People who criticize Socialism think that those who support it profess it as flawless. I am a supporter and realize that any system of Government is going to have flaws. You cannot please everyone. However, compared to Capitalism, Communism, Totalitarianism, etc. etc. Socialism is far superior in terms of overall well-being.
Just look at the Nations who have adopted socialism as their foundation. Far better average quality of life than any other country, and that's really not debatable. Sure here in America I can have a gun and shoot me some animals or trees or whatever, not what I would call an advantage. There are those who argue that entrepreneurial endeavors are easier to found in a Capitalist society, but that's just not true. Many startup companies come from other nations.
I think of Socialism as a symbiotic relationship between the people and the Government. Everyone chips in and everyone benefits. The only pre-requisite to accepting Socialism abolishing your narcissism and greed and realize if the people of a Nation prosper, the Nation itself prospers. And don't tell me I don't understand Capitalism because I do and it disgusts me.
Socialism is not forced. You don't have to live in a socialist country. As for communism, mostly it is forced. People who excel are not penalised as some of you say. The lazy are not rewarded as some of you say. There's nothing not to support. How are the nordic countries doing better than the US if socialism does not work. It works wen people are NOT lazy unlike the US also.
I am more curious as to see if you do and why you do. I won't contend with you so if you do and you say you do and you pose your reasoning then it stands and I won't be the one to argue with you or point something out if there is an error. All you need to do is post why you support socialism and how you believe that it helps you.
I don't understand this ploy that seeks to disassociate Socialism from Communism where it is derived or totalitarianism that is required to implement such a system. "Any government with the power to mother its citizens also has the power to dominate them and steal from them: to overtax them, confiscate their property and override their binding agreements. For this reason, the legally enforceable institutions of society must be very limited, lest the government charged with protecting the people against tyranny and theft becomes itself the most dangerous tyrant and thief."
What nations are you referring to exactly and what nations do you compare them to exactly, which begs the question as to why you pose an opinion question if if there isn't really anything to debate? As to your tangent on guns, what does this have to do with your question? Yes, it is true entrepreneurial enterprises are absolutely easier to establish under capitalism given that under socialism the state has a monopoly on all endeavors. Entrepreneurial endeavors in other countries is proof of are not easier...This just doesn't make sense. "Modern liberalism rejects, to one degree or another, the competence and sovereignty of the common man and subordinates him to the will of governments run by liberal elites. The western world's twentieth century capitulation to this philosophy is obvious--and the implications for liberty are ominous. But the history of the world also documents the heroic struggles of human beings to escape from tyrannies of all types, whether imposed by the brute force and declared entitlement of a dictator, or falsely justified by economic, religious or political sophistries. The science fiction of Marxian economic evolution, the grandiose fantasy of a New World Order, the utopian dreams of The Great Society, the myth of the divine emperor, have all had their turns on center stage in irrational man's attempts to legitimize government control and deny individual liberty. The realities of the human condition, especially the inherent sovereignty of individuals and their inevitable differences in choice and preference, render all collectivist doctrines absurd. A rational biologist will not transport a mountain goat to a prairie and declare a match between organism and environment. A rational social policy theorist will not create an environment of rules for human action that dismisses individual differences, ignores the critical roles of free choice, morality and cooperation, and otherwise distorts and violates the nature of man, and then announce that utopia has arrived in a workers' paradise."
That's because you ignore the fact that capitalism is simply the freedom to buy, sell, and trade (voluntarily and freely) as you choose, which is the very essence of mutual cooperation. It doesn't follow that we must have an authoritarian government dictating this cooperation nor does it explain in itself who makes these determinations and why the power of the state automatically qualifies a person to make all sorts of determinations in fields and endeavors they have no knowledge of affecting millions upon millions of individual lives.
For a long time people keep saying 'socialism would work if we did it right'. Not so. Even Marx realized the flaw in socialism in the end.
Socialism relies on the idea of people being self sacrificing, and doing their fair share, where this is the dramatic exception. Most people will do as little as possible if you let them. The resulting system encourages people to leach off of the system, gaining no real benefit from working hard. It only works if everyone is a motivated kool aid drinker. Most people just want the most they can get for the least.
Socialism says 'no matter how hard you work, we will take what you have worked hard for and give it to someone who didn't put that work in for whatever reason'. It is mandated charity. Which means it isn't very charitable.
What people do of their own free will to help others in need is a beautiful thing. If you force them to, they feel taken advantage of, and will simply do the bare minimum. When people have autonomy, and get 'social currency' for being charitable, they are looked at as a great person as opposed to someone simply doing what is expected of them, people grow to greatness. Without that, they fail, falter, and the system destroys itself.
Also, taking a person's hard earned gains and giving them to someone else is theft. I worked for it, what right do you have to simply take it? If I am kind enough to share, then good on me. If not, then you would be forced to work hard to get those things for yourself, improving the entire system, and emphasizing the importance of self-reliance over handouts.
Socialism-A government in which equality is forced. Those who excel are penalized while those who are lazy are rewarded. Such a government must fail. This is not to say that such a government isn't popular. Obviously, those who live off the system due to laziness love the idea, and preach "equality"
For example, you and Susie were raised in different environments. You were raised by parents with full time jobs. Susie was raised by those who live off the system. You grow up and pay to put yourself through post-secondary education to obtain a satisfactory job. Susie bounces around from job to job, but eventually ends up following the same life path that her parents did. You spend all week going to work to earn a paycheck at the end of the week. Upon closer examination you see that part of your wages have been sacrificed to taxes. This money that you lost is the same type of money that Susie receives for sitting at home (Susie is able, but unwilling). Is that fair? While this is true to an extent in capitalistic countries, this is far worse in those who practice the political idea of socialism.