This is what I find wacky about economic arguments in the US. We argue economics like social politics. The argument of capitalism v. socialism is an argument of two extreme attitudes that are treated as poles: responsibility v. welfare. And they are just clumped into the usual debate: responsibility v. rights.
Never mind that the best place lies in both for both cases and neither is really all that connected to economics.
I don't have an extreme issue with people who say that charity should be charity instead of government responsibility. The only reason I slightly favor some kind of government assistance for the old and disabled is because the people making the argument against are so many and So $#%@#%@% selfish and I'm %$#%$% sick of them! Sorry. Wasn't meant to come out that way. I'll take a deep breath. That's better.

Consider the concept of opportunity cost, very basic in economics.
What happens if Grandma is to be stuck on the streets? Consider that what we're talking about typically isn't as simple as Grandma having a place to live. Typically the problem is that Grandma needs a lot of medical care, a lot of %$%$#%# expensive medical care to stay alive. So without some kind of charity, the choice is typically for family members to either spend a fortune at the opportunity cost of taking care of their kids and saving for their future. Typically Grandma also needs help that reqires either a) spending another fortune on help or b) someone giving up work. The alternative: charities, in this case meaning either voluntary or government organizations that get a little from a lot and pay for the welfare of a lot of old and disabled people with virtually no opportunity cost to the people who paid. Also acts as insurance for the large number of people who WILL have a loved one in such a position one day.
But I'm through with the economics talk. I'm not even going to speculate on any more of my libertarian methodologies for privatizing welfare. Now I'm going to join the emotional, value judgement BS arguing that saturates American economic discussion.

How dare you make value judgements about the people who need aid to take care of their loved ones. Your quarrel may be with the government but instead you attack people with no foul action other than being hit by fate. Judge not lest ye be judged yourself. Lo and behold, ye hast judged. So now I judge. I judge thee to be a $$%$^^%&&^*&^*^*^!!!
My mother has been disabled since I was 10 and her medical conditions have gotten out of hand. My parents are divorced. In your sick world that means instead of her getting any help, she should die because her parents are not wealthy, her sisters have kids to take care of, and fate dealt her a %$%$#% hand. And we should feel guilty for not being able to do a (*)(*)(*)(*) thing about it without resigning younger family members to failure in life so that they can be judged by the likes of you.
My mother would probably prefer if private charity could help. Private charities have done her better service than the government and wouldn't force her not to work in order to stay alive and even give her the opportunity to get out and do volunteer work for others that need help. But you attack her. And me. And my family. &*$% you! I hope you never have to come under your own judgement for the same "crime".
Or maybe you're just naive. Hard to tell sometimes.
There are a lot of holes in your ideal agrarian community charity philosophy:
1. There are no communities in that sense anymore. Families are pretty much solitary units with loose ties to some others through organization.
2. The only way to ensure aid is to have a ridiculous number of children and hope nothing goes wrong before they start working. That's a major reason why poor countries have high birth rates. Children are social security. However in the modern Western country, having ridiculous numbers of children is irresponsible (and in my mom's case, it was actually impossible- my birth nearly killed her). (*)(*)(*)(*)ed if you do. (*)(*)(*)(*)ed if you don't.

See. Up until you got to the point quoted above, I agreed mostly. But frankly, I don't yearn for a return to agrarian days nor do I yearn for a future of jungle-law selfishness. I might like the idea of privatizing charity and insurance, at least as much as possible. But I will not condemn those that are needing.
Hope your grandma's healthy.

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...

And I do not need to know.

Link? The UN HDI report ranks the quality of life in the US at 10th in the world. Its worth pointing out that the US was ranked 3rd in 2000 when the Clinton administration ended.

http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2...05_PKE_HDI.pdf

Link? There are also countless capitalist countries with a much lower quality of life than Cuba (ranked 52).

__________________
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. " — John Stuart Mill

I may not face the hardships that JavaBlack faces, but I understand that having a chronic medical condition is expensive. My mother is also disabled, she has had a bad hip since she was born and has required several surguries. My parents are not divorced but have been seperated for about seven years. My mothers disability forced her to stop work and she is on a fixed income. Fortunately, the province of Ontario has a health plan which covers all citizens. My father retains a good drug plan and extended health benefits (no doubt thanks to his union) which also helps.

Thanks to government aid, my family does not have to worry about a financial crisis or an unnecessary death. If circumstances were different I would not hesitate to abandon university and work multiple jobs if I had to though.

