An anti-monarchist is another term for anti-royalist... i.e. someone who opposes the rule of kings, royalty, castes, and other aspects associated with monarchal-style government.
When an elected official interferes in the professional administration of the jurisdiction's day-to-day government operations.
(Not according to Robert Heinlein :-) [see: Starship Troopers, the BOOK, not the movie]
Seriously; military rule has a fatal flaw, from a modern philosophical standpoint: it derives its "legitimacy" from raw force, and thus, is responsible to nothing other than itself. That is, there is no reason to care about the needs of the populace, especially since a military rulership has an almost complete monopoly on force inside the country.
While there are serious problems with most democratic systems, they are all responsive to public opinion and desires - that is, democratic systems both derive their legitimacy and their actual continuance from the governed populace. So, a democratic system is designed in such a way as it really, really does care about satisfying the desires of enough of the populace to keep itself functioning.
In terms of "getting stuff done", an authoritarian military rule is of course much more efficient in completing projects (and making decisions to do, or not do, a project) than a democracy. However, democracies have a consistently better track record of both developing new ideas, and evaluating whether those ideas are good for the country.
The question is M-U-C-H too broad to answer. You must narrow the scope and be more specific.
It varies by state. In 36 states, the state legislature creates and enacts the redistricting plan; many require approval by the governor for the final plan and, of course, all are subject to federal guidelines and legal challenges. Two or three states let independent bodies submit proposals, which are then voted on by the legislature. Five states use an independent of bipartisan commission to draw up new districts. Seven states have only one representative, so they have no congressional district lines to draw.
Minimum standard of life and a minimum income for all.
Rapid decision-making capability, and little opposition. Also, a great deal can be accomplished in a fairly short period of time. A beneficent dictator can get more done, more quickly, for his subjects. However, it is never possible to ascertain if a beneficent dictator will be followed by a despotic one. Hence, democracy has seemed to be a safer alternative.
Then you also have more revolutionary movements which are created when Autocracies are installed such as: Advancements in medical science, military science, depending on the Autocrat in culture too.
The strengths in autocracys lay in looking after thr wel being of a small center of indivduals. No Autocracy or dictatorship has ever been able to control a country it economy or the well being and happiness of the country people. the only real strength that lays in an autocracy is that it is able to take care of the autocrats at the expense of those that are not. A man or group of men that have to look after their own Authoritative position first and then be able to make decisions on matters they know nothing of is bound to fail, as is shown again and again throughout history. The shining examples of a forward movement in the arts, philosophy, science etc happened when autocrats and dictators were not involved.
In order for a democracy to work, it is important that the people have knowledge about the definition of democracy and how it works. Thus, it is highly important for a country to have an educated population in order for the democratic system to work. This is important because uneducated people tend to lean towards radical ideologies as these ideologies might seem to have a sufficient solution to the problems of the society, however what people usually fail to see or even ignore is that these solution are based on suppression of other groups in society which usually doesn't affect the majority.
Another important point in educating the people about the definition of democracy is that they usually tend to understand the word wrong. An example of that is that many people tend to regard democracy as a system where everything literally is allowed, this often lead to a complete chaos that devastates the order of the society rather than improving it and in that way, it leads to the opposite effect of the aims of democracy.
The Role of the People
The key role of citizens in a democracy is to participate in public life.
Citizens have an obligation to become informed about public issues, to watch carefully how their political leaders and representatives use their powers, and to express their own opinions and interests.
Voting in elections is another important civic duty of all citizens.
But to vote wisely, each citizen should listen to the views of the different parties and candidates, and then make his or her own decision on whom to support.
Participation can also involve campaigning for a political party or candidate, standing as a candidate for political office, debating public issues, attending community meetings, civic meetings, petitioning the government, and even protesting.
A vital form of participation comes through active membership in independent, non-governmental organizations, what we call "civil society."
These organizations represent a variety of interests and beliefs: farmers, workers, doctors, teachers, business owners, religious believers, women, students, human rights activists.
"DEMOCRACY: Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system."
Democracy implies that every single citizen gets a "voice" and/or a vote, however due to the large population it would be impossible for everyone to have a voice for every single issue (this would simply slow down the voting process and little would ever get done), instead democracy is more of a republic with people being "represented" by those who share their same ideals.
