The largest (at least well funded) socialist organization in the world is the US military…
If everyone got the shit I got as a disabled vet, we’d all be a lot better off and the only negative would be rich people have a slightly lower high score that’s 100% irrelevant to how their quality of life is.
TL;DR: Yeah, I 100% agree, if everyone had a strong safety net, we’d be much better off.
When it works it works. I mean I have met several people who’ve expressed a lot of sincere dissatisfaction with the VA’s medical services, including limited access to mental healthcare among other things. Particularly of concern is the high degree of veterans who end up on the street–many with severe mental health issues, with some even self-medicating and/or dealing with addictions.
Of course, I’m sure there are more factors that contribute to homeless veterans than limited accessibility to medical care, mental healthcare, and other social services provided by the VA–but it is important to consider.
…and of course, as you are aware, it’s better to have those social systems in-place than nothing at all. Even when run to a degree of mediocrity, socialist programs can and do tend to benefit a population. While not everyone may like the Supplemental Security Income and FAFSA programs: without them, I wouldn’t be able to attend a university as a future job-seeking student.
Specifically without SSI, many who are unable to pursue a degree would end up homeless and hungry, becoming a greater burden on society. In my opinion, it’s unfortunate that you have to have a disability in order to qualify for this safety-net program; as I know several people who turned to less favorable means of providing for themselves, because they were rock-bottom and didn’t qualify for any programs.
So, yeah, the VA program, and many other programs in the US are great examples of both some of the harms, but also the significant positive benefits that socialist policies can have for a population. Indeed, the greatest harms done by socialist programs in the US seem to be caused by their limitations and inability to properly serve enough people. Providing a everyone access to a solid safety net would do wonders for us as a society and for our economy.
There are many successful and beneficial implementations of socialist policies that do more good than harm, especially outside of the US. Most government institutions in the US and abroad are fundamentally socialist in nature–and some of them work very well (especially outside the US).
While there was once some truth to what you’ve said, I think you’re gravely over-simplifying the nature of what gives humans meaning and purpose in life. For one, it’s an extremely subjective topic, but for example, what gives me meaning has very little to do with the relationship between non-action and risk. Rather, things that have meaning for me are things I enjoy doing, and things I enjoy seeing. I don’t enjoy the thought of going out to hunt for food with hand-tools at the risk of hunger or death, maybe some people do–and if that gives them meaning, that’s fine, but that’s not how we need to live our lives. It’s a carryover from an obsolete era.
Yes this I agree with, limits are everything. Where limits are designed is important. What I am discussing is not a program that would guarantee that everyone is capable of going out and buying a yacht. I am discussing social safety-net programs that ensure equal access to comfortable housing, enough food, good medical care, and the means to comfortably pursue a job, education, or business endeavor–and in addition, take care of those who are unable to care for themselves. At this point in our technological and social development as a species, these should be considered basics that can be guaranteed to everyone. To do this would not strip away the meaning of life, rather it would enable people to feel meaning in life and the foundation to build up greater meaning for themselves.
Some of the greatest threats to human health and life come from needs-based anxiety, and with the declining population growth rate, high degree of depression, and high rate of suicide, it’s imperative that we re-frame how we think about and treat each other.
Not entirely true, I sort of jest when I make hyperbolic statements about socialism being the anti-CEO. I personally believe in mixed economies that are well regulated. I know a lot of people dismiss the successes in Norway and neighboring countries on ideas of “cultural/racial homogeneity” among other things, but they do quite well with a mixed economies.
In mixed economies, you have both the right and incentive to start a small to medium sized business; and if you become too big and ubiquitous, the government can step-in to help govern your company.
It’s not a perfect solution (I’m not sure if that exists), but I think it’s one of the best models we have–and a lot of the governing principles are derived from socialist criticisms of unregulated capitalism. Especially in the US I think we’d benefit from this sort of economic structure; but in-order for that to happen in a meaningful and positive way for the public, we will need electoral reform.
We do have a term for that, it’s a little bit of a trigger-word for certain demographics, but the correct term is socialism.
Can you define “socialism”? I’m a little lost on how any social media with a hosting provider or moderator can ever be socialism.
