View Single Post
Old 01-22-2008, 07:04 PM   #1
philabramoff
Exiled Packerfan in SoCal
 
philabramoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 537
philabramoff is on a distinguished road
Default Conversation with Louis CK

To address what you wanted me to respond to...

Concerning my comment that "most liberal ideas sound nice,
but don't work in reality", I can discuss several categories...

I'll list some of them, and then grab hold of one, we can chew on it,
and then go onto another one...

...in no particular order...
Socialist Economic Systems
High Taxes
Universal Health Care
Price controls on drugs
Liberal Approaches to Secondary Education
"Secularism" (for lack of a better term)
Some forms of Affirmative Action
Pacifism (i.e. the "anti-War" position...not specifically concerning Iraq)
(I'll think of others)

Socialist Economic Systems:
I start with this one, because I think it is an open-and-shut case.
I'm not sure exactly what your interpretation of what "socialism" is,
or what version, or volume of government you believe in, but liberalism
is primarily predicated on high government control of the economy,
redistribution of wealth, and controls of people's incomes.
I base my case against Socialism in that it is fundamental human
nature that people usually don't work if they are not compensated,
or only partially compensated. On the micro-level, under socialism,
a person works, receive a small personal compensation for their work,
are usually guaranteed to have their job, and then have a wide range
of government services providing for various needs. If the person's
compensation, and gov't services are guaranteed, whether the person
works hard and produces, or not, most people will not work very hard,
and not produce much. On the macro-level, under socialism, business
and commerce are highly controlled by the government, with business
profits highly limited, so business does not expand, produce, or become
innovative, or takes risks. Moreover, business and commerce also have
to deal with a primarily lazy and unproductive workforce. The apparent
"upside" of the government controlling the nations wealth in this way
is that the government will provide for the basic needs of all its citizens
with the wealth it controls. However, the government will only be able
to provide so much, because there just won't be much wealth there to
draw from. In summary...government services can only be provided for
if that government has a strong economy to draw from. Socialism, by
it's nature, will produce a weak, lazy economy, since the members of
that economy (who are not compensated on a personal level) will not
produce.

Okay, this is an oversimplification of the issue, but my basic argument
is there. My evidence toward my brief analysis is what has happened
in every nation where it has been tried: Russia, China, eastern Europe,
now Canada, and many nations now in Africa. Socialism has produces
weak, pathetic economies that have fallen apart at their cores, and
have given their citizens universal poverty, blight, and very little personal
freedoms on top of it.

Democratic Capitalism is the way to go, and has produced the strongest,
most vibrant economy in the history of the world, that of the United States.
Admittedly, the downside is that a portion of the citizenry falls through
the cracks, and suffers in poverty. Still, in this country, anyone, realistically,
if they really WANT to, can work their way out of poverty, or at least be
able to provide for their own needs, and the assistance is there for the
disabled.

In other words, Socialism doesn't work (unless it is done on a VERY small
scale, such as small communes where individual familes agree to buy into
it). It's pretty much been an abject failure everywhere it's been tried.
philabramoff is offline   Reply With Quote