Quote:
Originally Posted by Lindy
How is aiding the weakest member of a society heartless anyway, when the capitalist concept would just leave them in the gutter. And you just can't call socialism greedy, I mean, come on, what kind of brainwashing program were YOU raised on?
I don't believe that the government has a right to my money, nor anyone's. It's a noble goal to help the poor, but it's done at the cost of rights to the individual in a socialistic enviornment, which is abhorrent. "Greedy" was perhaps not the right word, but certainly I don't believe that socialism is a form of government based on a love for man, no.
Quote:
Anyway, England is neither capitalist, nor socialist, there is a modicum of government control over the key industries (though there should be more over some), and sensible controls over corporations (prevention of collusion and price fixing). The welfare state is a sensible thing, as is the idea of free healthcare for everyone. It's the nature of balance, neither one way nor the other.
Balance is better than pure socialism, of course, but that's only because the more capitalism, the better. Once again, it's less about the results of a government then the sacrifices it commits along the way. I don't think that the rich, who have earned their money, have to give a higher percentage of taxation because the poor demand it. That's inhumane to ask. The form of government I advocate is where each and every individual has the ability to go as far and high as they can. Which is, more or less, capitalism.
Quote:
I just don't see where you get the idea of being enslaved from, when in a society like Thatcher's we'd be slaves to the wage, with money being the entire focus of life.
I'd rather not have to rely on a government who tells me how to live my life, that's all.