What do you people mean that keep claiming the US is getting socialistic?

Pure capitalism is where people are completely on their own & government is almost non-existent. Socialism is where people are completely dependent on the government & it is an every-day part of their lives.

Obviously, America is & should be somewhere in the middle. However, the Democratic party focuses on pushing us closer to socialism (unfortunately, the republicans aren't really any different, but they pretend to be). This is the issue here, as Libertarians & Republicans do not think our country should be any more socialistic - most think we should be moving towards being more capitalistic.

 

Democracy is based on the philosophical principle of equal rights, but only equality when it comes to certain rights. The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies stated:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Of course, amendments to the U.S. Constitution have listed the actual rights that the U.S. government must protect, and what the exact rights Congress was trying to communicate with their language in the Constitution has been interpreted by various U.S. Supreme Courts over the years.

Anybody know what "certain unalienable Rights" that socialists and capitalists argue over when it comes to equality?

 

I don't know what you are trying to ask. I think you may be either looking at this in the wrong way or still do not understand what we are talking about.

I'll take a whack at it anyway though. The unalienable rights you mentioned refer to the pursuit of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The debate is not which one of these to exclude or by whom. It is about what level of government interference begins to intrude on these rights.

 

Democracy is not based on equality. It's based on popular control of the government.

Classical Athens was a/the democracy (in "peacetime") but there was very little equality by modern American standards. You know, slaves and peasants and stuff like that.

You should Google less and read more.

As for unalienable rights, I'd say socialists aren't all that keen on liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They're more into telling you what SHOULD make you happy.

 

Right, through the equal right to vote. A millionaire doesn't get a million votes, he gets one vote just like everybody else out there. Of course, there are always exceptions. I know people under 18 can't vote. What about American citizens serving life sentences in person? Off the top of my head, my guess is that they lost their right to vote.

 

Do capitalists and socialists agree that every citizen (except for some obvious exceptions) has the right to just one vote? Or should some citizens have the right to more votes than others?

 

I believe that anyone that believes the very specific, racist belief you outlined is definitely not an enlightened person. What place does it have in this discussion? Do you imply that people on this forum believe this? Do you imply that the majority believe exactly what you outlined?

I do not agree with that. And if that was not your intention, why even list details of that nature?

 

Mods - please lock this thread. For all our sakes. Thankin' you.

 

I am pretty conservative ,but I don't totally agree with this .the left seems to think that the answers to problems reside in my pocketbook.More taxes {or at the very least let's not cut taxes} ,more needy programs .

Meanwhile the right seems to think we are too stupid to make intelligent decisions and continually wants to curtail what i can and cannot dnline Poker is a perfect example.The failed war on drugs is another.I don't use drugs but if some idiot wants to..hey knock yourself out ...do enough cocaine till your heart is content or EXPLODES ,whichever comes first.Our government seems to think that tomorrow if heroin were legalized that i would load up the family station wagon with the wife and kids and grandma and grandpa and be out looking for a six pack of heroin and the syringes to go with it....EHHH wrong..

 

It would be absolutely fair to hear both sides before passing a judgment and you are unlikely to hear the other side on this forum. However, you made a judgment anyway. You laid 1/2 of the blame at StaceyO's feet without hearing the other side and making a determination. So you completely contradict yourself.

You would have been better off just not saying anything.