What would America look like without any socialism?

[asterism]

It would look pretty much how it looks now. The only truly socialist countries are countries like Cuba and Venezuela where the government owns and runs pretty much everything. Just because we have some social programs and a social safety net does not really qualify us as being socialist.

Our country..from the very beginning..has been a blend of many ideas. It doesn't mean it's one thing or another..

And it's ridiculous, really, to harp on and on about socialism. The very nature of representative government..is socialist.

The complete opposite of that..is government that has no input from the general public. Like a Monarchy.

THAT is bullshit. Socialism is collective ownership of all property. That's not part of "the very nature" of representative government.

Unless you think the government intrinsically owns all property. In that case you are a statist.

 

[Avatar4321]

People would be happy and free. It would be pretty darn great

 

[Saigon]

No railroads or highways or at east only a handful of them.
Same witrh schools and universities, hospitals, etc.

The national eletrical grid is socialist - it should be torn down and everyone produce their own electricity.

Ditto sewerage and roads.

When people talk about "socialised medicine" I wonder how they can dive on "socialised roads".

 

[Political Junky]

The military is entirely Socialist, including the VA.

 

[bripat9643]

It's difficult for me to visualize. Maybe some of you can help me see it...

What do you think we're supposed to do about your brain damage?

 

[bripat9643]

England..during the Monarchy.

Or Saudi Arabia.

England during the Monarchy was the wealthiest, fastest growing and most powerful country in the world.

 

[bripat9643]

It would look pretty much how it looks now. The only truly socialist countries are countries like Cuba and Venezuela where the government owns and runs pretty much everything. Just because we have some social programs and a social safety net does not really qualify us as being socialist.

That isn't an answer to the question the moron asked.

 

[Cowman]

The Wild West.

 

[bripat9643]

No railroads or highways or at east only a handful of them.
Same witrh schools and universities, hospitals, etc.

There would be abundant railroads, just not the kind that go bankrupt immediately after the government subsidies cease. There would also be schools, universities and hospitals. There would even be highways, although probably not as many as we have now. I don't see that as a bad thing.

 

[bripat9643]

A thrid world plutocracy (what we are becoming).

Third world nations have socialist governments.

 

[Cowman]

England..during the Monarchy.

Or Saudi Arabia.

England during the Monarchy was the wealthiest, fastest growing and most powerful country in the world.

And if you weren't an aristocrat or royalty your life was pretty fucking awfully menial and dreadful. They worked incredibly hard, earned very little, had horrific diets, died very young, were drafted into countless wars, experienced extreme levels of subjugation.

WAIT A SECOND. CONSERVATIVES HAVE BEEN TRYING TO GET US INTO SUCH A STATE OF AFFAIRS!

 

[bripat9643]

It would look pretty much how it looks now. The only truly socialist countries are countries like Cuba and Venezuela where the government owns and runs pretty much everything. Just because we have some social programs and a social safety net does not really qualify us as being socialist.

Our country..from the very beginning..has been a blend of many ideas. It doesn't mean it's one thing or another..

And it's ridiculous, really, to harp on and on about socialism. The very nature of representative government..is socialist.

The complete opposite of that..is government that has no input from the general public. Like a Monarchy.

You have a difficulty distinguishing between government and the country. The two things are not synonymous. Only a boot licking socialist toady would believe they are.

 

[bripat9643]

no nanny state dictating our lives...

Aw, a wingnut jumps out of the woodwork. Sooo, please describe your fantasy America without ANY socialism.

Simple: scratch Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, almost every government department.

 

[bripat9643]

No railroads or highways or at east only a handful of them.
Same witrh schools and universities, hospitals, etc.

The national eletrical grid is socialist - it should be torn down and everyone produce their own electricity.

No it isn't, dipstick. It was privately built.

Ditto sewerage and roads.

Wrong again.

When people talk about "socialised medicine" I wonder how they can dive on "socialised roads".

What choice have we got? If government ran all the grocery stores and made it illegal to run a grocery business, nitwits like you would lament "how can you eat socialist food?"

 

[bripat9643]

The Wild West.

The West wasn't as "wild" as numbskulls like you believe. Crime was actually quite low.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's difficult for me to visualize. Maybe some of you can help me see it...

What do you mean exactly? Is it that you can't figure out what America would be like if the concept of socialism was a non stater completely, or do you just not understand what socialism is in the first place and mistakenly believe that we practice it on some level?

 

[Cowman]

The Wild West.

The West wasn't as "wild" as numbskulls like you believe. Crime was actually quite low.

The American Old West was shitty for most people... that's my point idiot. I wasn't attributing it to your favorite children's Cowboys and Indians shows.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

England..during the Monarchy.

Or Saudi Arabia.

Do you have any idea how stupid that makes you look? Saudi Arabia is, essentially, a socialist country. They even went so far as to plan large apartment communities for the Bedouins so they wouldn't have to wander around the desert.

 

[bripat9643]

England..during the Monarchy.

Or Saudi Arabia.

England during the Monarchy was the wealthiest, fastest growing and most powerful country in the world.

And if you weren't an aristocrat or royalty your life was pretty fucking awfully menial and dreadful.

Only compared to the life people enjoy today. Compared to everyone else in the world, the were extremely well off.

They worked incredibly hard, earned very little, had horrific diets, died very young, were drafted into countless wars, experienced extreme levels of subjugation.

Oh yeah, we have never been drafted into wars! How many draftees were slaughtered during WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam?

Before the reign of Queen Victoria and the Industrial revolution, life for the average person was far worse. They didn't have cheap clothing. They didn't have indoor plumbing. They didn't have anesthetics. They didn't have electricity, radio, telephone, central heating, and a thousand other things that we have all come to accept as basic necessities of life. The industrial revolution and private industry made all these wonders possible, not the government. Their diets were far superior to what the peasants living in the country enjoyed previously.

WAIT A SECOND. CONSERVATIVES HAVE BEEN TRYING TO GET US INTO SUCH A STATE OF AFFAIRS!

What a douche.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No railroads or highways or at east only a handful of them.
Same witrh schools and universities, hospitals, etc.

Railroads and highways aren't socialism. Railroads are actually corny capitalism, which is about as far from socialism as it is possible to get. I posted this once before, bit apparently everyone prefers to assume they are smarter than the experts.

Watch and learn.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yt7urGdlr_Y]The Meaning of Socialism: Q&A with National Review's Kevin Williamson - YouTube[/ame].