 | | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) But this is not a socialist country. It's not right for the gov't to take my money and force me to make charitable contributions as it sees fit. This is mandatory benevolence and as such ceases to be so. Beides, the gov't is so inefficient (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) It's interesting that the biggest union in the country is the Union of Federal Workers. It gives a good hint of why government never gets smaller. Scott S. ___...___ Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net Systems Administrator-Affiliated (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) I think you need to recheck things a bit. The US has a number of Socialist features. 'Socialist' isn't a black-and-white, yes-or-no thing. Steve (24 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand Socialism
|
|
Steve, (...) Well, maybe what Bill is saying that this county wasn't started out socialistic, but it seems to be getting there. Socialism is a black and white definition, however. Any Political Science / Government class will tell you. Scott S. (...) (24 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) A country can have socialist features and still not be Socialist. It's sort of like "Space" vs. "space"...capital-S has a very specific meaning, while small-s is more malleable. Semantics...with a small s. ;) <dredge...dredge...> best LFB (24 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) And that would mean that 'Socialist' is just a descriptive label, without much specific meaning. Sort of like calling the leader of a country 'President' doesn't mean the country is a Democracy based on inalienable human-rights and personal (...) (24 years ago, 20-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
