I repeat what I have said before, capitalism without the moderating influence of socialism is dangerous. Capitalism needs a conscience. Don't get me wrong,I am grateful to live in an era of Capitalism that has been appropriately controlled. Let us remember that you know a moderated Capitalism. Were you to travel back to primitive Capitalism, you would not be so impressed. Unions, often despised today by the right, were very instrumental in bringing about a more humane Capitalism that showed no signs to softening on its own. Governments had to step in and pass laws to protect society from some aspects of unregulated Capitalism, two examples: child labor laws were created to prevent Capitalist exploitation of children, environmental laws have been passed to protect our environment and natural resources that unscrupulous Capitalist would have exploited thoughtlessly. Socialism has traveled its own road to its current forms as well, but it is an opposing force philosophically that we need in order to be a better society. Capitalism by definition could have become what it is in our country without Socialism. Socialism is unfairly maligned.
I concede your point that unrestrained Capitalism is not good, as is unrestrained Socialism, Communism, Fascism, etc. However, I think that Capitalism has been tempered for the most part, although it is apparent from the recent financial fiasco that more could be done, but not the the extent that Obama is apparently proposing. The redistributive change that Obama is proposing goes way too far, I believe, much to the detriment of the good Capitalism can do.
I beleive that that capitalism is naturally tempered in that the people have more say and can excercise individual choice. When it comes to socialism, the people have less say. The dictator, or government in charge has more say, thus the risk of tipping the scale to do wrong heavily leaning to the side of the dictator/government.
I guess time will tell whether your fears regarding greater 'redistribution' come to be.
I actually think that there is more representation in Canada where the governing follows a parliamentary procedure and it is a country much more socialized than ours. Is there less representation in France or Belgium because they are more socialist than us? I don't think so. They vote just often, have even more representatives in their federal bodies and are not victims of any dictators. Bolivian Socialism is different than North American or European Socialism.
I have an interesting story. I have a Belgian acquaintence that told me just yesterday that she is angry even that the government forces her to vote. She says that the government will send you a fine if you don't vote. So because they have a slew of candidates (not just one for each party)and she doesn't possibly have the time to study each one and their issues, she goes into vote, they check her off as having showed up to vote and then she leaves the ballot completely blank. Because she wants the choice to not vote if she doesn't want to. She hates that the government forces her to vote. Now that may seem very odd to us as we routinely encourage voting in our country, and most of us want to be heard. It looks like there are those that are being forced to be heard that don't want to voice a vote.
I am not arguing for or against her philosophy...I just thought it to be an interesting story to share about socialism in Belgium.
7 comments:
That was interesting. He makes some great points and has some amazing unrehearsed responses.
I repeat what I have said before, capitalism without the moderating influence of socialism is dangerous. Capitalism needs a conscience. Don't get me wrong,I am grateful to live in an era of Capitalism that has been appropriately controlled. Let us remember that you know a moderated Capitalism. Were you to travel back to primitive Capitalism, you would not be so impressed. Unions, often despised today by the right, were very instrumental in bringing about a more humane Capitalism that showed no signs to softening on its own. Governments had to step in and pass laws to protect society from some aspects of unregulated Capitalism, two examples: child labor laws were created to prevent Capitalist exploitation of children, environmental laws have been passed to protect our environment and natural resources that unscrupulous Capitalist would have exploited thoughtlessly. Socialism has traveled its own road to its current forms as well, but it is an opposing force philosophically that we need in order to be a better society. Capitalism by definition could have become what it is in our country without Socialism.
Socialism is unfairly maligned.
I concede your point that unrestrained Capitalism is not good, as is unrestrained Socialism, Communism, Fascism, etc. However, I think that Capitalism has been tempered for the most part, although it is apparent from the recent financial fiasco that more could be done, but not the the extent that Obama is apparently proposing. The redistributive change that Obama is proposing goes way too far, I believe, much to the detriment of the good Capitalism can do.
I beleive that that capitalism is naturally tempered in that the people have more say and can excercise individual choice. When it comes to socialism, the people have less say. The dictator, or government in charge has more say, thus the risk of tipping the scale to do wrong heavily leaning to the side of the dictator/government.
That is my point, Capitalism has been tempered.
I guess time will tell whether your fears regarding greater 'redistribution' come to be.
I actually think that there is more representation in Canada where the governing follows a parliamentary procedure and it is a country much more socialized than ours. Is there less representation in France or Belgium because they are more socialist than us? I don't think so. They vote just often, have even more representatives in their federal bodies and are not victims of any dictators. Bolivian Socialism is different than North American or European Socialism.
I have an interesting story. I have a Belgian acquaintence that told me just yesterday that she is angry even that the government forces her to vote. She says that the government will send you a fine if you don't vote. So because they have a slew of candidates (not just one for each party)and she doesn't possibly have the time to study each one and their issues, she goes into vote, they check her off as having showed up to vote and then she leaves the ballot completely blank. Because she wants the choice to not vote if she doesn't want to. She hates that the government forces her to vote. Now that may seem very odd to us as we routinely encourage voting in our country, and most of us want to be heard. It looks like there are those that are being forced to be heard that don't want to voice a vote.
I am not arguing for or against her philosophy...I just thought it to be an interesting story to share about socialism in Belgium.
Post a Comment