Also, as "irony" means that the result is opposite to what the original expressed idea explicitly stated, not only is the fact that the United States was specifically NOT designed as a pure democracy (but, rather as a representative republic), but also the fact that virtually all democracies are explicitly designed to prevent absolute majority rule, which is what a true democracy means. That is, as a true democracy means the rule of the majority of citizens, all modern democratic political systems instead have designed-in limitations preventing the majority from having absolute power. The irony here is that small numbers of people (e.g. the US Supreme Court) can block attempts by the majority (even a vast majority) of citizens to take certain actions (in particular, modern democracies protect the rights of minorities from the actions of majorities). This is a Good Thing, though ironic.
In the case of the United States, the original Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) has several ironies (i.e. places where the design of the government contradicts the idea of a pure or representative democracy):
If you want a clear, compelling and comprehensive answer to this question, the best person to ask is an economist, or a student of economics, because communism was first and foremost an economic failure.
To wit, communists fail to fully appreciate that economy is predicated upon the principle of supply and demand. Essentially, the Soviet government, "representing the people", dictated what people needed and forced its citizens to generate the needed supply in the allotted time. They would often never produce enough, and what they did produce was of exceptionally poor quality. Also, the grossly over-sized bureaucracy fostered what are known as "dis-economics of scale." In other words, it took more time and resources to produce less.
These are only a few reasons. There are others.
Actually it is probably human nature itself! In theory communism is the best system- everyone gets the same share of everything! So everyone would be equal! The problem is that no one is equal! Some people may be content with a life as farmer, producing goods for the community, but others want to amass a fortune and others don't want to do anything for society! So what sounds good in books, cannot work in real life with real people!
One of the key reasons it fails is the fact that everyone receives an equal share. The USSR was plagued by shortages as the workers simply didn't work as hard as they could. In a capitalist society if you don't work to your best ability you get fired, so you have no money and therefore no food. In a socialist society as long as you do some work you will get paid so there was a general feeling of "why bother?"
According to me I believe the theory of communism was never wrong, but I think the way that it was implemented was wrong. Communism generally considers an individual of a country to be an asset of that nation. Each person has the right to education, healthcare, to work, etc.
The communism in USSR failed not because the theoretical concept was wrong but because in practice the security of the state was more important than any individual. The individual then had no personal rights, but were ensured of free education, free health care and work.
Although communism is not present in its pure form we cannot overrule the benefits of the ideology of this theory, since it advocates for everyone and tries to bridge the Gap between the HAVES AND HAVE-NOTS
Communist theory assumes that all humans are basically good, well motivated, and possess equal capabilities and motivation. This simply isn't so, and Communism never found any way to overcome the problems this assumption caused. In politics, assuming that all men are basically good means that checks and balances are unnecessary... and abuse of power is the inevitable result, with all rights and power concentrating in the hands of those in power. In economics, all money becomes the property of the state - in effect, the property of those in power. Once this has happened, there's no incentive for anyone to do more than they absolutely have to... with predictable results. The flaw in the theory of Communism is in its most basic assumptions. It can never work unless these assumptions are handled adequately.
In addition to the important incentives problem outlined above, and the problem of trusting a centralized government with the powers of life and death over people ("power corrupts"), there is a more subtle reason for the failure of communism.
It is the coordination problem. Prices in a free market serve a very important function. They are informational signals. Without prices, there is no way to know how best to distribute resources. Entrepreneurship is impossible. The economy stagnates.
The failure of communism is due to human nature. Power corrupts. If Stalin was not corrupted by his power, then the system may have worked. Also, since everyone would get paid anyway, they did not overly try at work and in turn their work was shoddy.
Although communism had failed horribly in Russia, China, and Cuba, it has worked in small community/villages in Israel. It always has to take place in a small group of people, that way competition is never expanded to a nation wide level (that creates more competition).
The human nature always has to dominate and create competition. And equality is therefore challenged.
"All animals are equal but some are more equal than others."- Animal Farm
If we, as human beings, are able to get rid of that it seems that would make all of the world's problems go away. Alas, it's not as easy as it sounds and seems that it can never be done.
