Post by Hyperspacerebel
I've lived around people for too long to believe that they can act in their own best interest. Generally, they want to, but don't know how.
It's not your place to choose for them.
If you want to turn over your freedoms to some higher power and just hope they don't take advantage of them, that's your choice...and your problem if worse comes to worst; however, you have no right to decide that others must submit themselves also.
What if I told you right here and now that you are unable to act in your best interest, so I'm going to take all your rights away and dictate what you do from now on. Who am I to make that decision for you? Who are you to make that decision for others?
For example, is it in my own best interest to buy a gun? I can shoot people who want to shoot me. Then again, I'm more likely to be shot at by thugs and police alike (and it goes on and on...)
This really made no sense. If you have a gun you're more likely to be shot at? Uh...no...
The problem is, if people can't always act in their own best interest, how's a government going to accomplish that for them?
You're the one proposing that the government do it for them, not me. So why are you asking me how to do it?
People are free to act in their own interests. Government has not say in that apart from it's roll as protector of those interests.
Socialism isn't as bad as that when it keeps a strong democratic rooting to the people, but the people of the USA don't want a Socialist society in the first place. After all, our system of government has managed to lose touch with the people on many occasions - wouldn't a Socialist one be even worse?
So I ask again, why give up your rights and freedoms to a system that cannot guarantee that it'll act for you?
Me, a little more socialism would help reinforce our vibrant but unstable economy - partly because I don't like having the economy collapse due to a lack of regulation (If you deny this, then show me the government official who's intervention toppled those banks. Last I checked, a few terribad CEO's accomplished that all on their own because no one intervened until they asked for help). That, and the economy tanking as I'm trying to get myself into college and maybe a job.
Try this and this (same author).
Back on-topic: No. He's very liberal, but not socialist. Look at the latest White House health care plan - the public option has been let go, which is more than quite a few Congressional Dems are willing to do. If he was socialist, we'd be seeing a Medicare/Medicaid-style bill being pushed through Congress ala LBJ. Last I checked, it was George W. Bush that greatly increased the size of the federal bureaucracy with the department of Homeland Security, and not Obama. Judging by how liberal groups are complaining, he's getting as much liberal hate mail as he is from conservatives.
Increasing the size of the government does not make one socialist. Please refer back to the definition I provided.