Um, someone said something about a social-society being better than a capitalistic...
What exactly do you mean? Because throughout history, there are quite a few attempts to make a social society and they all failed. That's if you are thinking the same way I am. I think Rapl Waldo Emerson tried it...I think,if I remember correctly. There's another author who wrote about it and it's falling in two years. It seems good at first. Put some in;take some out. Pretty soon, people take more than they give and the system begins to corrode and fall apart. People once again look out for number one. I wish it was as simple as everyone points out.
Again, I am only stating this if you are thinking about a social-society as I am...
Socialism exists and is
actually quite successful. If you wanna see examples of large, mixed-market economies that are successful, look no further than most of the EU: the UK, France, Germany, Sweden, etc. all have HUGE public sectors.
Also, the thing with capitalism is that we have grown so accustomed to it, we may think we want somethingelse but the minute someone changes it, we freak out.
Because Americans are selfish bitches.
I personally wish America would go to a Republic. That way if people do not like how things are run, they can blame no one but themselves. At least in a true republic, everything is voted on by the people.
Which would be highly impractical. You'd need a referendum on EVERYTHING, how would you get anything decided?
Even worse, what if you had to reach a compromise? E.g. one group of people say "kill all kittens"; suddenly, you have to compromise with them... and kill half of the kittens. Pretty extreme, but it's just an example of how compromises can be pretty !@#$%.
Big business could not really get involved(even though there still are ways).
How naive are you, really? Of course they'd get involved.
The masses would be held accountable for their decisions. We are kind of that way but we elect officials instead of direct vote. I am tired of people bitching about their leadership,when they are the ones who put the leaders there.
"Waaa..George Bush sucks!"
You put him there. When the people think they made a bad choice,they throw it at someone else.
But Bush
didn't win the popular vote. More people, in pure numbers, voted democrat.
Even worse, the Republicans were drafting legislation in the run-up to the 2000 election, in preparation for the possibility that Bush would win the popular vote but lose the presidential vote, that would give them some leeway for the fact that the majority wanted him. Of course, the exact reverse happened, and guess what? The legislation was scrapped.
Freedom of religion(ie separation of church and state will be a joke)
As far as the republicans are concerned, it always has been.
Right to bear arms(people are easier to control when they do not have weapons...no brainer)
No, people just kill each other less often when they don't have weapons. "Right to bear arms", my ass. More like "Right to have weapons for the sole purpose of killing someone". It's a ridiculous, outdated law that should be completely repealed. All that !@#$% about needing guns to protect your family from people with guns - guess how those people got guns, huh?