Some people would describe communism "morally wrong". Their beliefs of success would be shattered and they would be considered 'equal' (referring to upper class). They would have to apply the same amount of work everyday and have no hopes of ever changing their position or wage.
The lower and middle class proletariat's favor the theory of communism. Most people believe that famous actors/actresses have an extraordinary amount of money to spend and yet, they spend almost all of it on themselves. In the hands of others, this money could be well spent on national hunger, improving current living conditions, etc.
Communism breaks the feedback connection between effort and reward. It fails to reward those who excel, and fails to punish those who lag behind. There is no incentive for greater effort, neither in creativity, entrepreneurship or hard work.
Communism is an idyllic utopia, a mere but empty expression of good intentions. It is a trite platitude. Communism says "Everyone 'should' have their needs met", and "take away from the wealthy and give it to the needy".
Communism fails to take into account that wealth is not static, it is created. By taking away wealth from its creators, entrepreneurs and businesspeople, and giving it to those that did not create it, don't deserve and don't know what to properly do with it, it destroys the engines that create wealth, and everyone is worse off in the short and the long run.
Some degree of community cooperation and social services is healthy, but it is a question of degrees. In this contributor's opinion, only education could and perhaps should be fully state subsidized, because it affords equality of initial opportunity. But that opportunity should not be squandered by an individual receiving largess from the state, receiving help from his community.
Communism does not work in theory because it does not take into account human nature. Humans will not share resources or the work load in a fair and equal manner. Communism depends on a government working on behalf of the people and governments do not ever do that. They function on the principle to do the most for the least, and the least for the most. Additionally, every time a communistic or socialistic government has risen, capitalistic nations have conspired against it. Right after WW I, a couple of months later actually, the US, Britain and France sent troops to Russia to help undermine the Russian Revolution. Look it up; The Whites versus the Reds. At any rate, it would have probably failed anyway, though perhaps with much, much less death and misery had Stalin not come to power. If a theory does not account for all factors, it will fail. Nothing works in theory but fails in practice because if it worked in theory then it would work in practice.
Against ownership of private property
I think communism fails because it disenfranchises people of their own ability to create a goal, and this in turn to work together in a shared goal. Most state forms of communism have been imposed through violence, and people forced into the system whether they liked it or not. If people are allowed to form a goal based on their own values, then I think people would actually be willing to work together. This is why I think small communal communities have worked where larger ones haven't - people in smaller communities have ownership of a shared goal.
On one hand: I think that political ideologies such as communism and capitalism only fail when implemented and managed in their most extreme forms. For example, China is communist. However, China's gravitation toward capitalism in recent times have contributed to their enormous global economic strength. Whereas, when they adhered strictly to communist values (Mao comes to mind) their economy suffered horrible shifts and devastation's
There were many reasons; however, if you compare real examples of communism throughout history and in the present day, these models do not in reality reflect a strict communistic model as first envisioned and written about by the various original philosophers. So to say that communism failed may be a little misleading. Fusion of Communism and the dictatorial nature of the Soviet government
Communism was a system not truly practiced in the USSR. Contributing factors were extreme political corruption, extensive competition with America which involved western sabotage of Socialist interests throughout the world, and Moscow's inability to accurately predict supply and demand.
The Socialists (later dubbed "Communists" at the Third International) and Anarchists may have had some good ideas, but the Bolsheviks co-opted many of these ideas, and presented a warped substitute which, instead of doing away with the State and a privileged class, created a new State and new privileged class. Yes, they may also have ignored some economic realities, but certainly had no problem with accepting German and American corporate underwriting early-on, w/o which their success would not have occurred. And, one cannot say that the "Western Democracies" have a truly "free market" system, as--at least in the USA--there is major "corporate welfare," significant dodging of taxes by the wealthy and corporations, and corruption on so grand a scale, as to make Al Capone seem a "small-fry." The recent bail-out of the banks and Wall Street is nothing less than grand-larceny...and a major reallocation of wealth from one segment of the society to another, something which capitalists claim horrifies them, when anyone speaks of Socialism.
Lenin was very clear about the Revolution being headed by officials of the Party, not by the masses themselves...so, clearly, a sell-out of democratic (and anarchistic) ideals.
