we all want change, but please, not socialism. that’s what created the corporatocracy we live in today. socialism is violence and a monopoly of violence from a state. violence never solves anything, and usually makes things worse. check out freedomain radio if you want more info on this stuff.

There is socialism, and then there is socialism. Look at my link to get a hint of what I’m talking about. Definitely not the Marx kind, or the USSR or China kind.

Socialism is not any worse than Capitalism. Extreme conditions of both is what’s detrimental. The conservatives want to edge the USA toward extreme capitalism. This will create a society in which the rich exploit the poor and nothing matters but money. It will lead to a lawless and selfish society where money is the rule of law. Look at the ills of capitalism. It’s has turned us into materialists. It has made us unhealthy. It has made us wasteful. And in the long run it’s not even sustainable because we are producing, consuming and wasting at a faster rate than the earth’s resources can replenish.

And capitalists don’t care, because they are greedy. They don’t like regulations. They don’t like checks and balances. They have a misplaced ideology that poor people are lazy. Even though everything in my experience tells me the opposite. What’s worse they don’t understand that the state of a society or nation depends entirely upon the happiness and welfare of its people. That’s right. Not on GDP, GNP, Inflation Rate, Taxes, Wall Street, and assorted BS. To a capitalist, human beings are just expendable, exploitable resources, just like everything else on earth.

Capitalism is euphemism for exploitation. And American history is rife with it. Yes, I believe in business, innovation and entrepreneurship but only if it is “HEAVILY” regulated to prevent exploitation and unfairness.

Like Eugenia, I too have become increasingly socialist in my ideologies.

You are not socialist. What you describe is not socialism. Socialism would put under state control what you describe as freedom of choice. Once that is done there is no freedom, only what the state says.

What you describe is democracy, not socialism, not communism, not capitalism…

Vassili, you are too thinking of old-style socialism, which is of course despotic, outdated, and it doesn’t really work. Democracy and a balanced version of socialism can go together. Norway and Sweden are prime examples of such a political system that has elements of both socialism and capitalism, at the right doses. These are countries that are apparently with the highest degree of freedom, and well being. Some would argue that these countries are actually not fully socialist, but from the point of view of a conservative American, they are.

I don’t know about Sweden but as far as Norway goes, I hear a lot of complaints about their socialized healthcare system. Mainly having to do with poor service and long waiting lists. Supposedly not many people are jumping at a career in healthcare in Norway due to practically no incentive (years of education but leading to a job with relatively low pay). Bartenders in Norway (when counting in tips) can earn more than a nurse. For some reason that doesn’t seem fair.

For what it’s worth, I don’t think Norway is a “prime example”. I’m just sayin’.

Euginia, I think it is sad that you are getting sucked into the Reddit group think. True conservatives are the ones that want to protect the ability for society to “progress”. “Medieval” is certainly not it’s goal. Innovation comes from unbridled passion, not regulation and taxation. Progress comes from supply and demand, not a managed economy.

A Socialist State cannot have freedom and liberty within it’s borders. I cannot opt out of these programs that continually expand and are paid for by debt incurred upon us without our consent. We are borrowing against our children’s labor. Enslaving them essentially. If the Federal Government were to embrace the spirit of the constitution and nix it’s empire building, Patriot Act, Department of this and that and this and that. . . then each State would have the opportunity to try out it’s own solutions to society’s problems. Like Vermont just did. Good for them! But here in Utah, I’m pretty sure we would prefer an unregulated free market approach. For you to take money from me to implement your ideals is, when you boil it all down, theft.

Bush was not a true conservative so do not use him as a model. Think Gandi, Heinlein, Barry Goldwater etc. People who understood that you cannot regulate against stupidity. That the more you grow government, the more it is ripe for a collusion of special interests at the sacrifice of our basic human rights given to us from our makers. NOT from government.

Have a quick look at this and let me know what you think.

There are alternatives. Voluntarism, Libertarianism, Freedom, Justice for all through strong laws protecting those rights but at no time protecting us from our own choices.

