Posted by Giga2 on April 8, 2011, 7:10 pm
That is arguable of course, what is redistribution and what is not, what
alllowed to secure life, linerty, happiness and what is not.
Socialism is more than just redistriution and may not even include it.
Posted by Bill Ward on April 8, 2011, 9:41 pm
On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 20:10:31 +0100, Giga2" <"Giga2 wrote:
True enough, but they're assumed as self-evident axioms in the D of I.
If "rights" involve taking from one group of people and giving to
another, I'd argue that they're not rights, but goods, earned by some and
taken by others.
Then we may be working from different definitions of socialism. What's
Posted by Giga2 on April 9, 2011, 6:52 am
This is quite off topic now but I would say a strong social safty net,
social health care, state education designed to equalise opportunity across
social groups, relatively high tax and workers rights, union support.
Basically most modern European countries are socialist.
Posted by Bill Ward on April 9, 2011, 7:45 am
On Sat, 09 Apr 2011 07:52:47 +0100, Giga2" <"Giga2 wrote:
That's pretty much what I'd say too, but it looks to me like that is
redistribution of wealth from productive people to those who won't work.
That doesn't seem to be working out so well, because those who are
working tend to switch sides when they see it's easier not to work.
Good luck with it, anyway. Maybe this time it'll be different.
The US seems to be beginning to switch back toward a freer market. It
looks like not much will happen until 2012, when voters can throw out a
bunch more of the socialist-leaning politicians. "Hope" didn't work out
too well, maybe we'll try "change" this time.
Posted by Desertphile on April 8, 2011, 11:45 pm
On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 20:10:31 +0100, "Giga2" <"Giga2"
If you ever see anybody suggesting that, do let someone know,
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz