ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

The dangers of living the Liberal utopia!

Updated on June 14, 2013

Never trade liberty for freedom - Benjamin Fanklin

Lets be open minded here, and take a look at the reality of how the history of the world has proven what a country should look like. I want the liberals who read this, to understand that my position is based on only the truth elements that have been proven, not by science, but by humanity. The countries of the world have always operated under the premise of the people being ruled by the government. There has only been one country that was formed to be a country BY the people, and not the other way around. It has led to more prosperity and freedom than at any other time throughout the history of civilization...we need to question why is this?

There seems to be a trend among all these nations, that after developing an economy and society that is FOR THE PEOPLE, the "smart" people begin to think that society isn't smart enough to make their own decisions. This follows the thought that government is the only entity that really knows what is good for us, yet every time this theory is tried, the people that think this is a great idea suffer, while losing their individual rights to freedom. Again, we are seeing this happen right in front of our very eyes, take away common sense solutions, and develop principles that not only destroy a country, but take away the identity that created a great nation.

For most liberal reading this post, freedom is often an obstacle to them, because they really don't believe in individual rights for making their own decisions. A lot of liberals don't understand the history of the world, and what the impact on having the government make rules and regulations for the people...because the people making these decisions make worse decisions than any individual can make for themselves. I make the remark that freedom is an obstacle in the mind of a Liberal, because individual freedom limits the amount of power and control you have over an individual.

When I look up the definition of a liberal...I like the idea. Providing progress and reform that offers an opportunity for the people is a good cause. I guess in some ways, you could define me as a liberal because I do believe that reforming government to reflect the views of the people is important. However, this often comes at a price, and that is more government control of our lives along with too much centralized power. At anytime in the history of the world, when the government has too much control over the people, everyone suffers and this can be proven time and time again. So why don't we realize this history and prevent it?

The liberal ideology has always been to try to make it fair for everyone, which is a noble cause to have, but also punishes many people at the same time. The truth is, that we are each born with different talents and goals for motivation and our reasons for pursuing dreams, therefore we are never going to make it fair for everyone. Whenever we try to become the "do gooders" in society, we often hurt the people we are trying to help, and that is a dependency and not self sustainability that offers brings poverty to these people.

What would be some examples? If you look at the poverty rates for the indigenous people of the United States, you will find that providing reparations and payment to have actually caused more poverty, less life expectancy, and a miserable life. My grandparents lived on a reservation, so I have 25 years of personal observation and sadness of this program, because it creates dependency and a loss of purpose that is part of the reasons for life. It is the most sad experience to see these good people, and look at the dependency they have on the federal government, and realize that this isn't working. I know, most Liberals will talk about we stole the country, its theirs, we should be the one that leaves the continent, but that is a ridiculous account of how the world has worked since the beginning of time. Don't go there please!

Another example? The black population in the United States has higher poverty rates, lower income levels, and a higher crime rate than other "minorities" that live in the country. Can we attribute this to liberalism? I think so, because since we identified the discrimination...and I don't doubt that this still occurs, but on a much lessor level, we have given a pass to people of color, all based on we are nothing but a nation of racist. The truth is, liberalism is the technique for offering an excuse and is perpetuated to the next generation for believing that they don't have an opportunity because of racism. The truth is, that for most people life is challenging and you have to pursue your dreams to make them come true, the free pass will never provide enough income to allow you to excel in your god given talents.

Want one more example? How about social welfare? Since the "war on poverty" by Lindon B. Johnson in 1964. Since then, we have spent anywhere between $9 trillion to $15 trillion trying to eradicate poverty, and yet we have not made any in-roads for reducing the percentage of people who live in poverty. Why is this? It is because liberalism doesn't account for the human condition that I would call a lack of accountability, because the intent of welfare should be taking care of our people for sure, but with conditions to help motivate these recipients to become independent. By not having any conditions for this, we get families that perpetuate their life through many generations...and is that the best we can do for them?

Now that I have shown a few examples of how Liberalism causes pain and failure, the question is why? The truth is that the thought of government solving our problems, is a total misconception. Anytime we give up our rights, thinking that the government will solve our problems, history has proven to be an utter failure 100% of the time. Yet, this is what we have with ideological thinking with the Liberal foundation, and it leads to poverty every time. What is amazing is that we never stop to think about the consequences of government controlling our lives, because it is an insidious and dangerous phenomena that goes to far and it is too late to correct.

Lets look at the various peoples of this earth, and try to figure out what government has done to people since the beginning of time. Under a King's or Emperors rule, did the people have anything to say? As they lived in poverty, while the King controlled all the facets of government, he was selling his people to slavery while providing wealth and opportunity only to those that supported him. People throughout this time lived a horrible life, often with the killing of many thousands of totally innocent people, including defending a kingdom and ruler who was a ruthless pig, at the expense of individual lives. And yet, this is the ideology that we are supposed to buy into?