Keep drinking that statist authoritarian Kool aid bitch!

>Mainly having to do with poor service and long waiting lists.

Not a problem in Sweden though. Norway might be on the top of the list, but it’s not perfect either.

>A Socialist State cannot have freedom and liberty within it’s borders. I cannot opt out of these programs…

I don’t agree with this, sorry. As I said above, there’s socialism, and then there’s socialism. You keep thinking of the old style too, when you take this stance. I hate the China system as much as the next guy, be assured of that. In Sweden you *can* opt out and pay for your own doctors/procedures btw.

>Libertarianism

I don’t like libertarianism. I don’t like corporations running free. I want them heavily regulated. As much as we can never trust our governments (I don’t, I have trust issues with *everybody*), I trust corporations even less. So between the two evils, I prefer a bigger government. I want everything that is part of human rights (e.g. water, food, healthcare etc) to be controlled by the government.

BTW, this blog post might have come as a surprised to all of you, but the truth is that I grew up in a socialist country. I’m not a stranger to it. I’m not somehow a “newborn socialist, misguided”. I grew up in socialism (even if most of my family was voting right wing instead, and even if it took me a while to realize that I agree with the principles of modern semi-socialism more than I agree with right wingers). It just happened that Greece was one of the failed socialist countries because in Greece there’s accumulated debt of 185 years (long before it became socialist). No country, or political party, could or will ever overcome that. Greece will always be in debt.

Again, in Greece, you could have your teeth fixed via IKA, the government’s insurer, or have a private insurer, or you could go to a private doctor and pay for the sum. I never felt in Greece that I was not free to choose, or not free in general. As much as Greece was always full of financial problems, freedom was never a problem. So please, don’t mix modern socialism in western countries with the kind of things Marx was writing, that were simply non-applicable and non-working and ended up becoming authoritarian and despotic (e.g. Eastern Block, Cuba, China, etc). That’s not the kind I’d like either. But there’s a gentler, softer kind that strikes a balance and it’s closer to capitalism. Just a bit more controlled capitalism.

And btw, this blog post is not about socialism, so it kind of angers me seeing the conversation going there instead.

>Keep drinking that statist authoritarian Kool aid bitch!

Mr Cocker, if you can’t contribute to a conversation, and instead you prefer to insult me like this, then you can go and plentiful screw yourself.

Socialism = the needs of the many are paid for by the labor of the few. I also grew up in a more socialist government in Australia and loved parts of it. I remember skateboarding down to my local doctors office with my green medical card and getting stitches for some crazy stunt I had just done and not having to pay a cent. But looking back I realize how immoral my actions were. I was careless but had no natural consequence to correct my actions. There was no free market punishment to teach me to take better care of myself because these doctors and medication are expensive. I’d go for the most trivial reason. I remember once going in for a splinter that wouldn’t come out.

You have mentioned Greece before and how corrupt and entrenched the government has become. I really don’t see our current government being any different in the US. 50% of the people don’t pay any taxes at all. They have no skin in the game so as a natural consequence, don’t give a crap. They elect the people that they believe can give them the most from Washington. 1 in 7 people are on food stamps. Over 9% unemployment. We are on the precipice of total economic collapse if we do not correct. More government control over what you feel are natural “rights” will only serve to continue us on this course.

I think you would really love some of the more moderate Libertarians out there. Check out Gary Johnson or even Dennis Kucinich. Dennis is more Blue Dog Democrat but is unique in his understanding of civil rights, sound money and making sure we do no incur piles of debt to pay for the essential services government provides.

>Socialism = the needs of the many are paid for by the labor of the few.

That’s not true. Everyone is paying taxes *heavily* in Scandinavia. Corporations pay their share too, while here they find loopholes to send revenue off shore (e.g. GE).

>no free market punishment to teach me to take better care of myself

I can’t imagine that someone would hurt himself because healthcare is free. And as with every system is about responsible citizens. I don’t need to be “taught” via some free market system to not spend too much water, or too much electricity or whatever. I use common sense. If there’s no common sense among the citizens, then absolutely no political or economical system will ever work. None of them.

