Which "system" would you rather live in.

Which one?


  • Total voters
    50
  • Poll closed .
..

It's not the role of government to be involved in educating its citizens, particularly post grade 12. Seriously, if the government has a monopoly on education, they (the bureaucrats) get to chose the curriculum, and from the looks of things, the government is in control of education today more than they have ever been in the history of our country... have you seen where American students rank these days in comparison with the rest of the world? It's embarrassing!

Finland and Norway don't charge tuition fees for university students and the last time I checked they are high in the education rankings
 
Post Zombie Apocalypse Anarchist Society.
 

Jagger69

Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
I chose 'Other'

In Germany, we have a mixed form of Capitalism and Socialism, called 'Soziale Marktwirtschaft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_market_economy)

It is working pretty well. You should learn about it and stop being afraid of a bit of that dreaded 'Socialism'

:goodpost: This.

Pure capitalism would mean absolutely no public funding for anything. So you "capitalism" voters would want a privately-held armed *****, police *****, fire protection, etc?? This is totally impractical. Even it all these functions were performed by private contractors, who do you get to pay for them if the funds do not come from a common pool? It's a totally untenable concept for any functioning society. A certain degree of funding for purposes designed for the common good is not only a good idea but is literally an essential element of any cooperative human existence. The only other option is pure anarchy. Problem is, in America, "socialism" is a scare word that goes all the way back to the cold war....intimating that anything "socialist" is, by association, communist and therefore an inherent evil. Americans have been conditioned to think of socialism in this fashion....at least the uneducated portion of the population which, unfortunately, represents the majority on many occasions.

From my perspective, a system that mixes the best elements of both capitalism and socialism provides the greatest benefit to society as a whole.
 
:goodpost: This.

Pure capitalism would mean absolutely no public funding for anything. So you "capitalism" voters would want a privately-held armed *****, police *****, fire protection, etc?? This is totally impractical. Even it all these functions were performed by private contractors, who do you get to pay for them if the funds do not come from a common pool? It's a totally untenable concept for any functioning society. A certain degree of funding for purposes designed for the common good is not only a good idea but is literally an essential element of any cooperative human existence. The only other option is pure anarchy. Problem is, in America, "socialism" is a scare word that goes all the way back to the cold war....intimating that anything "socialist" is, by association, communist and therefore an inherent evil. Americans have been conditioned to think of socialism in this fashion....at least the uneducated portion of the population which, unfortunately, represents the majority on many occasions.

From my perspective, a system that mixes the best elements of both capitalism and socialism provides the greatest benefit to society as a whole.

Exactly. The unfortunate thing about our country is that everything is about money, everything has to make a profit. It used to be that there were some services and institutions so vital to our nation that they were exempt from market pressures. Some things we just didn't do for money. The United States always defined capitalism, but it didn't used to define us. But now it's becoming all that we are.
 

Rey C.

Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
Exactly. The unfortunate thing about our country is that everything is about money, everything has to make a profit. It used to be that there were some services and institutions so vital to our nation that they were exempt from market pressures. Some things we just didn't do for money. The United States always defined capitalism, but it didn't used to define us. But now it's becoming all that we are.


That single statement is something that we ALL need to think about (sorry that the system won't let me rep you again). Yours, Jagger's and Supa's posts need to be read and re-read by everyone posting here. Rather than treat capitalism as a religion or something that's written into the Constitution or Bill of Rights (which it is NOT!), accept it for what it is: an effective, yet flawed, ECONOMIC system. It is NOT a governmental system. Why is it so hard for people to get that right???!!! :brick: I don't want to pick on anyone, but someone who is posting in this thread tried to tell me that in communist countries (I think we were discussing China specifically), there was no private enterprise or private property. Maybe in a purely communist governmental system, that would be true. But just as there are no purely capitalist economic systems or purely democratic governmental systems (among major nations), there are no purely communist governments. China has a communist form of government and employs a type of state managed capitalism.

And just as Jagger said, from the first time a professional soldier cashed his check, which came from "the people", we had a form of socialism. In order to have a functioning society, any nation is going to have socialism mixed with whatever its primary economic system is. I prefer capitalism as an economic system. But I'll be damned if I would want to live in a laissez faire capitalist economic system. People who buy into that are the same ones who believe that their faith ALONE will carry them through an illness and won't let their **** take chemo if they get cancer. I might act silly from time to time, but I'm not stupid or (clinically) insane. People need to stop talking about capitalism like it's something that God has demanded that we follow to a "t".
 

Will E Worm

Conspiracy...
Top