The largest (at least well funded) socialist organization in the world is the US military…
If everyone got the shit I got as a disabled vet, we’d all be a lot better off and the only negative would be rich people have a slightly lower high score that’s 100% irrelevant to how their quality of life is.
TL;DR: Yeah, I 100% agree, if everyone had a strong safety net, we’d be much better off.
When it works it works. I mean I have met several people who’ve expressed a lot of sincere dissatisfaction with the VA’s medical services, including limited access to mental healthcare among other things. Particularly of concern is the high degree of veterans who end up on the street–many with severe mental health issues, with some even self-medicating and/or dealing with addictions.
Of course, I’m sure there are more factors that contribute to homeless veterans than limited accessibility to medical care, mental healthcare, and other social services provided by the VA–but it is important to consider.
…and of course, as you are aware, it’s better to have those social systems in-place than nothing at all. Even when run to a degree of mediocrity, socialist programs can and do tend to benefit a population. While not everyone may like the Supplemental Security Income and FAFSA programs: without them, I wouldn’t be able to attend a university as a future job-seeking student.
Specifically without SSI, many who are unable to pursue a degree would end up homeless and hungry, becoming a greater burden on society. In my opinion, it’s unfortunate that you have to have a disability in order to qualify for this safety-net program; as I know several people who turned to less favorable means of providing for themselves, because they were rock-bottom and didn’t qualify for any programs.
So, yeah, the VA program, and many other programs in the US are great examples of both some of the harms, but also the significant positive benefits that socialist policies can have for a population. Indeed, the greatest harms done by socialist programs in the US seem to be caused by their limitations and inability to properly serve enough people. Providing a everyone access to a solid safety net would do wonders for us as a society and for our economy.
The trouble with socialism, though, is that any implementation of it strips away meaning in the process of trying to help people.
Meaning comes from a person feeling responsibility for what they do. That responsibility requires exposure to risk if they don’t act.
Almost any policy created to help people without a well-guarded limit will quickly become paternalism and, consequently, strip away meaning.
There are many successful and beneficial implementations of socialist policies that do more good than harm, especially outside of the US. Most government institutions in the US and abroad are fundamentally socialist in nature–and some of them work very well (especially outside the US).
While there was once some truth to what you’ve said, I think you’re gravely over-simplifying the nature of what gives humans meaning and purpose in life. For one, it’s an extremely subjective topic, but for example, what gives me meaning has very little to do with the relationship between non-action and risk. Rather, things that have meaning for me are things I enjoy doing, and things I enjoy seeing. I don’t enjoy the thought of going out to hunt for food with hand-tools at the risk of hunger or death, maybe some people do–and if that gives them meaning, that’s fine, but that’s not how we need to live our lives. It’s a carryover from an obsolete era.
Yes this I agree with, limits are everything. Where limits are designed is important. What I am discussing is not a program that would guarantee that everyone is capable of going out and buying a yacht. I am discussing social safety-net programs that ensure equal access to comfortable housing, enough food, good medical care, and the means to comfortably pursue a job, education, or business endeavor–and in addition, take care of those who are unable to care for themselves. At this point in our technological and social development as a species, these should be considered basics that can be guaranteed to everyone. To do this would not strip away the meaning of life, rather it would enable people to feel meaning in life and the foundation to build up greater meaning for themselves.
Some of the greatest threats to human health and life come from needs-based anxiety, and with the declining population growth rate, high degree of depression, and high rate of suicide, it’s imperative that we re-frame how we think about and treat each other.
From empirical evidence we learned that no way in socialism we can enjoy this kind of freedom of expression.
Not entirely true, I sort of jest when I make hyperbolic statements about socialism being the anti-CEO. I personally believe in mixed economies that are well regulated. I know a lot of people dismiss the successes in Norway and neighboring countries on ideas of “cultural/racial homogeneity” among other things, but they do quite well with a mixed economies.
In mixed economies, you have both the right and incentive to start a small to medium sized business; and if you become too big and ubiquitous, the government can step-in to help govern your company.
It’s not a perfect solution (I’m not sure if that exists), but I think it’s one of the best models we have–and a lot of the governing principles are derived from socialist criticisms of unregulated capitalism. Especially in the US I think we’d benefit from this sort of economic structure; but in-order for that to happen in a meaningful and positive way for the public, we will need electoral reform.