Dictatorships such as North Korea, or single party states such as Libya. To be a democracy the law making arm of government must be elected by the people of the country on a regular basis and the army and police must uphold the law not the government.
A Politcal fence sitter is a mugwump. Their mug is on one side of the fence and their wump on the other side.
Yes, they are. They are on the committee by way of their office, but they still have the same rights as other members, and still count for purposes of a quorom.
Anyone who holds some level of power in group decision-making but is not accountable directly to the group itself.
In what has become known as Communism there is one political party that has absolute sway over all decisions made. there is no accountability to the the public. In the system that is used by European country's there is an understanding that the people of a country won it and should be able to benefit from its success after all they are expected to look after it's security in times of war and peace. Keeping this in mind the wealth that is generated within one of these country's has to contribute to the well being of the people of the country not just the power and wealth of those that have managed to organise this wealth using the country's infrastructure. this is overseen by a democratic system where the leadership and laws of the country can swing this way or that as the people see fit not just as the political masers see fit. The average health and life span of the people in these country's is better then in country's that do not use this system so there must be something to it.
There is a rumor about it, which is probably true!
If he's alive, he'll show up on tv just to show that he's alive!
If he's dead, the official announcement if his death will take time to be out!
A great example is the checks and balances system within the government. One group does not control all branches of government. The checks and balances system was made to ensure that that the tyranny of the majority does not occur.
The Founding Fathers said in the preamble that one reason for establishing the Constitution was to "promote the general welfare." What they meant was that the Constitution and powers granted to the federal government were not to favor special interest groups or particular classes of people. There were to be no privileged individuals or groups. The Constitution conferred only a few specific powers on the federal government, all others being denied to it as the Tenth Amendment states. The whole principle of the Constitution is that the federal government is forbidden to do anything it isn't positively authorized to do.
The "general welfare" clause is constantly abused in just the way the pessimists of the time of the Federalist Papers predicted. The federal government exceeds its enumerated powers whenever it can assert that other powers would be in the "general welfare," giving the false impression that the federal government is entitled to do anything it wasn't positively forbidden to do, which is opposite of what the actual principle, stated above, is.
I would say not really. But the bad democracy can progress where as the military rule will most likely become a terrible dictatorship and the democracy would (obviously) be better. This is my opinion.
The following countries are dictatorships:
Countries that have become Narco States:
Countries invaded and under foreign dictatorship:
Countries in a state of anarchy:
"There may be tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they may seem invincible, but in the end, they always fail." M. Gandhi
No religion must be allowed to rule the political aspect of a society, it must aim only to elevate the citizens spiritual enlightenment and give them a code of morals but more than that is out of their pond. Please remember that a church or any organized religion is made up by man and women who are like you and me, they are not appointed neither by the prophets nor the God, organized religions are run by humans they are not appointed nor run by prophets nor God.
Religion matters must be and remain totally separate from the State political matters, just like the great and enlightened and brilliant statesmen Mustafa Kemal AtatÃ¼rk gave example.
No monarch, no minority group or class, no matter how refined their lordships imagine themselves are, should have a veto over a democratically elected parliament for this abuse of power will certainly lead to fascism.
The first fascist state in the history of the West, Italy, was before becoming a fascist dictatorship a constitutional Monarchy. King Victor Emmanuel the third of Italy removed a democratically elected Liberal government and replace it with a fascist dictatorship. The first fascist state in the East, Japan, was also originally a constitutional Monarchy. Conservative supporters of the Japanese Emperor assassinated the democratically elected prime minster, the leader of the Japanese Liberal Constitutional party, and replaced him with a dictatorship.
The lesson is simple, there is really only one safeguard for democracy and that is democracy itself; constitutional Monarchs, Houses of Lords, Popes or whoever, are no substitutes in themselves for democracy, can only undermine democracy and therefore should be removed to safeguard democracy.
Egypt is now officially a democracy not a dictatorship.
A revolutionary is a radical supporter of political or social revolution against society, regardless of ethics and morality. A revolutionary is in many ways similar to an anarchist, one who favors abolishing any form of government not of his/her choosing in spite the wishes of the majority.
