Poland may be doomed

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
I don't necessarily buy into the slippery slope argument that electing a moderate socialist like Bernie would eventually lead to a Stalin-like figure taking power. Countries like Denmark and Finland used to be [B]more socialist than they are today.

I can see the merit in the argument that having to pay higher taxes is undesirable and the negative interest rate is a pain in the ass, but the perks of this system are undeniable. As far as things like freedom of speech(the problems with which tend to be highly exaggerated) or immigration are concerned, I don't consider them to be the fault of the economic system [/B]

There's nothing moderate about electing a socialist . It should never be done. Denmark and Finland are not full blown socialist countries, there is still capitalism there in some form, nothing like it should be tho.

If the citizens of a nation elect socialist politicians, they bring in big leftist government ideas, a central bank which makes the nation poorer. Its a big circle of greed, victim and promise things for free for votes. It steals everyone of their own time and money.

Originally posted by kevdude
There's nothing moderate about electing a socialist . It should [B]never be done. Denmark and Finland are not full blown socialist countries, there is still capitalism there in some form, nothing like it should be tho.

If the citizens of a nation elect socialist politicians, they bring in big leftist government ideas, a central bank which makes the nation poorer. Its a big circle of greed, victim and promise things for free for votes. It steals everyone of their own time and money. [/B]

Originally posted by kevdude
There's nothing moderate about electing a socialist . It should [B]never be done. Denmark and Finland are not full blown socialist countries, there is still capitalism there in some form, nothing like it should be tho.

If the citizens of a nation elect socialist politicians, they bring in big leftist government ideas, a central bank which makes the nation poorer. Its a big circle of greed, victim and promise things for free for votes. It steals everyone of their own time and money. [/B]

I don't think the people arguing against him like Denmark or Finland's economy either tbh.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I don't think the people arguing against him like Denmark or Finland's economy either tbh.

It's not murderous, but it's still in the territory of violating some of the same points of principle.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
It's not murderous, but it's still in the territory of violating some of the same points of principle.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Like what?

There are definite ideological grounds and principles by which one could object to wealth redistribution for the sake of wealth distribution, particularly if to the extent that the policy would be characterized as socialist.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Economic liberty, property rights, and capitalism for those who are staunch supporters of capitalism.

There are definite ideological grounds and principles by which one could object to wealth redistribution for the sake of wealth distribution, particularly if to the extent that the policy would be characterized as socialist.

Certainly, but a certain degree of wealth redistribution is all but necessary in our society.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Yeah, but the countries I mentioned support all of that.

Certainly, but a certain degree of wealth redistribution is all but necessary in our society.

There's also a principled argument to be made against any degree of wealth redistribution that I have heard people make before.

I'm just not understanding your shock that people would find even democratic socialism objectionable on principle tbh.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Socialist policy is inherently a concession of some degree of economic liberty, property rights, and capitalism, even if you point out that these countries still retain these things to a degree, its undoubtedly to less of a degree than would be retained without these policies. And to the extent that a candidate or nation would be called "democratic socialist" is one that I could absolutely see someone, such as myself, rejecting at a point of personal principle.

There's also a principled argument to be made against any degree of wealth redistribution that I have heard people make before.

I'm just not understanding your shock that people would find even democratic socialism objectionable on principle tbh.

Yes, but I’ve also seen people make principled arguments for Ancap and Communism. Doesn’t mean they make sense.

My shock comes from the fact that there’s no country in the world that’s not socialist to a degree and that some would compare social democracy to Bolshevism.

Oh concessions have been made, that's not a reason people can't fiercely object to further concessions though, and there are moral and practical reasons for people to think this is a bad direction to shift further into even if not to the extent of murderous communist/socialist regimes.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Oh concessions have been made, that's not a reason people can't fiercely object to further concessions though, and there are moral and practical reasons for people to think this is a bad direction to shift further into even if not to the extent of murderous communist/socialist regimes.

And I don't think it's the direction we should be taking America in either quite frankly.

We should be more like Switzerland then Denmark or Finland. It's probably the best capitalist country in Europe.

Originally posted by kevdude
We should be more like Switzerland then Denmark or Finland. It's probably the best capitalist country in Europe.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
And I don't think it's the direction we should be taking America in either quite frankly.

YouTube video

More like Switzerland in their monetary policy not in their socialist policy. We need to go forward not backwards in healthcare, backwards is Obamacare, prices was less with the government out not in

YouTube video

Originally posted by kevdude
More like Switzerland in their monetary policy not in their socialist policy. We need to go forward not backwards in healthcare, backwards is Obamacare, prices was less with the government out not in

YouTube video

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Would you say that adopting Switzerland's healthcare system be a step forwards or backwards?

I'm not against it. You have to pay for your insurance and you get the option to upgrade to better coverage. I don't see the problem with that.