In my opinion, both American parties are 100% right-wing.
Democrats focus on social issues only (LGBTs, minorities) but I have never heard them speak of Economics.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How Socialist...
- Thread starter Nakosis
- Start date
In my opinion, both American parties are 100% right-wing.
Democrats focus on social issues only (LGBTs, minorities) but I have never heard them speak of Economics.
Oh, they do voice opinions about economics...strong ones.
Left v right is all relative.
To N Koreans, you Eurostanians are all Ayn devotees.
Last edited:
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Payed public education at least through two years of college but preferably more. However, conditions are needed.
Generally speaking, yes. However, we shouldn't have to pay for your face-lift.
Yes.
No, but at least partially subsidized.
No, and nor is that "socialist".
No, but government should work on trying to create as much employment as possible in a free market.
Either owned or heavily regulated.
No, but regulations undoubedly should be in order when needed.
I'm pretty much a "Scandinavian socialist", much like "the Bern".
Exactly. It is all relative.
The US have a Constitution that does not call for socialism.
We do.
I base myself upon that meter. In General, all of Europe is much more "leftist" than the US.
Well, is that what you want?
Generally speaking, yes. However, we shouldn't have to pay for your face-lift.
.
In fact, in Europe in single-payer free healthcare countries, no useless surgery is paid for by the State.
Only all those necessary for your survival/health.
If one has cancer, I do not understand how it is acceptable that the patient pays for the surgery that can save their life.
It is absurd that physicians consider this acceptable.
Or if a woman delivers a baby in the hospital, she has to pay medical bills.
I find all this extremely abhorrent.
And I do not think that the so called health insurance companies are guided by "philanthropic Christian spirit" .
Looking at Wikipedia's info about Italy, youExactly. It is all relative.
The US have a Constitution that does not call for socialism.
We do.
I base myself upon that meter. In General, all of Europe is much more "leftist" than the US.
guys look pretty capitalist to me, ie, private
ownership of the means of production.
And real lives, too. That leads to an even bigger problem when those who lose refuse to walk away from the table and be "good sports" about it. Sometimes, people play dirty. In the old west, sometimes a game of poker could go awry and turn into a shootout.
Capitalism is compatible with Socialism.
Free enterprise is still free, even if the State owns banks, enterprises, etc...
Well, lets see what folks are looking for.
IMO socialism by the people sounds ideal but never seems to work out that way.
You must be using a definition of "socialism" I've not
yet encountered in any dictionary. What would that be?
Free from the perspective of the state, eh.
(That's the PRC's view of things, ie, the freedom to be as they say.)
I prefer that it be free from the perspective of the private sector.
As I said in a previous post
If you ask me, what Socialism is, I would answer: Art 18 (Labor basic law).
That is, the article that forbids employers from laying off employees without just cause.
Example: if the employer wants to get to profit maximization of his firm, by firing people, that is not a just cause. And the employer will be condemned to compensate the employee (worth up to 24 months of salary).
This is the basic principle of socialism, in my humble opinion.
Profit maximization at cost of people's unemployment is not tolerated, for it is uncostitutional.
That's not full blown socialism....just socialistic, ie,
yet another degree of control of business by government.
While I think health, education and welfare something that ends up being beneficial to a nation, our politicians obtain almost celebrity status. Instead of serving the people they seem more interested in serving themselves. So I have a problem trusting the government with the funding.
Oh you would be, I reckon, if you were weakened, disabled, sick, without funds, cold, homeless etc.
You would be.....
Same motivation some religious have just replacing God with the government.
My concern with socialism is the need to trust the governing body. Not really with the social programs.
That means we have a socialistic Constitution.
JP Morgan told us. Those are not my words.
They told us as if it were something negative.
Oh, dear.Control of Business by the State.
The State is the deity I worship.
You wouldn't be happy in Revoltistan.
Many liberals here would love that.
America is America. Infinite spaces. So many opportunities, so many resources.
We are micro-cosms here...
True enough