Is Socialism Evil?  

I don't have any experience in this either, but I read a lot about it, and the more I read the more the idea scares me.

This is a real person. I have the email and his picture. I think our economy is built on free enterprise and not a government run economy. Some are fortunate to take a chance and get rich. I am not that smart/dumb to take chances some people take to get rich.

I have to admit, I don't know the difference between some of these things, but I would not want to be forced to do anything. I don't fault Bill Gates for having money, nor do I fault anyone who is rich. People that are rich do the things that keep them rich and we do the things that keep us the way we are.

I don't expect Bill Gates to give me money, but I wouldn't mind getting a decent raise each year on my social security. This year is a good raise, but most years are only 2 percent or there abouts.

My personal opinion is there is no good or really fair form of government. Not all, but a vast majority of people in public office are looking out for themselves first and their jobs second.
Not only is there no truly fair government now, I believe there won't be until Jesus, the Son of God comes to establish his reign on this earth.
I think it is up to us as individuals to do what we can to help those in need. And I don't mean to blindly throw a few dollars in the collection plate. We need to think, when we go through our closets to give to charity do we just get rid of stuff we no longer want or do we have our minds on the needs of others. A slightly used formal dress is about as useful to a homeless person as ballet slippers are to an elephant.

I will always be for the people and wife of harvey I agree with y ou,

I just went to this guys home page, and he attacks the canadian government ontario in particular for rationing brain surgery,

if you will look at another american Michael Moore you will see that he pokes through all they lies and gives valuable information,

our system is not perfect of course not, but it gives universal health care meaning everyone in canada has a right to free hospital service and operations etc regardless of if you have insurance hlmo or whatever you guys call it, it says people are equal and people need health care not only those that can afford it

It is the highest principal of life, that all human life is equal and important and I will die for those principals.


but because it gives to everyone wait there is a big strain on the system this is where it is not perfect, there is little money and some long line ups,

the canadian governemnt and contracted with many american hospitals to send people over who need care when they have space and we don't it is not rationing it is common sense to live up to the ideals we believe in.

guess what americans come over to our facilites to get the best care too,

each country has specialties of which they are known all over the world for and people will go for the best care when they are able to,

the montreal neurological institute founded in the name of Wilder Penfield the canadian doctor who discovered epilepsy and started to treat it is one such example of a canadian world renown hospital.

when you give the facts (meaning this email give all the facts) don't just cherry pick to make your side whatever it is appear good and the other side is just plain evil.

forgot to say I really like bill gates, he is a man with a big heart and one of the biggest philanthropists in the world today, they many has given millions away in charity. He is a hero to me.

My son disagrees because he says he made those millions on the backs of others, but we don't share the same point of view on this.

You see clearly the difference between socialism and communism. Both systems protect the weaker members of society better than a pure free market system like in the US. Free health service, education among some other basic needs are universally paid by all taxpayers and administered by the goverment. Communism also works in a way and I don't think it was such a bad instrument to take a country out of a long period of poverty and inestability. It really does a lot for the ones who have little and gives equal opportunities to everybody. Anyway in a long term it works only if people are honest which is never. Leaving everything in the goverment's hands feeds corruption, lack of productivity plus a limited freedom.

"Leaving everything in the government's hands feeds corruption, lack of productivity plus a limited freedom." That is the way I see it too... and there it seems to me that there is no reason for anyone to try and rise up and be successful, because success will be penalized for the greater good of everyone else.

england and germany both socialist countries have millions of hard working people in it Oreo, just like every other country how do you thing a country is going to survive if nobody works?

