As in post-secondary education and training programs that are free to attend. Expanding organizations like WorkSource which helps people find jobs. Also, differing political positions tend to have some overlap.
Now read Ayn Rand's definition of capitalism. Individuals are free to study whatever and np one can interfere with their choice.
¶
Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.
The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man’s rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man’s right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control."
That may be the capitalist definition, but the US isn't purely capitalist, and hasn't been since the latter half of the 19th century. That's the last time the government acted as you describe. Look at the accounts of workers at the time and the reasons for the Progressive movement as a whole, and you'll know why. Social Democracy creates a universal welfare state within a capitalist economy.
There is no such thing as "fair" in nature. Nature doesn't give a flying **** if you're a Democrat, or a Repub, or if you're nice or if you beat puppies or not. She just doesn't care.
This concept of fair is laughable. The difference between mankind and the rest of the animal kingdom is many of us believe that it is societies duty to take care of those who can't take care of themselves. Please note, that doesn't mean it is societies duty to take care of those who WON'T take care of themselves.
Mankind spends most of its life living in tyranny of one sort or another. As children we are beholden to our parents, as adults we have to pay our taxes etc. The difference is, in a collectivist society it doesn't matter if you're good or bad, lazy or productive, you're all treated equally poorly unless you're one of the elite.
In an individualistic society it doesn't matter if you're good or bad, lazy or productive, you're all treated equally poorly unless you're one of the elite.
The difference is..in a individualistic society ANYBODY can become one of the elite. I prefer to live in a society where I can advance myself and my station in life through hard work.
You people whining about fair have no idea just what that means. I suggest you educate yourselves...
Appeal to nature fallacy. What is good in nature is not necessarily good for society. If we have the ability to create a fairer society, then we should. It is society's duty to take care of EVERYONE. Not give them everything they want, but no one should have to starve out of unemployment. Just because there is a safety net for failures does not at ALL hinder your ability to become one of the elite. There is no tyranny in America right now, and most people are middle class or lower middle class. Taxes are not tyranny. I don't believe in a collectivist society. I believe in a mixed economy with a bit more regulation, along with democracy in corporations.
Society is a aspect of nature. You can only take from people for so long before they rebel. If you drive everyone down to a low level the time you have to exploit them is shorter. The USA has been around for a long time because even though the rich got richer, the poor did pretty damned good too.
Right now the poor in the USA are better off than 90% of the worlds population. That's a fact. They are able to be taken care of that well because of rich people. You keep blathering on about fairness but you don't really want fair. You want what the rich have, but are unwilling, or unable to get what they have.
Jealousy is a destructive emotion that leads you nowhere.
I have stated multiple times that rich and poor will ALWAYS exist. Social Democracy doesn't stop people from being richer than everyone else, and it doesn't drive anyone down. You think I'm "jealous" to think that healthcare and education can be free at point of use due to taxes, when there is evidence from multiple European countries that it works BETTER than what we have?
If I were jealous of the rich, I would be demanding free jet planes and mansions and every kind of luxury. I am not. I believe it is unethical for the rich to have better access to NECESSITIES, not luxuries.
The "don't tell me he earned it", and "they earned it too" stuff is where you lose me. People like to think they work as hard and sacrifice as much as others, but often they do not, nor do they have any idea what it really takes. They're guessing, they have no idea. And those who do sacrifice and work hard are far more likely to succeed than someone who does not.
Most people, especially here, who think like that have never created, built and run a successful businesses. They're jealous and convince themselves that they put out just as much effort as their boss has, that they have risked as much as their boss has, that they have sacrificed as much as their boss has. Most likely, not even close. Not even in the same hemisphere.
They have not a clue.
But it makes them feel better about themselves and makes them easy targets for political manipulation.
.
.
Physical labor is harder than what they've done. No matter how big a risk they took, no matter how long it took them or how much office work they did, it will never amount to a career of manual labor.
Who cares? I can get a machine to do most physical labor. I can replace almost every menial labor job out there with mechanization. "Hard" work doesn't equal good work. It's just hard.
There are quite literally BILLIONS of people out there who can dig ditches. There are very few who can build a bridge that won't fall down, or plumb your home, or run electricity for your house.
Pay is based on availability of workers able to do a particular job. The fewer the workers, the higher the pay. That's life. Get used to it.
If you read what you're quoting, I never mentioned income equality. I said that, by virtue of being rich, the rich have not earned better healthcare and education. My point about the laborers is analogous. If the rich have earned better healthcare and education, then so have they.
Sure, but what is meant by "reign in" and can we trust gov't officials to do it without sliding into socialism? 'Tis a slippery slope, son.
Yes we can, if we can get more than a quarter of the country voting and make government corruption more difficult through legislation and demonetizing elections. Socialism=/=Communism, and it's not even a bad thing, though it goes further than my belief.
Socialist countries always fail, and fairly quickly. Better read up on your history.
The countries you're referring to were socialist in name only. Particularly the Soviet Union, which was a totalitarian oligarchy with more parallels to Fascism than to real Socialism. If what you're saying is true, then why are England, Denmark, Germany, Norway, Australia, New Zealand, Finland, and Sweden still here? All of them are combining a welfare state within a Capitalist economy, which is the primary goal of Social Democracy.
Physical labor is harder than what they've done. No matter how big a risk they took, no matter how long it took them or how much office work they did, it will never amount to a career of manual labor.
Who cares? I can get a machine to do most physical labor. I can replace almost every menial labor job out there with mechanization. "Hard" work doesn't equal good work. It's just hard.
There are quite literally BILLIONS of people out there who can dig ditches. There are very few who can build a bridge that won't fall down, or plumb your home, or run electricity for your house.
Pay is based on availability of workers able to do a particular job. The fewer the workers, the higher the pay. That's life. Get used to it.
You make an important point. Productivity (and by extension, value) is not necessarily what one does but rather what one knows. Experience cannot be given or inherited ... it must be earned.
If productivity is what one knows, then having nonprofit, tax paid, state colleges is a good thing.
