Quote Originally Posted by Bilbo View Post
Quote Originally Posted by miles View Post
Quote Originally Posted by El Kabong View Post
Miles you keep saying that governments are run by elites for elites and that no one is tending to the needs of the average ordinary citizen....well please, pretty please with a cherry on top show me a successful government that accommodated the average ordinary citizen and no corporations or elite group had little to no pull.

You won't be able to show me one because its like a unicorn, its a fantasy and that my friend is what liberalism is based on....fantasy
I said it before, I think the most obvious example to me was what The Labour Party introduced to the UK after WW2. A nationalised healthcare system, nationalised utilities and transportation systems, support for those unable to work and subsidised education through the tertiary sector, support for trade unions etc. These were measures that were enacted even though the major British corporations would likely have been against it. In fact it was so successful that it largely stayed in place until Thatcher under the influence of Friedman dismantled it in the 1980's.

Now the average UK citizen has to pay through the roof for utilities, public transportation, university education etc. But we do still have the NHS. It was a system that did work and was successful, but of course it could never come back as large corporations in collusion with the government would never relinquish what they now have.
I hate socialism. It tries to engineer equality by taking from one to give to another, when usually the most successful has more because he is more productive and proactive than the other.

It's like the story of lazy mouse. How can you endorse such a shit philosophy?
How can a man who doesn't work criticise that system? Bilbo....

People who are more successful are usually so because they have been given all the advantages brought about through inheritence and privilege. There are numerous exceptions, but this is usually how it is. Take away that and what you have is a level playing field. I am all for a level playing field. I was reading an article today that revealed that children at primary schools who recieved free school meals were significantly more likely to be unable to read beyond a basic level than other students. Poverty reduces the ability to compete in society and even a free dinner isn't that much of a help to these kids. I recieved free school dinners and did very well, but I am a bit weird.

Society should be about the equality of opportunity and a level starting platform. Obviously we cannot have communism, so therefore, we need a society that assists those that start off with difficulty, otherwise we are condemning them from birth. In that sense, the model I outlined above is perfectly feasible and is morally just. It helps to make life a little bit more equal and for society to be a little more than those that have it all and those that have nothing.