[–] [deleted] 40 points 126 points (+166|-40) ago 

[Deleted]

5
95

[–] Nationalist 5 points 95 points (+100|-5) ago 

I really don't like this answer. It basically asserts that it's impossible for someone against socialism to be a rational person thinking on their own. Plenty of people oppose both types of socialism.

26
41

[–] BoiseNTheHood 26 points 41 points (+67|-26) ago  (edited ago)

Ad hominems ("Americans are stupid and just indoctrinated to hate socialism") and emotional appeals ("why do you want to starve the poor?") are all socialists have, since they can't point to a single instance of socialism working in the long term.

[–] [deleted] 2 points 18 points (+20|-2) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

5
5

[–] Sameblamegame 5 points 5 points (+10|-5) ago  (edited ago)

The fact that such strong opposition exists against the very idea of socialism is evidence of the lack of rationality people have on the subject.

It's obvious we've been denied good examples of successful socialism and so of course no one can give a good example.

The fact that no one talks about balance between capitalist and social ideals while the narrative remains one of absolute subscription to one ideal is a bad sign that people are being manipulated to absolutely defend half a good idea. Half a good idea is still a bad idea. That is what absolute anything is. A bad idea. whether it be socialism or capitalism.

0
0

[–] C_IsForCookie ago 

That's complete misdirection. You're saying it asserts that as if he said it was the only reason. He did not. In the meantime you didn't discredit his veracity of his statement which I find to be true.

1
20

[–] flammencitronen [S] 1 point 20 points (+21|-1) ago 

Any idea why?

[–] [deleted] 10 points 58 points (+68|-10) ago 

[Deleted]

3
38

[–] middle_path 3 points 38 points (+41|-3) ago 

It takes money away from policy makers. Do you think healthcare and insurance companies want a socialized single-payer system? Fuck no, they lose everything, so we convince people that having to pay for their ambulance ride is in their own best interest. I'm surprised the fire departments around here don't charge for their services.

1
9

[–] deerhoof_fan 1 point 9 points (+10|-1) ago 

It's an artifact of Cold War propaganda. In high school, I had one teacher tell me that socialism was "a step away from communism." People also have a hard time parsing out "socialists" from "national socialists."

Ever since Ronald Reagan won the presidency on his platform of individualism, which stated that every person is entitled to their own individual happiness, America has made policy decisions that aspire to the perfection of the individual, rather than the perfection of society. Socialism, at the end of the day, is the radical idea of sharing, and helping your fellow man. In an individualistic society, this is not important, and even seen as evil by some. They see socialism as government theft, completely ignoring the fact that taxes are collected for beneficial services, like roads, education, fire departments, running water, and electricity.

Ronald Reagan aimed to take government "out of the way of prosperity," a pernicious idea that has unfortunately persisted in the minds of many to this day.

0
1

[–] RamenJunkie 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

There is probably a deeper root surrounding centralization of power but it also has a lot to do with the Cold War and the general hate for Russia for sooooo long. Basically Russians are Commies, Commies are the enemy, Commies are scum, Commies will never be better than Glorious Capitalism America for years and years and years.

0
4

[–] brucethemoose 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago  (edited ago)

These days, a lot of people just hate the Federal Government, and view it as an inefficient, corrupt money sink (which in many ways, is accurate). And naturally, they don't like the idea of giving that central government even more money and control.

So yes, a lot of the irrational hate comes from the Cold War and the Revolution, where any big government system = bad. But it also comes from the whole federal rights vs. states rights vs. city/county rights debate. I don't mean this in a critical way, but this is less obvious to Europeans, who generally have a single dominant central government, a local governent, and a vague association with the EU instead of 3-4 big levels of government all fighting for power and money.

[–] [deleted] 1 point 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

0
1

[–] FFX01 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

That video is highly fear mongering. That being said, there were some good points made.

