> How is this not effectively Socialism?
Does that make it bad?
> Isn't the system you currently have simply Capitalism in action?
Does that make it good?
Does that make it bad?
> Isn't the system you currently have simply Capitalism in action?
Does that make it good?
Nowhere else have I come across people who dismiss ideas by saying - Oh, that's Socialism - and seem to think that that's enough.
Game Theory says that mixed strategies are almost always (in the technical sense) the best, so the instant dismissal of ideas simply being they have a flavor of socialism seems stupid, and yet it seems that it's the instant reaction of many, many people in the USA.
I could be wrong, it might not be the case, and it's interesting to see that the perception from outside the USA might be wrong.
You're right about the loudmouths here, but it'd be a mistake to let your sense of public sentiment be overly colored just by volume.
Calling something socialism here is a pretty good debate hack, like calling someone racist or anti-semitic or whatnot; it's enough of a social taboo that the so-accused will usually feel compelled to defend themselves against it, thereby derailing the original course of discussion...this is a good strategy for winning unrefereed debates.
No, it's all paid for by the government. That, my friend, is Socialism. And it's a good thing.
(Actually, it's a bad thing; if people had to pay the full cost of using the road network, it would be a lot easier to get people to take public transportation. But I am just saying it's clear that Americans have nothing against Free Stuff From The Government, even if that Free Stuff is paid for with tax dollars.)
The fact that the roads are owned by state and local governments does not inherently make them socialist.
This is true, but only because most of the people decrying "socialism" don't understand that many of the things they support are also socialist. Both the right and the left are already fairly socialist in the US; Norman Thomas, who ran for US President on the Socialist Party ticket a bunch of times in the early 20th Century, was asked why he wasn't running again at one point and replied that the Republicans had embraced all his major platform points, and the Democrats were already beyond that, so he'd accomplished much of what he'd set out to do. I can't find this in a minute of googling, so maybe it's apocryphal.
In any case, socialists on the right were discredited effectively everywhere by WWII, and in the US, socialists on the left were discredited by the collapse of the Soviet Union around 1990 and/or the (perceived?) near-collapse of Britain in the 1970s.
Also, it is very hard to have a mixed plan because eventually one will exploit the other. Game theory is great and all, but most of the time I don't think it applies to multiple trials -- which is what the real world is.
The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism—ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.