K. William Fancsali:
"The USA's federal government was started with a Constitution.
The views of the men responsible for creating it are well published.
When I said that socialism was not what the US government was
created to run, I meant exactly what I said."
I don't want to make this an argument about the USA. You have your Constitution - that's fine with me - but it does not hold much authority outside of your country.
If you americans believe that efficient ways to run a country are limited by the possible interpretations of your constitution - whatever, that's your business. The topic, though, is "Socialism and the Elite", not "Socialism and the Elite through the eyes of an American".
(though, ofc, I'm sure there are americans out there that don't consider their founding fathers to have been some sort of demigods)
"The Declaration of Independence was written about my "personal
likes and dislikes"? You overestimate my importance in the history
of the USA. That Thomas Jefferson! What a dull man!"
Again, T.J. and The Declaration of Independence is of no authority to me, or anyone else analyzing the matter from a delocalized perspective.
"They don't. Tried over and over and over again. Failed, failed, and
failed. Every time. 0 exceptions. America is losing its superiority of
wealth and standard of living over the rest of the world as it becomes
more socialist. Surprise. In what world will politicians better decide
what to spend money on than the hard working, innovative people
who WORK and EARN the money? Not this one. And pretending cannot
make it so."
lol.
"You care for everyone! You want the biggest government possible,
the closest to omnipotent God an organization on earth can possibly
be, because you care so much.
You have no right to my earnings. If you disagree with this statement,
you are wrong. And a bum. And a waste of life."
lol. I was talking to a moron, perfect.
Justinian I:
"Modern day Liberals believe in positive freedom, or the idea that government ought to guarantee various services that enable an individual to live at a minimal standard regardless of their decisions. Of course, what that minimal standard is is open to interpretation. Liberals tend to have a high bar, and that includes the right to an education and house ownership. Now personally, I think that's outrageous. I don't necessarily want mess ups to starve in the streets, but I am not hot on the idea of all these housing and education benefits afforded to the poor.
In general, however, I am committed to the classical definition of freedom, which is now considered negative freedom. Negative freedom is that government should guarantee choice and individualism, and the only services it provides are the services that guarantee you those freedoms from possible oppressors (such as a criminal). I have greater sympathy for a government that guarantees negative freedom. Such a government would be minimalist and have a weaker presence in our social and economic lives, although I am not willing to necessarily go to the extreme."
Fair enough. But personally, I believe you underestimate the negative effects of wealth disparity. It not only creates tension in the society, but adds to even more disparity itself. Providing education and a dignifiable standard of living to those lacking behind would even out the "starting lines" between those coming from wealthy families and those coming from humbler beginnings. I'm fine with survival of the fittest, but I'd like the starting conditions to be as equal as possible for everyone.
I'd agree with providing "mess ups with just enough for them not to starve in the streets" if the world were about to end in one generation.