However, I would say most democratic socialists aren't really advocating for Marxism of any sort. The capitalist market should still exist. Democratic Socialists mainly want 3 things: a social safety net, free healthcare, and free higher education. These 3 things would be supported by higher taxes on the individuals and organizations that benefit from them.

4
73

[–] Lumidaub 4 points 73 points (+77|-4) ago  (edited ago)

Because what most Europeans think of as "socialism" isn't the same as what people in the US think of. In Europe, generally, it's certain systems and mechanisms that aim to protect people from things like poverty etc. While in the US socialsm = communism, which, due to history, is bad.

(these systems and mechanisms I mentioned are also implemented and controlled by the various governments. Americans are allergic to anything controlled by any government)

At least that's what I understand from conversations with people from the US.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 52 points (+52|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

1
16

[–] swfreak 1 point 16 points (+17|-1) ago 

I think this hits the nail on the head. A certain degree of socialism is good for society, but for a social democratic system like in northern europe to work you got to have a homogenous population with a high degree of interpersonal trust.

If the population is divided by economic lines tied to race, a socialist system will only bring resentment and dishamony. You got to be a head in the clouds liberal to think otherwise. Racial harmony can't be forced upon people. It's something that's supposed to spontaneously erupt.

In the case of the US I'm prone to support a laizez faire system. That way every person is the master of their own destiny and you avoid one group of people having to support another group with the racial tension that results.

That's the heavy price you pay for diversity.

11
2

[–] watitdew 11 points 2 points (+13|-11) ago 

So basically we can't have socialism because niggers.

5
3

[–] J3w1sh_Neocon 5 points 3 points (+8|-5) ago  (edited ago)

Err in Europe socialism means the same thing and socialist parties have a history of supporting communism. For example the Dutch Socialist Party was Maoist until 1994.

Socialism is pretty much dead in Europe (but seems to be growing in the US with Obama and Sanders), except in a few countries like France (which has a socialist party in charge now but a right wing economist leading the country because the socialist economic policies were hitting the country HARD) and some Southern European parties like Syriza which has managed to completely destroy Greece's rapid economic growth.

0
3

[–] Lumidaub 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

In Germany, we have something colloquially called a "soziales Auffangnetz". This includes a bunch of stuff that is supposed to for example help people who have had bad luck to get back on their feet. Most European countries have similar systems. It's still working more or less sufficiently well, by the way (Could be better. Could be worse).

In the term "socialism" as Americans use it several things are conflated, including these safety nets and certain economic policies, that actually have little to do with each other.

0
0

[–] JimmyJimRyan ago 

I don't think we really thought of it as socialism until Americans started calling us socialists.

0
0

[–] newoldwave ago 

The phrase Americans have learned to fear is: "We're from the government and we want to help you". If we hear that, we just run.

[–] [deleted] 2 points 57 points (+59|-2) ago 

[Deleted]

1
25

[–] brucethemoose 1 point 25 points (+26|-1) ago  (edited ago)

^ This is a BIG reason.

Socialism is fairly easy in a homogeneous country, as everyone is OK with supporting other people they can easily identify with. But unlike Nordic countries, which are fairly homogeneous, the U.S. is a HUGE, wildly diverse place. You have 50 relatively large states with different social standards, different laws, different cultures, different economies and lifestyles... And we do NOT all get along.

U.S. Citizens don't like supporting people they can't identify with with, and throughout our history, we never have. While the analogy isn't perfect, try to picture a ton of your income going towards supporting Greece, or France, or Ukraine... It's less than ideal.

Now, state level socialism is more practical. But as of now, the U.S. is far too large and diverse to support a truly socialist, efficient Federal Government.

1
18

[–] brucethemoose 1 point 18 points (+19|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Also, just to add to this point, most Europeans I've spoken to don't realize how immense the U.S. really is. I heard one group say they wanted to take a short drive up North, which is apparently a common thing people do in Europe while on vacation... It takes half a day just to LEAVE my state, and a full day if I leave it from the west.

