Amazon.com Widgets
  • All the best civilisation had a form of socialist aspect.

    Let's look at the Medieval Muslim world. It had welfare systems and yet trade was highly encouraged.By allowing some form of welfare, many people would not suffer the heavy consequences of capitalism which is wage gap and quality of life. The government is meant to protect the people and their rights over each other. One class must not oppress the other. Equality was a thing of the past for the left,now is the era for equity. Give people an equal opportunity.

  • Yes, that is the best way to go

    Yes, the best economies combine socialism and capitalism.
    No government can generate wealth better than the free market can. The profit motive drives growth.
    But economic growth doesn't necessarily mean prosperity for all, and this is where the socialistic elements like progressive taxation, welfare programs, and labour unions are necessary.

  • Finnish social democracy

    I live under Finnish social democracy and it has been a good system to me and many others. We have a market economy where there is a mix of capitalism and socialism. Our system could be called corporatist. I get cheap health care, a folk pension and I use socialist services like the library, the sewer system, the electrical grid and the parks and the roads.

  • Capitalism and socialism combined in one system is a good thing.

    When a state functions using a mixture of capitalism and socialism, it is an indication that the ratio between the state's economic and political development is about even. To better understand a state's economic and political systems, think of a state like the USSR. In this state, the ratio between economic and political development was skewed heavily towards political development. This resulted in almost complete market domination by the established government, with little to no private sector. And also consider the inverse, a ratio heavily skewed towards economic development. The resulting country would be almost completely dominated by private interests, with even the state's government being, if not controlled, heavily influenced by the private sector. We can see this happening in the US.

    Now consider a balanced ratio. The private sector is developed enough to hold off most advancements from the government, and the government is developed enough to hold off against the private sector. Neither have the power or influence to dominate the other, and both have the power to protect themselves from the other. A good example is Sweden. They provide excellent universal health care, they provide education, among other things. At the same time, very profitable private businesses still exist. IKEA alone operates in 41 different countries around the world, including the US.

  • Yes- A lot of western Europe has adopted similar systems and thrive

    The reason that a mixed economy works well is because it fills the role of supporting the middle class that 100% capitalism leaves empty. The right mixture leads to an all round strong economy that is not prone to full collapse. It also allows for the economical benefits of capitalism while mitigating the risk and wealth disparity that exists in capitalism. This is only the economical side of this point and there are many other benefits of this system that exist elsewhere in a country.

  • The Balance of Systems

    When you mix these two systems, properly, you diminish their faults and highlight their advantages. Both can and have been cruel systems that have acted against the people that work under them. Pure systems have nothing to capture and seal their faults. A mixed system covers and nets the holes that lead to failures in one-another.

  • Switzerland is a great example of a mix of socialism and capitalism.

    100% capitalism will fail, we need a good mix of mostly capitalism and some socialism.

    By having good welfare and social support infrastructure, with capitalist motivational systems on top. Countries like Switzerland and many others prove this is the method.

    Rand Paul and Libertarians in general believe that everything should be privatized, which is an even worser idea than the ideas proposed by Socialists.
    I like Rand Paul, but libertarians are couldn't be more wrong. If he is a true libertarian, he will not receive my vote.

    There is not one developed country in the world that is "Libertarian". The government needs to control the infastracture and continue to give welfare.

    Switzerland is a great example of this. We do need less government and taxes, but not "no government" like the Libertarians propose. If you like "no government", go to Somalia, the government there will do nothing for you.

    Switzerland, land of the world's best healthcare, also one of the wealthiest countries in the world.

  • All developed societies have a mix of capitalism and socialism.

    100% capitalism will fail, we need a good mix of mostly capitalism and some socialism.

    By having good welfare and social support infrastructure, with capitalist motivational systems on top. Countries like Switzerland and many others prove this is the method.

    Rand Paul and Libertarians in general believe that everything should be privatized, which is an even worser idea than the ideas proposed by Socialists.
    I like Rand Paul, but libertarians are couldn't be more wrong. If he is a true libertarian, he will not receive my vote.

    There is not one developed country in the world that is "Libertarian". The government needs to control the infastracture and continue to give welfare.

    Switzerland is a great example of this. We do need less government and taxes, but not "no government" like the Libertarians propose. If you like "no government", go to Somalia, the government there will do nothing for you.