A relative of mine went to school on the government’s dime to become a pastry chef so that she could retain her unemployment benefits. Graduated. . . lasted two weeks and quit. Decided to just have another kid out of wedlock so she could stay on welfare and not have to work. There is no common sense when there is no ability to find natural consequences for your actions.

The Free Market would have let her go hungry. She would have had to rely in the charity of others to survive. Those others would directly have set the conditions of that assistance and would have personal skin in the game. That is what makes charity and volunteerism so powerful. It would force communities to deal with problems at the local level. Again, some communities may try for a more socialist approach but I believe that the only true solution is to lead by example, be charitable to those who cannot provide for themselves directly or through small local organizations and live within our means.

Since 1913 the US have lived under the crushing rule of borrow-ism brought on by the Federal Reserve. Time to end it.

>There is no common sense when there is no ability to find natural consequences for your actions.

That’s where I’d disagree. While there are people who take advantage of the system, this happens on every system. In the capitalistic system, it’s the corporations that do. And a corporation is a legal person… according to the US law.

I absolutely and utterly support free education for all btw.

>force communities to deal with problems at the local level

I like the idea of local communities managing themselves too. But that can also happen in every modern political system. No need for the one or the other system, it can be implemented in either.

You are confusing capitalism with corporate-ism. We haven’t had capitalism in a long long time. Corproate-ism is when corporations and government work together to establish rules and regulations that cater to the lobbyist with the most influence. Obama has 5 Goldman Sacks alumni in his cabinet for example.

Capitalism is when you have to have CAPITAL to accomplish anything. Banks can’t lend unless they have that money in the bank. Companies can’t build unless they have saved first. You can’t buy a home unless you have the cash etc. Interest rates are set by the market to attract savings or encourage spending. When the Federal Reserve sets that rate we get artificial bubbles. Think the Tech bubble in 2000 and the housing bubble in 2007.

Corporations love a managed economy. Hence their love of the Keynesianism where as long as the cycle of spending is spinning fast enough, it doesn’t matter how much people borrow.

True Capitalists, the ones who read Forbs magazine and understand the flaws in this theory prefer the economic model of Hayek.

I know it all sounds crazy when you are new to it but there are people out there doing a great job of getting the message out.

PLEASE watch this one. It’s quite good.

Eugenia, I like your thoughts on this topic, but I honestly think you’re rather stereotypical on how you view us conservatives. We DO want change. We aren’t afraid of it. But we don’t want to throw the baby out of the bath water either. The change we want is an improvement of how things are. We can all make more money, we can be equal with opportunity – as opposed to outcome which is dependent on us – we want to improve our relationships with each other, with God, with our communities. Change doesn’t have to just mean changing course, it can mean an improvement of what exists. I agree that the extremes of both sides can be stiffling and as detrimental for our country. But fundamental change is what causes instability and we’re seeing that in this administration.

Nice blogpost though. you were well thought out and respectful, and in my experience with progressives, that is a rarity.

I’m so hooked on Reddit I just tried to up-vote your comment JD.

>Change doesn’t have to just mean changing course, it can mean an improvement of what exists.

Everyone agrees on this. The problem is when some conservatives don’t want any change, or improvement. Or when our ideas of “improvement” are directly opposite.

Do not idealize Norway – many of your pro- wouldn’t stand here even if they are formally declared. The social welfare and healthcare systems are heavily abused as people do not prefer to make rational choices and care of society when they can bend the system and got something for free for themselves.

saying theres two kinds of socialism is like saying theres 2 kinds of being pregnant. you either are, or you aren’t. No one wants the China version of socialism, but like it or not, thats where it ends up (or comes out in the case of the preggers example).

democracy is equally as bad, and is literally set up so that the minority gets the short end of the stick, whereby the majority decides by mob rule (vote) what goes.