0
4

[–] josemon 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Very good point, I totally agree. One has to help those in need, but you can't let those against you think this is a weakness and exploit you. You give and help but your not a cuckold.

5
53

[–] RandyBobandyMD 5 points 53 points (+58|-5) ago  (edited ago)

Don't hate socialism, but I don't want it near my country. Here's my truth.

The welfare state is real. As a doc, I've seen patients lie about the stupidest things to try to get disability. Above and beyond that, I know for a fact it's not uncommon for other people to claim other people's kids on their taxes. Babies to get chid support. Babies because more money with more babies. It's like these mothers are pimping the very existence of their child out. I hate the idea any of my money goes to them.

I hate that any of my money goes to the drug addicts that wind up admitted to my service to go buy more drugs with. You would literally shit if you saw how many of the frequent fliers with positive piss quizzes wind up with no other income but 'disability' and 'welfare.' You would (for lack of a better term) get red pilled on the subject so fast you'd end up with whiplash.

I hate the idea that any of my hard work is for anyone who blatantly chooses not to work at all and depends on some giant governmental tit to swoop in and breastfeed them to safety. Furthermore, I hate that I'm working to put fucking Nikes on some crackhead's feet.

Also, look how funky our government is. You wanna give that bag of dicks on a hill more power over your $$ when they've already MORE than proven they're unable to manage their current situation at all? No. There's no way that could ever go wrong. With more responsibilities comes more power to carry out those responsibilities and when you can be bought and sold on the drop of the dime by the highest bidder like some sort of demented prostitute I don't trust you with fuck all power at all.

Here's the way I see it. The medical system is broken. The welfare system is broken. The government itself is broken. Let's not give them Jesus Juice to hype them up anymore.

3
26

[–] FPHrefugee 3 points 26 points (+29|-3) ago 

Well, as someone on disability, I would say a lot of people I've met on disability actually have gasp a disability. It's not like you get rich with it, I get $434 a month and use it mostly for medical expenses. Before, I used food stamps, and I was working in a psych hospital, and still qualified for that assistance.
I have nothing to trust you on your word you are a doc, nor do you on my word. But I also don't know if you are in a bad area, if you are an ER doc whom many disabled don't see for regular care like a drug addict would, if you work only at night which changes things, etc. But I would say the vast majority of people on disability really need it. I use it mostly to pay the specialists that are out of network for me, but because I have such a rare disorder there are very few that understand my disease well enough to treat me, and as it's a multi systemic disorder, this means neurologist, cardiologist, cardioelectrophysiologist, rheumatologist, geneticist, special obgyn, and more. I still had to use my disability backpay to get a wheelchair to replace the $20 broken one I picked up at goodwill as a standby.

So I say, I did pay into the system at least, and that's what SSDI is, something you pay into. If they haven't worked, they don't get it. You have to have work history to do so. And a certain amount of it at that. It wasn't until I literally passed out at work and hit my head on the tile floor in front of patients that I quit my job.
So just to put that in perspective whenever people complain their taxes go toward this system, understand it's the largest minority, and it's one anyone can become a part of at any time. So you hate the idea it goes towards crackheads, but hey the crackhead's baby shouldn't go without food regardless of that mother's choice. You hate the idea people may abuse it. I rather some people abuse and it be there for people like me who need it than to not have it at all.

2
16

[–] RandyBobandyMD 2 points 16 points (+18|-2) ago  (edited ago)

I wasn't implying that people on it don't need it. House medicine in a large urban city in the western side of the country, mostly nocturnist work so you hit the nail on the head. It's the fact that a large portion of the population, even though by no means the majority of patients on disability, manipulate the system beyond all recognition. Never did I imply that there weren't the needy and never did I imply that we should nuke the system. Sorry if I sounded full of hate, but its something I feel strongly about.