  • All developed societies have a mix of capitalism and socialism.

    100% capitalism will fail, we need a good mix of mostly capitalism and some socialism.

    By having good welfare and social support infrastructure, with capitalist motivational systems on top. Countries like Switzerland and many others prove this is the method.

    Rand Paul and Libertarians in general believe that everything should be privatized, which is an even worser idea than the ideas proposed by Socialists.
    I like Rand Paul, but libertarians are couldn't be more wrong. If he is a true libertarian, he will not receive my vote.

    There is not one developed country in the world that is "Libertarian". The government needs to control the infastracture and continue to give welfare.

    Switzerland is a great example of this. We do need less government and taxes, but not "no government" like the Libertarians propose. If you like "no government", go to Somalia, the government there will do nothing for you.

  • All developed societies have a mix of capitalism and socialism.

    100% capitalism will fail, we need a good mix of mostly capitalism and some socialism.

    By having good welfare and social support infrastructure, with capitalist motivational systems on top. Countries like Switzerland and many others prove this is the method.

    Rand Paul and Libertarians in general believe that everything should be privatized, which is an even worser idea than the ideas proposed by Socialists.
    I like Rand Paul, but libertarians are couldn't be more wrong. If he is a true libertarian, he will not receive my vote.

    There is not one developed country in the world that is "Libertarian". The government needs to control the infastracture and continue to give welfare.

    Switzerland is a great example of this. We do need less government and taxes, but not "no government" like the Libertarians propose. If you like "no government", go to Somalia, the government there will do nothing for you.

  • No Socialism doesn't work.

    When gov't acts outside of its main duties, you have Socialism assuming we're talking about the form that leads to bigger gov't. If we're talking about that form (or really any form) then that definitely does NOT work, no matter where it's tried Socialism doesn't work. There really is no characteristic of Socialism that works well at all, there are many examples to showcase this from the famous being USSR (which is Communism but Socialism isn't that much different from) and for an even earlier example before the Communist manifesto New Harmony Indiana, led by Robert Owen. This little town was all pre-built and set to go but under a Socialist format it failed in about 2 years.

  • Socialism doesnt work

    When gov't acts outside of its main duties, you have Socialism assuming we're talking about the form that leads to bigger gov't. If we're talking about that form (or really any form) then that definitely does NOT work, no matter where it's tried Socialism doesn't work. There really is no characteristic of Socialism that works well at all, there are many examples to showcase this from the famous being USSR (which is Communism but Socialism isn't that much different from) and for an even earlier example before the Communist manifesto New Harmony Indiana, led by Robert Owen. This little town was all pre-built and set to go but under a Socialist format it failed in about 2 years. Get the gov out of my businesses!

  • Kind of yes and no.

    Socialism is good I agree, its a very good concept with the benefit of the people but however I have heard of socialist societies before and they almost crashed and burned because too many people were feeding off of the system to actually work and put back into it. Socialism is good, but its only as good as the effort made by the people. If you have a bunch of people not working and not putting anything back or not even trying to find a job just doing nothing, the system will eventually fold into itself and crash. With more and more people especially now not working, there is nothing to go back into this system. Some people have success at socialist programs while other have to be made to suffer in order for some people to get things for free.

  • Welfare Capitalism is enough

    History shows that every government that claims to represent the 'Masses' has or is in danger of producing weapons of mass destruction and could go off the deep end in other ways. Adam Smith shows that limited aid by the Mortal State in Health, Education, and Welfare to the Mortal Society will NOT empower Big Brother against our Constitutional Republican Mortal State or Liberal Democratic Mortal Society - and Streets, Storm Drains, and other Public Works are the same. What is the use of aid from the Government without a Constitution to prevent a Stalin, a Hitler, or other Big Brother from seizing power? Lord Action said "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Govern as lightly as possible under Nonviolence, avoiding aggression, and Nonsinning, avoiding harm to others.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
AnonyFeline says2013-08-15T10:12:49.327
We're already there in the U.S. And moteso in many European countries. It's a balancing act of morality, economics, and public opinion.
Shadowguynick says2013-08-15T11:56:59.027
Yeah, but I know some people who don't like it. That's the purpose of the question.
AnonyFeline says2013-08-16T00:04:26.713
*moreso