Text 29137, 89 rader
Skriven 2015-11-24 00:16:04 av Lee Lofaso (2:203/2)
Ärende: Socialism
=================
Björn Felten responded to a message by Janis Kracht,
trying to explain a concept few Americans (and others
around the world) understand -

                 -=begin quote=-

JK>Here is what someone else said recently..

JK>"... If you think that government should nationalise,
JK>take over, every health care facility in the US, as the
JK>National Health Service did in the UK in 1948, then that's
JK>socialism. That's government ownership of the means of
JK>production of health care. If you think that instead
JK>the government should just pay all those still private
JK>businesses to do it then that's not socialism: that's
JK>social democracy."

Very well put. Therein lies your problem, you don't regard
your government as something that represents you. If you don't
think that your government is acting on your behalf, socialism
will never work.

Change the above to:

"If you think that the US citizens should nationalise, take
over, every health care facility..." and you get a better idea
about what socialism really means.

Where did "that government of the people, by the people, for
the people" go?

                   -=end quote=-

Until recently, the state of Louisiana had a charity hospital
system, set up by Huey P. Long.  It had worked well, for decades,
serving the needs of all, regardless of ability to pay.  Those
with insurance were able to pay for services through their insurer.
Taxpayers picked up the tab for those who had no insurance.

This charity hospital system did not mean the lack of private
hospitals.  Not by a long shot.  And it is true that it was mainly
those in the lower income bracket who used the charity hospital
system rather than private hospitals.

But many with insurance, or who had the means to pay their own
way, chose to use the charity hospital system rather than private
hospitals.  Why?  Because of the quality of care, as well as the
medical technology available.

Today, due to the actions of our current governor (who is leaving
office in two months), the state has no charity hospital system to
speak of (one small charity hospital remains that serves ten beds).
The quality of care offered to state residents is worse than when
the governor first took office eight years ago.  And costs are
significantly higher.  For both those with and without insurance.

"Common good comes before private good." - Hermann Goering

That seems to be what Björn Felten is implying in his message
to Janis Kracht.  However, I doubt very seriously that was his
intention.

Socialism is, by its very nature, is a social system that
institutionalizes envy and self-sacrifice.  "Work will set
you free" was a sign posted by Nazis on the entrance of work
camps (death camps) that held Jews and other undesirables.
A social system that uses compulsion and the organized
violence of the State in order to get what it wants.

Is socialism a moral system?  Is capitalism a moral system?

No social system can be moral or immoral, since only
individuals can be moral agents.  No economic system can
make a people good (or bad, as the case may be).  However,
individuals must be free to choose, whether to be moral
or immoral, good or of bad character.

What does it all mean?  Italian dictator Benito Mussolini
summed it all up quite nicely, describing fascism as "a life
in which the individual, through the sacrifice of his own
private interests ... realizes that completely spiritual
existence in which his value as a man lies."

Your turn, Björn.  :)

--Lee

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
 * Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)