I guess what I'm trying to say about the policy is that the system is fucked as it stands and the fact that some people want to make it more government run is scary to say the least (residency at a VA hospital in SoCal will show you exactly how efficient the government can be, to top it off). I think that we will worsen the disability problem through the socialization of medicine for a lot of reasons that have never been studied, so it only remains my opinion. I think that it is better keeping things as is, though, with regards to socialized med--we deserve a system that is much better thought out than the changes outlined in obama care. Socialization scares me because my government scares me and the thought of more of them scares me more.

And I hope that your injury gets better bud. Seriously all the best.

1
0

[–] TNMike875 1 point 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

No one is saying every one on disability is scamming but there are too many who do. In my family I have seen both sides. My father had a massive heart attack when I was a kid and no he was not obese or unhealthy otherwise and we had to fight tooth and nail to get a pittance of support for someone who had worked since they were ten years old. Meanwhile I have drug addicted cousins who never worked a day in their life get all kinds of support. You should support getting loafers out of the system because then the people who need it like yourself could get more.

[–] [deleted] 3 points 15 points (+18|-3) ago 

[Deleted]

1
18

[–] flammencitronen [S] 1 point 18 points (+19|-1) ago 

If I, for some reason, were unable to work, I would be very scared if I had to depend on the good will of others.

4
5

[–] RandyBobandyMD 4 points 5 points (+9|-4) ago 

As far as I remember from Sunday School….Jesus was really all about teaching people to fish. Not taking another man's fish.

0
1

[–] TremorAcePV 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

This.

Personally, as a Christian, Jesus said to help the needy. (TL;DR version anyway)

My understanding of that is that it's not just to help them but to also help ourselves. There's a spiritual side of giving that teaches you more about what it means to be human and vulnerable. That's what I believe anyway.

Welfare is the opposite of that. We are basically forced to give up some of our earning so that others can distribute it. The link between the charitable and the recipient is lost there. And it's not really charity since it's required.

Insurance is essentially the same thing with a few different quirks.

Obviously saying "I wish everyone would just help each other so we didn't need those things" is asking for a perfect world, but I also think that maybe part of the reason we are so afraid of relying on other's good will is that there's less of a place for good will these days due to welfare & what-not and so we have less experience with it.

If Welfare & such weren't a thing, people would have more money, and logically, would be more likely to give. Or to increase their lifestyle and then be unable to give (which is what I think most people would expect others to do).

It feels like there's not a good solution to this (keeping control in the hands of the people and not the government while simultaneously meeting the needs of the needy) and the only real way we might do it is if we trusted each other.

0
2

[–] Vvswiftvv17 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

It's frustraiting and brings up the notion of "deserving poor". The system currently is there for anyone poor, not for people who have moral superiority. I believe this to be a good policy. However including everyone in one class means excluding some in other classes. I am struggling with this model personally.

I've been an advocate for poverty alleviation devoting my career to it. However, this year I had a baby and my husband seriously injured himself at work breaking ribs, which led doctors to find tumors when doing cat scans to check for spinal cord injuries. A Double nephrectomy is the only course leaving him off of work for eight weeks. You would think that qualifies us for public assistance. Maybe WIC? Nope, income to high. Utility bill subsidy? Nope monthly income from last month too high. We might get temp disability if we can get through the phone/internet system. Meanwhile I'm applying to jobs like mad taking care of a baby and an incompacitated man. Even if I find work how can I pay for childcare? My husband can't pick himself out of a chair let alone care for a baby. A little bit of that safety net would be nice. It's very hard to be sympathetic to people who are gaming the system when you need it so desperately for things out of your control.

And I agree, I don't want socialism because what we have is already so broken.

0
1

[–] atheist101 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

For every person abusing the system there are a hundred who legitimately need it to survive

2
34

[–] swingvoater 2 points 34 points (+36|-2) ago  (edited ago)

Coming from a highly socialist Nordic country,

Didn't Norway's king just make a speech, like yesterday, telling people to get over the idea of the state taking care of them? In the long run socialist countries will always run out of other peoples money.