There will always be selfish and ignorant people in this world. As long as society is compassionate the vulnerable citizens will be taken care of some form or another.

__________________
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. " — John Stuart Mill

Actually, if grandma's living on the street, that must be proof positive that grandma's a Social Darwinian failure who mdidn't work hard enough and/or never saved a dime and/or made some very bad investment decisions.

__________________
Theodore Lamar Heiks
BA, History/Political Science, Western State College of Colorado, 1984
MBA, Entrepreneurship/Marketing, City University of Seattle, 1993

Or maybe you will end up adopting a pet cat.

__________________
Theodore Lamar Heiks
BA, History/Political Science, Western State College of Colorado, 1984
MBA, Entrepreneurship/Marketing, City University of Seattle, 1993

Im not aware of any succesfully socialist governments..and alot of people will say that it is a flawed idea. I have my own ideas for an ideal goverment that most people call socialist. Maybee it is unrealistic...I dont know of any major pro socialist groups in america since..what the 70's?

Actually if you want to talk about socialism in its most pure form then you are talking about the American Indians who were here before the white settlers arrived.

Pretty much with socialism you have a "chief" or one leader and then you have absolutely NO different social classes. Everyone is essentially poor but working together to help out. However there is no actual requirement for helping out. Well we all saw what happened to the Native Americans as soon as someone else decided to take what was theirs.

Essentially what it boils down to in modern terms is that if we had a Socialist leader (Hillary Clinton) people would essentially all be the same. THere would be no rich (except for a chosen few of course) and then everyone else would just share all the wealth....regardless of whether you actually work or not. The government would just assume that you would be willing to chip in....of course not only is this wrong it is foolish to think people would help out.

As for all of the amenities that you enjoy...you know the computer your typing on right now...gone! Cable TV.....GONE! Your car....GONE!

You see socialism is the lazy persons solution for their equality. Generally people who have alot of money have worked their butts off to earn it. Socialists on the other hand are usually the person who is discontent with their country and government and since they dont have the drive and passion to compete with the more determined people in society they figure that those more successful people should just share their money with them.

Well I dont know about all of you, but I am working hard to make alot of money. And when I have that money I plan on spending it. I want a nice car, a nice tv, a nice stereo system. I want to go on cruises and travel alot. I dont want the socialist lifestyle that would have everyone living in tiny houses and the world being some giant apartment complex where everyone lives side by side with no yard of your own to enjoy.

So I agree with the original poster, Socialism isnt necessarily the Communist regimes of China and Russia. In its purest form its intent I guess is good, however it is a pretty laughable idea that really only benefits people who are lazy and willing to lay around and let the people who do work hard, and the government support them.

Ill stick with Capitalism thank you.

You can't say for certain that these stats are for certain. Funny. Any Analyst will be able to tell you that stats can be fudged. I use the Census for somethings but question its accuracy all the time. Some stats, I think, are made to look good for foreign investors. I think that a social democracy can work here. Capitalism should have it's place in the market, but socialism should too. And Revolution doesn't have to be violent. A constant revolution
of reforms is good like Trotski suggests. We have to be a government of the people and by the people. Socialists are about Democracy. Democracy can work with Faiths in the republic. The existing ones have.

[quote="Wildbore";p="256248
There will always be selfish and ignorant people in this world. As long as society is compassionate the vulnerable citizens will be taken care of some form or another.[/quote]

As I get older, I realize that it is better to battle ideas instead of the person that carries the ideas. That said "A government that is big enough to do everything for its people is powerful enough to do anything to its people." (I don't think I got the quote completely correct).

The problem with this idea is whose yardstick you use to measure compassion and vulnerability, and the extent it infringes on individual liberties. We both know that the "Government" is not a single minded organism. I realize this extends beyond education, but to what extent should the Government "take care" of me?

Sorry I was gone for so long.

__________________
"Democracy is a process by which the people are free to choose the man who will get the blame."

-Laurence J. Peter

Have you ever heard the old chestnut, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions?" I guess not...

Are you for real. Have you ever heard of North Korea? They have death camps there. I wish you lived there, then you would be seeing a concentration camp from the inside.

Facism??? Communism has killed untold millions more than that. The communist's murder toll makes the nazis look like girl scouts by comparison. And yet, you see nothing wrong with it. You are a facist.

__________________
"I don't have any respect at all for the scum-bags who went to Canada to avoid the draft or to avoid doing their fair share."
-R. Lee Ermey