If America was a pure free market it would be much better at protecting the week. Instead it is a wealthy welfare state. The rich expect the poor to be taken care of by the welfare programs and the lazy expect tax dollars to keep them going. Remove the government aspect and people are left to take responsibility for their neighbors. Strangely enough this is the system that worked beautifully in this country for around 150 years until the New Deal began the development of our current welfare system.
Professor Williams is one of the most brilliant and well respected economists in the country and his opinion is based on logic. If I wish to give my money to a poor person or to an organization that helps poor people that is charity. If the government takes my money to run government operations that is taxation. If taxation is used to take my money and give it to another as charity that is theft. As a citizen I have a responsibility to pay for the services of Police, fire and military that are the legitimate job of government but no one has the right to take private property, including money, and transfer it to another individual no matter how good the intentions.
Here is the difference between a Socialist and a Capitalist.
Barack Obama is a proud socialist who wants plenty of social programs to help the people in the lowest positions of our society. He expects to get the money for these programs by taxation. In the past 10 years he has given less than 5% of his income to charity including tithes to his church and in most years the amount was closer to 1%. This fact is shown in the financial records he was required to make available while running for president.
John McCain was also required to show his financial records. He advocates tax cuts and social reform to encourage private giving. He has personally given from 22%-27% of his income to charity over the past 10 years. He owns several homes, lives in one himself, provides a couple others to family members with health issues and other problems that could not provide for themselves. He uses rental income from the other properties to pay for the needs of his family in his own home and those homes he keeps for family.
A capitalist wants to do his best for the sake of providing for his family and community. A few greedy misers are made up for by the much larger group of altruist folks.
A Socialist wants to help the masses using other peoples money and, in most cases, is more miserly than Ebenezer Scrooge.

Socialism is PURE EVIL. It seeks to impose "good intentions" on the masses through theft. As I've said before, Robin Hood wasn't stealing from the rich landowners to give to the poor and homeless. He was stealing from the Government tax collectors to give back to the working people the government was robbing.

Good point there Eeyore about the kids. That is a difference. Government is just getting too big and getting bigger. There will be no initiative to strive to do the best you can, because I feel everyone will be taxed to death to take care of the less fortunate. I too agree that we should take care of our "widows and orphans" as it says in the bible, but can't they do it without taking more out of us?

I know the professor was making a facetious statement, he was making an example of being forced to support the poor I think... but that was his analogy... I think. I am interested in what the majority of people think about this email is all. I get quite a lot of different emails from this person, and other people also. I usually delete them, but thought I would share this one.

The way you said it, is the way I kind of feel about it too. Why should "Joe" work hard anymore if everyone is going to get their fair share of what Joe's earnings. Why shouldn't Joe just sit down also and let the government support him. This is what I kind of think might happen. Maybe the ultra rich will leave where they will be taxed less, and all the jobs will go away and everyone will be on welfare... that may be stretching it.. but I just wonder how it will go.

Welcome to Mylot Maygodblessu44. I'm just getting opinions here. I'm sure I will get lots of them.

Hello my friend OreoCookie3 Ji,
I would wait for your comments on my views on Socialism, which is not an evil, but the way one takes it. We have been reading and understanding that 'man is a social animal'. So how on ecan avoid socialism and socialisation. may God bless you and have a great time.

Hi there Sierras, all the government has to do is print more money... they can't balance the budget now. What is sickening is our taxes going up and the fat cats in government writing themselves big raises while everyone else that pays those taxes tries to live on less money.

The thing is that we are already taxed to death... when I worked for a living I paid about 40% of what I earned out in taxes. We already have programs to help people... I think that if spreading the wealth around too much will cause many people to stop hiring. The big businesses that get hit with all the taxes could uproot and go to a country where they aren't taxed so heavily.. or they could just stop hiring, and lay off some of the workers that are already employed, so a little socialism could also be a bad thing, because it would make more people dependent on the government to be spoon fed... JMHO.

Hi Pose.. I don't know what his motives were, but it sure was scary to think that might happen.

So you are suggesting that those that don't or can't do anything to help themselves should be left to starve because they are worthless members of society? I am talking about the people who are on disability pensions who are too sick to work and never will be able to. Or for that matter those that are too old to work and have not been able to save enough to sustain themselves in their old age.

This attitude suggests that because they cannot work for money then they are useless and should be allowed to starve. Perhaps it would be kinder to just shoot them to put them out of their misery.

You are defining people solely by their fitness to work not their ability to contribute to society in a wealth of ways that have nothing to do with money.

We already have social programs in place for the reason to protect people who are disabled.. no they could not take care of themselves... and they should not be taken out and shot. I know what Mull is trying to say, I think anyway... that there are people who know how to milk the system we already have... but that is another discussion all together.