They do that because the socialists think the capitalists are the ones being harmed by their own capitalist system, while the capitalists think the socialists are being harmed by their own socialist system.
The formal sociopolitcoeconomico terminology for this phenomenon is "I'm OK. You're not."
A parliamentary democracy means that the political power is held by an elected parliament representing the people.
Election to govern with the elected candidate representing the combine will of the constituents who elected them to office.
For example ...many people believe they get free health care... but its not,,,they collect the money from the people...they would say we get the money from mean rich people and business...but they too just charge more money....its a great scam to get control and power...
Some tout socialist policy because they believe in it?
Politicians offer what they know, through polls or other sources, what people want to hear. Americans hear "socialism" as a code word for communism and supporting undeserving lazy people with free stuff. However, in a progressive sense the idea offers protections to citizens. That means, everyone has free public education, healthcare, there is a safety net in case you lose your job, and food and rental aid if you are underemployed. Our times are fraught with changes in employment - you can't count on that manufacturing job since it either is being shipped overseas or the product has become obsolete. Global changes in other areas are coming, too. People's savings and equity disappeared into the economic maw of investors in Wall Street. Profits went offshore and therefore were untaxed. All along, people have made poor decisions, but recovery is difficult when so many things are uncertain. So, here we are. The people against "free stuff" see it as helping the undeserving poor and making it too difficult to build a business. The socialists see that we need to set up the governmental rules and laws so that everyone supports the community/state/country. This is less individualistic; people may have to pay a bit more in taxes, but then we will leave roads, schools and other institutions well supported for the next generation.Answer
As an earlier respondent to this question stated, socialism involves the government providing things for people regardless of their ability to pay. Promoting these policies pays a double benefit to politicians. The first benefit is that they get to sound like they "really care" about the "little guy". The second benefit, and the most important one to many politicians, is that they perpetuate dependence on government. Thus, they guarantee for themselves the continued loyalty of those dependent people by being the ones who promise to keep paying.
In other words, people who would prefer to spend their days watching Jerry Springer rather than getting a job and becoming productive members of society will repeatedly vote for the politicians that will enable them to keep watching Springer by providing for them whether they produce or not.
It's taking money from the producers, and using that money to buy the votes of the lazy.AnswerThe government provides everything under socialism. There's no incentive to work harder to get a better life if the government will give you whatever you need by taking it away from those who are contributing to society. So those people quit working, too, and soon everyone is lined up waiting for a handout but there's nothing to hand out because there are no producers. Answer
I like Americans but one of the things I don't understand about America is the fact that many Americans seem to be incapable of telling the difference between Socialism,social democracy,liberal democracy,communism and almost every other ism.
Socialsim is a political idea which has been around for a long time,certainly since the French Revolution. Like all other idea it has changed over the years and there are different strands. In the 19 century people putting forward the idea of social welfare laws might have been called socialist but by the mid 20 century most politicians would be for some welfare laws.
There is a book about American history called "THE LAND OF PLENTY" and it puts forward the idea that because Americans can move around if the local ecomomy goes bad or they fall out with their neighbours or employer then they fail to make the class and community connections that European people often do so they are more individual in out look than europeans. Wheter they are actually better off is another story. So mant Americans have had problems understanding the idea of socialism and of course the problem of communism meant that socialist ideas never became popular in America. western democratic socialist such as the British Labour Party believe in democracy,indeed Britain would not be a democracy without them. They are not communists and they do not want the state to onw or do everything,but they think in the rral world the state is always going to be there and it may as well help the people and not just lock them up.
The American view of the state seems odd to us europeans. The average American does not approve of the state having a role in the economy unless it is giving tax payers money to farmers and to what Eisenhower (not a socialist) called the military industrial complex. FDR created a sort of American welfare state to stop socialsm or communism or facism not to help it. The world has changed and so has political ideas. Most of the democrats in the US are not socialists or social democrats bur what if they were,it is not illegal. Most republicans are not closet Nazis,so try and look at things a bit deeper and not just call people names. Can anyone explain to me why old people in America get free health care no matter how much money they have but poor working people do not always get this.