Also, Nordic countries are highly homogeneous. This allows for high levels of social cohesion and feelings of responsibility; you'll find far less cases of abuse of the welfare system. That doesn't exist in the US, and it's pretty much gone from non-Nordic European countries.

As for why people still oppose Socialism:

Because, no matter how good your intentions are, forcibly taking from one person for the express purpose of giving to someone else is theft. (and no, paying employees, such as soldiers, cops or firemen is not the same thing). And theft is wrong.

If the law allows it, any electorate will vote to buy themselves things with other peoples money. Always. And they will do so until the trough has run dry, after which everyone starves. So, you should not have laws allowing that.

Socialism implies a high level of statism.

State involvement in the economy always ends badly. Always.

Lots of others.

0
13

[–] middle_path 0 points 13 points (+13|-0) ago 

Because, no matter how good your intentions are, forcibly taking from one person for the express purpose of giving to someone else is theft. (and no, paying employees, such as soldiers, cops or firemen is not the same thing).

So serious question, do you consider all tax theft? It's not like these countries are going door to door taking money from people, they're just taxing them. How that tax is used is up to those in power. In the USA a huge fucking chunk goes towards a bloated defense budget. How can you justify that, but not a single-payer healthcare system?

1
6

[–] swingvoater 1 point 6 points (+7|-1) ago 

No, not all taxes are theft. As mentioned, some things, such as military, police, highways and even just government functions require revenue. My preference would be tariffs and duty, but some level of taxation is necessary.

As for not going door to door, what do you think happens is someone decides to stop paying their taxes. There are literally people in jail for that.

For the bloated defense budget, I absolutely agree. The US is far to interventionist. The defence budget is far to large.

11
-1

[–] flammencitronen [S] 11 points -1 points (+10|-11) ago 

So you think people that need welfare to survive should just became homeless and die off?

7
15

[–] swingvoater 7 points 15 points (+22|-7) ago  (edited ago)

ohhhh.... hyperbole. Let me try.

And you think that the State should take all of everyone's money and anyone who disagrees should be forced into re-education camps?

How was that?

1
3

[–] Just_A_Human 1 point 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

They should be given back the land, tools, and skills to be self sufficient. We pay farmers to not farm land, let these people farm this land. But that is highly inefficient, and would empower the people to be free from dependance on the powerful.

Welfare programs are never meant to help people. If they were, they would be seeking out people who qualify, not making them jump through endless red tape and paperwork. Not trying at every turn to deny the benefits they need.

Thats why we have social safety nets that fail their intended goals. Thats why we have a large bureaucracy dedicated to trying to stop people from claiming the benefits they deserve. Waste pure and simple.

Guarantee a basic income at least as big as the federal poverty line for all citizens over 18.

No bureaucracy or paperwork to fight through to claim benefits. Everyone is involved no matter how rich or how poor. Welfare related programs that have failed their mission to alleviate poverty can be shut down. No need for unemployment insurance. Charities can continue to function as they wish. We could even shut down Social security.

Alaska offers a basic income to their citizens and they have yet to collapse into totalitarianism.

The free market can continue to run. The big difference is that the people will be freed from their chains to the market. Expect abusive workplaces to vanish overnight. The nature of employer and employee would experience a revolution. For the first time in human history, labor will be able to negotiate with capital on even grounds. The boot of poverty and destitution will be lifted from the necks of the people.


The Numbers


The federal poverty line is around 12k a year per person. 316,000,000 people in the USA, 242,372,000 people are over 18 in 2013

$2,908,464,000,000 a year for a basic income. About 100 million short of all tax revenue in 2014. So we can afford it right now if we wanted.

"but what about everything else the government funds?"

A large majority of that is oppressive and/or unnessesary. There are also ways to progressively tax the people, lowering taxes on the people who make everything possible (the workers) while raising them on people who can afford them the most.

Here are some suggestions on how to save/raise money, however (IMO) The People should be given representation in government to find their own way. The people's wishes are currently ignored, and there is little to no representation.


