need help? This is a huge subject that has already gone way past the subject of this thread, so I won't present a case for it here.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't see why we can't have both at the same time, unless you are just quibbling over the meaning of the words.

I'm one of the few on RF who uses a
dictionary, so any "quibbling" would be
by the user of a personal definition.

We can have capitalism where we spend some of the money on social things, and also allow people liberty in their personal lives, which costs nothing, just a few laws passed.

Liberty does have significant costs because it requires
a military, legislation, regulation, cops & courts.
But we decide that this expense is worthwhile, ie, the
benefit value greatly exceeds taxes paid.

Note that I'm not talking about the freedom to not be taxed or similar, just things like being allowed to use contraceptives or have sex with whomever we want. Actually we do have that now.

Of course.

As far as socialism devolving into authoritarianism, I agree. That's human nature I fear. I could say the same thing about unchecked capitalism though.

"Unchecked capitalism" is a rarity. Having useful
regulation is fully compatible with the definition of
"capitalism", & is very common because it's useful.

Without rules, we get huge discrepancies in wealth, which allows the rich to run the place to their own benefit.

Is anyone proposing no rules?
Surely you don't thing I do.

My personal view is that the problem is rapid change, which opens the door to those that would use the situation to their own benefit, rather than the new system itself. There are plenty of examples of countries that have working socialist systems (Scandinavia?) but none that I can think of where it succeeded after a violent revolution.

Liberals love to cite Scandinavia as "socialist".
But they're actually capitalist. Of course, they
have generous social services, which is a
separate issue.
Note that there's nothing in the definition of
"socialism" about offering social services.

You don't see any benefit in helping the less fortunate for no other reason than that they need help?

Is this a mistaken rhetorical question?
Perhaps because you're so new here, eh.

This is a huge subject that has already gone way past the subject of this thread, so I won't present a case for it here.

It seems you just did.