@HeManWomanHater said:
The problem is because of the innate American (and by extension human) propensity for such a system as Socialism to encourage laziness and thereby abuse of its supposedly intended purpose.I have no problem with the social programs we have in the province in which I live, but then again, we can afford them, we're rich. I have no problem with the idea of assisting those, who through no fault of their own are handicapped, sick, injured, etc. And enabling them to either recover, and/or find ways of becoming productive, contributing members of society. Then again, we have a proportionately small population, and our financial resources are proportionately much greater. The problem with such a system in the U.S is the inherent proclivity for corruption and abuse, as well as the fact that the sheer population to economic productivity ratio is an ABSOLUTE F****** NIGHTMARE.
You're mostly right, except liberal is the complete opposite of socialism. Ron Paul is a liberal, the same as Hayek, Mises, Carl Menger, William Gladstone, John Locke, Adam Smith - these people are all liberals in the philosophical sense (to live and let live, tolerance, free-markets, civil rights - these are all liberal values).
Log in to comment