Reform department of defense into a loose coalition of state run militias. Close down all over sea bases.

End the war on drugs, disband the DEA.

Stock trading taxes (stops high frequency computer trading)

CEO to lowest paid worker ratio is now 10 to 1 (this is close to the 20ish to 1 ratio that was true post WWII), and anything that is paid over that amount is taxed at 100%

Tax natural resource extraction.

Fold all intelligence organizations into the FBI where proper rules and oversight will happen (we are not at war with a country).

Reform the tax structure to the model we used post WWII (90%+ on highest brackets). Heres (IMO) what I think it should be:

0% taxes on individual income up to 50K, 15% 50k-100k, 30% 100k-500k, 60% 500k-1 million, 90% 1 million - 1 billion, 99% on income over a billion.

A large majority of the public will actually have lower taxes under this sort of tax structure.

Fair trade not "Free" trade - Countries that do not meet the same environmental and labor protections that we offer will have a trade tariff levied on all goods coming into the USA. There was once a time that 95% of the federal government was financed by trade tariffs.


If you want a smaller government, then you must limit the size of other institutions of power. I'm mostly speaking of corporations here. It only makes sense that the federal government must grow in power in order to control and regulate these international NGOs (some of which have GDPs that rival or surpass nation states). Many of you would be surprised of the humble origin of the corporation. We must break up any corporation that has grown to big to fail. We all know of the banks and their shortcomings, but in every industry mergers have created to few players in the free market.

The economy as it is involves to many To Big To Exist players.

0
0

[–] newoldwave ago 

not when the state houses and feeds them.

0
0

[–] Just_A_Human ago  (edited ago)

They should be given back the land, tools, and skills to be self sufficient. We pay farmers to not farm land, let these people farm this land. But that is highly inefficient, and would empower the people to be free from dependance on the powerful.

Welfare programs are never meant to help people. If they were, they would be seeking out people who qualify, not making them jump through endless red tape and paperwork. Not trying at every turn to deny the benefits they need.

Thats why we have social safety nets that fail their intended goals. Thats why we have a large bureaucracy dedicated to trying to stop people from claiming the benefits they deserve. Waste pure and simple.

Guarantee a basic income at least as big as the federal poverty line for all citizens over 18.

No bureaucracy or paperwork to fight through to claim benefits. Everyone is involved no matter how rich or how poor. Welfare related programs that have failed their mission to alleviate poverty can be shut down. No need for unemployment insurance. Charities can continue to function as they wish. We could even shut down Social security.

Alaska offers a basic income to their citizens and they have yet to collapse into totalitarianism.

The free market can continue to run. The big difference is that the people will be freed from their chains to the market. Expect abusive workplaces to vanish overnight. The nature of employer and employee would experience a revolution. For the first time in human history, labor will be able to negotiate with capital on even grounds. The boot of poverty and destitution will be lifted from the necks of the people.


The Numbers


The federal poverty line is around 12k a year per person. 316,000,000 people in the USA, 242,372,000 people are over 18 in 2013

$2,908,464,000,000 a year for a basic income. About 100 million short of all tax revenue in 2014. So we can afford it right now if we wanted.

"but what about everything else the government funds?"

A large majority of that is oppressive and/or unnessesary. There are also ways to progressively tax the people, lowering taxes on the people who make everything possible (the workers) while raising them on people who can afford them the most.

Here are some suggestions on how to save/raise money, however (IMO) The People should be given representation in government to find their own way. The people's wishes are currently ignored, and there is little to no representation.


Reform department of defense into a loose coalition of state run militias. Close down all over sea bases.

End the war on drugs, disband the DEA.

Stock trading taxes (stops high frequency computer trading)

CEO to lowest paid worker ratio is now 10 to 1 (this is close to the 20ish to 1 ratio that was true post WWII), and anything that is paid over that amount is taxed at 100%

Tax natural resource extraction.