Socialism is also not the opposite of capitalism by any means. The opposite of socialism is fascism.

Can we just stop electing rulers???????

And who’s to govern or bring some sanity in chaos? The masses don’t care about voting about every single thing. Anarchy doesn’t work. Anarchy is what we had 4,000 years ago too, it was just one more vessel to keep things medieval and raw.

Strong basic laws Eugenia. If you have strong property laws then pollution becomes self regulating and the EPA can go away. If you have strong anti-fraud laws then the FDA can go away. The ONLY thing the Federal Government should really do is protect our borders, and ensure these basic laws and rights are kept. Right now the FDA is raiding farmers for selling raw milk. TSA are patting down little children and old ladies. DEA is raiding homes because they are using too much electricity mining bitcoins! Just establish the common sense base in law and leave everything else up to local communities decide the rest if needed. That was the intend of the Republic.

Eugenia, interesting thread! Unfortunately in today’s world neither the word “conservative” nor “socialist” actually exist…(in the western world). And I think its for one fundamental reason: holding on to power, by the few, for as long as possible. Policies on both sides are virtually the same (look at France, the UK, all the European countries and even the USA), honestly apart from a few “words and sound bites” their policies are the SAME…they have both tried to migrate to the middle ground as they know extremism doesn’t work or appeal to the masses. Politicians today, wherever they may be, have absolutely no “vision” for their country and base their decisions on pseudo polls and “what the “plebs” want “today”…we get little thought-out policies on everything from crime to taxes to immigration, made up as they go along. Some can accuse me of “living in a bygone age” but where are the Roosevelts, the Churchills, the De Gaulles, and you can keep going back…no everything was perfect but what they DID have was a sense of “the nation”, its history its customs and where they wanted to lead it…planning ahead, not just next week or next month and certainly not next election…
I went to Malaysia in 2004 and there were posters everywhere talking about 2020…(play on the words with eye sight strength)…this was a country (forget the religion side) that wanted to move from a 3rd world country to a 1st world country…and my word have they come along! The examples are too long to be listed here but you get my drift…
Absolutely no-one (politician) in the western world has this type of vision…we are subjected to “reality tv” which is a return to the colosseum of ancient Rome…give the masses sex, shit and death and they will lap it up…I DO believe that government has a fundamental role and that is to “raise” the bar of and for the people because unfortunately the “masses” can so easily flip into an uncontrollable pack of animals.
Just look at how Bush, Blair and Zapatero (Spain) were re-elected after the Iraq scandal…I was living in France at the time and couldn’t comprehend my colleagues or friends who (like the French President) couldn’t or wouldn’t accept that Saddam was an imminent threat. I mean, after all, sending your young boys to war is the highest and most important decision a leader can take…and I for one was firmly on the “if the President of the USA and Prime Minister of the UK” says it is so then it MUST be so (souvenirs of Churchill and Roosevelt)…how naive I was !!! These LIARS actually went in, then told everyone “yes we made it up but it is a good thing for the people and getting rid of Saddam was a good thing”, and they got RE-ELECTED!!!! How absolutely screwed up is that????
Look at Libya and the French etc…Christ! Its to “protect” the people…well what about Bahrain, Syria, etc and what happens when there are strikes in Greece and France? Do they send in troops to deal with that? To protect the people? What a load of crap! And nobody does anything…
We need common sense and basic rules to govern our countries…all this Health and Safety rubbish, the insurance companies, needless legislation is so impeding its actually taking humanity backwards not evolving…
God, i’ve got soooo much more to talk about but hey too long for here…
Cheers

George Orwell’s observation that

The central problem — how to prevent power from being abused — remains unsolved…”If men would behave decently the world would be decent” is not such a platitude as it sounds.

is applicable to all socio-economic systems.

“pro-choice, pro-equality”

You are the epitomy of hypocrisy, and the pathetic thing about it is you actually believe you are not. Genocidal mind.

Well then, think about that hypocrisy the next time you masturbate or you cum outside of a vagina.