I would like to point out that the NAZIS were socialists.Answer
"That's what socialism is, Fred. The government provides everything."
no. as it has been pointed out there are different strands of socialist theory as there are with any other. i believe marxism to be the most historically comprehensive.
marx proposed socialism as a path to communism. communism is the idea of a society without a central state power, where producers own the means of production instead of a wealthy class that simply pays a wage, seeking minimum benefit to the worker. from this we should understand that the terminology "Communist Government," regime, dictator or whatever is oxymoronic. if there is a ruling class, it is not communism or socialism.
socialism as a path to communism is essentially a step of reform in which the state is maintained but with greater control by producers than the typical hierarchal forms. so it is not that the government provides everything, the government becomes a tool for producers- that is, those who create the things we use, also called workers- to use to create the social programs they find desirable or necessary.
it's also not that everyone is just a laborer with no one allowed to organize or invent things. the concepts are largely a response to industrialization which requires a fairly robotic workforce and has minimized independent trades.
i would argue that it is our current structure that encourages laziness as people seem to expect big business and politicians to solve all of our problems. the soviet union made claims to being socialist or communist to take advantage of the popular movement as a facade for totalitarian rule. as such, our politicians will say whatever they think the public wants to hear, but it has little effect on the core policies of maintaining a power elite.
the freedoms we have are the result of ongoing struggle. the ruling class must give in just enough to keep the people from revolting, yet the gap between rich and poor has consistently expanded. technically we have the freedom to choose our path but being born into wealth, receiving the best education, obviously provides greater opportunity. socialist and communist theory is principled on changing this disparity of privilege. whether you think that's a good idea or you're more of a social darwinist is not for me to say.
This question requires an opinionated answer. So any of these answer can be correct if that is how you feel. Politicians could honestly feel that socialism or social policies is what America needs? Or perhaps they know something about history that drives them towards it? But why? This is a very good topic/answer set. To directly answer the question. This is how I see it, and believe why politicians tout socialist policy.
Politicians who try and sell social policies to the masses in my books, are anti-American. Firstly, their are two parties and a few independents in the great USA. (Land of the free, Home of the brave, our capitalist, free enterprise, republic!) There is no socialist party, and if there was I'd pray to all things, they never get elected, and doubt they would. If you want to have a social, or even progressive outlook on governance, perhaps you should be in a socialist or progressive party?
Secondly, taking a social stance on topics typically aims to inspire a state of dependance. A variety of examples; (1)Shared tips, now you are dependent on your fellow workers to make that extra cash you worked extra hard to get. Sorry there Billy, 'most' people don't put in that extra work. Though because you did, you get to share it with your fellow lazy workers. Thanks there Billy. Should not the effort be rewarded, not vice-versa? (2)Heath care, OK. So again my opinion. I break my leg, I get cancer, anything. Why should I expect everyone else to pay for my misfortune. I'm sorry I just don't feel that way, maybe some people do though. I would rather not burden the entire masses, keep in mind it will not only be you, and force everyone to pay for my mistakes, misfortunes, or mistreatments. I will sort that all out myself thank you very much. A hot topic, and will state nothing more on that here. (3) Welfare, who is going to pay me the most to do absolutely nothing? Hummm. Let me go cast my vote. This third example is an importantly noted one. I feel that if you are on welfare, your voters registration should be temporary restricted from use until you are off welfare. Voting while on welfare as far as I can see, is bribery. Social policy leads to dependance, but then again, perhaps you like dependance and want someone to tell you what to do, I do not. I like to make all my own choices, suffering or benefiting accordingly.
Or perhaps it is jealousy that drives the socialist movement. The fact that others families worked to get where they are over time, or perhaps lucked out, and the fact that other families did not, I believe doesn't come into question with these people. A need to force a level of equal wealth amongst the people is strange to me (in thinking). I see it happen across the world, It saddens me. Anyone can see that if everyone was equally worth the same, had the same house and the same care, not only would life be very bland, but the economy simply could not work. Some people have more expensive tastes than others, and there is nothing wrong with that. Typically these people make the jobs, and create the wealth of the Country. They start major flows of cold hard cash. Appreciate these people, or bring yourself to their level, and have a say yourself. Do not drag everyone down to a level you see fit. That is the flaw of all social thinking. Or be satisfied to do your own socialist thing, act how you feel, don't force your thinking into policy. Free market environments are most fair.