A "Patriot tax" of 90% of profits for all defense contractors. They do their work for the love of the country not the money right?

Fold all intelligence organizations into the FBI where proper rules and oversight will happen (we are not at war with a country).

Reform the tax structure to the model we used post WWII (90%+ on highest brackets). Heres (IMO) what I think it should be:

0% taxes on individual income up to 50K, 15% 50k-100k, 30% 100k-500k, 60% 500k-1 million, 90% 1 million - 1 billion, 99% on income over a billion.

A large majority of the public will actually have lower taxes under this sort of tax structure.

Fair trade not "Free" trade - Countries that do not meet the same environmental and labor protections that we offer will have a trade tariff levied on all goods coming into the USA. There was once a time that 95% of the federal government was financed by trade tariffs.


If you want a smaller government, then you must limit the size of other institutions of power. I'm mostly speaking of corporations here. It only makes sense that the federal government must grow in power in order to control and regulate these international NGOs (some of which have GDPs that rival or surpass nation states). Many of you would be surprised of the humble origin of the corporation. We must break up any corporation that has grown to big to fail. We all know of the banks and their shortcomings, but in every industry mergers have created to few players in the free market.

The economy as it is involves to many To Big To Exist players.

0
21

[–] Stanley_Yelnats_IV 0 points 21 points (+21|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Americans generally value independence over support. Obviously I can't speak for everyone here, but many of us feel that a government which takes large amounts of the money we've earned and decides how it should best be used is effectively treating us like children. The very idea that a few people in government (who most of us consider incompetent) would know better than we do what's in our best interests offends us.

Think of it like moving out from your parents' house: you'll also notice that Americans more strongly value this and try to move out sooner for similar reasons: self-sufficiency and independence is a fundamental aspect of adulthood in American culture, to the point that those who continually depend on others are looked down upon; "living in your mom's basement" is an insult here for anyone over the age of 25.

In short, government is a necessary evil for us, and we prefer to have only as much of it as absolutely necessary.

1
12

[–] Aducknamedjoe 1 point 12 points (+13|-1) ago 

Because we know it doesn't work. Sooner or later you run out of other people's money.

0
12

[–] Quicksliver 0 points 12 points (+12|-0) ago 

In the spirit of freedom I would guess that the government taking money and using it for good purposes that I may not support wouldn't exactly inspire me to feel free

0
5

[–] flammencitronen [S] 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

So you feel that taxes limit freedom?

Interesting viewpoint I hadn't considered. I've always taken heavy taxation as inevitable.

0
8

[–] Vanwe 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago  (edited ago)

This is the closest to reality. Accusing people of being widespread sheep to propaganda is itself, almost always propaganda. Freedom to do as we wish is deeply ingrained in common American culture. That includes economic freedom. Take the recent ACA act (obamacare). One of the major issues was that people were forced to buy insurance, and a big argument was simply what if people don't want insurance. It should be an individual's choice to either buy insurance or risk not being insured when it's needed. No one said people should not be insured, just that they should not be forced to be insured.

A popular quote that get thrown around is from Benjamin Franklin, "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."

[–] [deleted] 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] NewtAgain ago 

Heavy taxes on the middle class just create a larger working class. A middle class person should have the money to invest and compete with big business. I see mandatory health insurance not as something that's going to help me , but something that actively hurts me. I'm forced to give a private for profit industry my money or to pay a fee to the federal government. This is just big business being enforced by the government. Taxes limit my ability to spend money where i see fit. There are certain industries that i definitely believed should be socialized but I definitely do not want my tax dollars to subsidize a private industry.

0
0

[–] TremorAcePV ago 

I feel that taxes for things that are not necessary limit freedom.

The police, fire department, and military are necessary in varying aspects of life. They are a service which I, as a citizen, receive benefit from when a situation requiring them comes up involving me.

Welfare and other things to the homeless are fundamentally different even if they appear very similar.

load more comments ▼ (70 remaining)