Beware of the touting Socialtician.
Only my opinion.
But, you are right. Charity should start in your own Country first. I'll give you that one, and that one only. People should be donating their income, not having it stolen by Government.
Socialism, as defined, is a political system of communal ownership. Socialism, as practiced here in the U.S., is a social rather than political system. If you look at the U.S. budget, more money is spent on social programs than many countries GNP. I see the usual America bashing going on here, which is upsetting. What makes you think we don't understand the various -isms of the world? We do. Many of still believe that it's the individual's responsibility to provide for themselves, rather than the European model of "cradle to grave" government assistance. That attitude, and American industry is what has twice kept vast portions of Europe out of the hands of the Germans. In WWII Communists bore the brunt of destroying the NAZI (National Socialist) war machine. 75% of German soldiers who died were killed by Communist troops. The U.S. provided men and materiel to all fronts of the war, and that materiel kept Europe and the USSR alive until we could open other fronts.
Having said that, we should allow Ireland, being the world power that it is, to provide all the aid and assistance that the U.S. now provides to so many disaster struck countries. Whether you like it or not, the first question asked isn't "When are the Irish coming?", but "When are the Americans coming?". Guns, guns, guns. Boring, boring, boring. Yes, we have them. The IRA doesn't? We have the Second Amendment because the first thing the British did when we wanted our freedom was to try and disarm us, and because our Constitution calls on American citizens to defend themselves against tyranny and oppression by the government. We are noisy, brawling, have our problems, and are generous to our friends and defeated enemies, funloving, brave, and come to the aid of any that call us. We make mistakes. Show me a country that doesn't. We have meddled. Europe hasn't? When you point your finger at us, you have three pointing back at you. I like our system, I like our country, and I love our people. So do the millions of people from other countries that come here to be free. The United States- where people from other nations come to celebrate their cultures. Maybe we're not so bad after all. For those of you that don't like us, no worries. The next time you have a problem, turn to Canada, Mexico, or the African nation of your choice. Just don't mock us on one hand, and dial for help with the other any more. Politicians offer what they know, through polls or other sources, what people want to hear. Americans hear "socialism" as a code word for communism and supporting undeserving lazy people with free stuff. However, in a progressive sense the idea offers protections to citizens. That means, everyone has free public education, healthcare, there is a safety net in case you lose your job, and food and rental aid if you are underemployed. Our times are fraught with changes in employment - you can't count on that manufacturing job since it either is being shipped overseas or the product has become obsolete. Global changes in other areas are coming, too. People's savings and equity disappeared into the economic maw of investors in Wall Street. Profits went offshore and therefore were untaxed. All along, people have made poor decisions, but recovery is difficult when so many things are uncertain. So, here we are. The people against "free stuff" see it as helping the undeserving poor and making it too difficult to build a business. The socialists see that we need to set up the governmental rules and laws so that everyone supports the community/state/country. This is less individualistic; people may have to pay a bit more in taxes, but then we will leave roads, schools and other institutions well supported for the next generation.
Not by any stretch of imagination.
She is, however, a very Right-wing Conservative, who follows a rather radical form of Evangelical Lutheranism.
None of her economic policies share any commonality with Nazi-ism (though, frankly, Nazi-ism wasn't really strong on economic theory) - rather, she espouses a very laissez-faire form of capitalism.
However, on social matters, she does hold (and proclaim) some rather intolerant views; it is that level of intolerance, rather than the actual substance of those views, that some use the hyperbole comparison to Nazi-ism.
Give me food and I will live give me water and I will die what am I?
Asked By Wiki User
What is the biggest number you can make using the digits 641?
Asked By Wiki User
Why is TikTok getting banned in the US?
Asked By Amie Smitham
What is exponet of 7x10x10x10x10?
Asked By Wiki User
What does the electoral college do that prevents America from being a pure democracy?
Asked By Wiki User
How does Communism affect the people?
Asked By Wiki User
What countries have a representative democracy today?
Asked By Wiki User
What countries do not live under democracy?
Asked By Wiki User
Copyright © 2020 Multiply Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved. The material on this site can not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with prior written permission of Multiply.