More recent examples of this can be easily viewed at the most criminal leadership the world has ever known, and that would be Adolf Hitler. Brought into power to solve the problems of the German society, the first task Hitler performed was to take the rights away from the people, under the guise of I know what is better for you people! So the Jews were the root cause of the people of Germany not having the rights of the Germans in the world? What Hitler was able to do, is to let the people know that the government knew how to increase the standard of living and prestige of the German people, so he took away their rights! Don't believe me? Why did the German people allow such criminal behavior and flat out slaughter of so many innocent people? I have asked this question to myself and the answer was there are no individual rights.

So is this fair to blame liberalism this type of behavior? Certainly not, but you can make a case of MINIMIZING a government so that people have the power to live their lives as they see fit. Looking at the Soviet Union whereby distribution of wealth was the Carl Marx reason for society, yet it only lead to widespread poverty with a few of the elites controlling the economy, opportunity, and advancement of their own personal lives. The utopia belief that many liberals employ is thinking that the government is really looking out for them, when in reality this is the furthest from the truth. Unfortunately the school system in the United States has the purpose of spreading liberal beliefs, and many people view the simplistic model of fairness, and adopt that in their thinking.

Show me a country that has experienced the same prosperity AND the equality that the United States has demonstrated, because there isn't anything under the sun that has a dictator coming even close. A lot of people don't understand the relationship of too much government power over the people as a bad thing, they believe the government is what has created prosperity and opportunity. It is actually the people, given the freedom to create their future, that has enabled the prosperity and the best opportunity in life for all aspects of their lives.

The United States was born under the cause of limited government...that is why these nuts got on a boat that was dangerous, and sailed to the new continent not knowing what the future was. These people left perfectly decent countries, because the government did now allow the freedom that every individual longs for in their life...to live the life they want to within reason and the rule of law. The tyranny of many of these countries was the experience of most of these individuals, and they were willing to pay the price for this opportunity.

The principles behind the forming of the government of the United States, was for a government that limits its power, and prevents tyrannical rule. Many in the US believe that someone could become a tyrannical dictator in the United States, because we have the checks and balances of a court, and of congress. However, we are in an extremely dangerous position when wealth and power become part of the governmental play on how the rule of government is expanded. Liberals who love this country, don't understand the consequences of a government that is corrupt because of power, but you don't have to look that far to realize in many parts of the world, this is the problem.

Freedom exists for mankind....it has created more opportunities than any other society has ever experienced in the history of the world, please take care of it!

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • profile image

      Kairii 2 years ago

      At last some railtnatioy in our little debate.

    • profile image

      Maria 2 years ago

      To regard pnagaism positively as a partial truth - to regard Christianity as including pnagaism, and a completion not contradiction, is rather heterodox, though, isn't it?Superior hatred has always been a key advantage for the more successful religions and a pseudo-religion.The classical pagan religions were to a large extent what I would call "pray for rain" religions. They contextualized man in a natural, mostly agricultural cycle, and gave him something sensible say to the awesome powers he sensed at work about him - a proper form of words to say to the proper god while making a sacrifice in hopes that the next year might find your crops as bounteous and your family as healthy as last year, advice for avoiding miasma, instructions for preparing one's tomb, and so on. This doesn't really come with a target list, and in terms of the permanent hostilities of race and tribe it's largely in vain.But the prime religions of the Middle East came weaponized from the outset. I call these "knife in thy neighbor's neck" religions. They have a direct, Darwinian impact on group selection. If you don't meet them with equal aggression, which you can't in the long run unless your religion is at least equally hostile and comes with an appropriate target list, eventually you must lose.For example if traditional upper class Romans were inclined to be fair to all (of their class) or just less inclined than Christians were to favor each other and exclude those not of the same religion from power, a fully Christian elite was inevitable in the long run. Pagans might resist that for a while with fearful persecution, but what must come must come. And by the same token, if Jews are more ethnocentric than Christians, they must in time disproportionately dominate top positions, as despite their past persecutions they now do. And if the Muslims are fiercer yet against all not of their own creed, well you see how it goes.In this arms race, pagans have a target painted on them by Jews, Christians, Muslims and Atheists. Naturally they are practically non-existent now, outside India and Africa, and losing ground there.Jews have a target painted on them by Muslims, but not by pagans, not by Christians (any more) and not (interestingly) by atheists. Much better! And they get the benefit of dogma bidding them select for each other and against others. They have a sure future.Christians have a target painted on them by Jews, Muslims and atheists, and by some pagans who put fashion first but not by pagan religions as such. Unsurprisingly, Christians are getting kicked around badly. I do not think that Christianity's future is nearly as good as it looks, given that the populations that histortically glorified it and spread it are being destroyed.Muslims have a target painted on them by Jews, but only in the context of Israel. In immigrating into Western societies and changing them, they have a free run. And apart from that, they get to kick everyone while not being kicked. Also, they are practically immune to Christian conversion due to their habit of killing or otherwise severely punishing apostates. Naturally they are thriving.Atheists are in a peculiar position as their "religion" is so repulsive to reason and human nature that it isn't self-sustaining, but it gets artificial life as a result of (a) ferocious Christian versus Christian controversy, such that both Christian sides seem to refute the other, producing a disenchanted wasteland, or (b) Judaism, which it fits naturally both theoretically as the condition of mankind outside the circle of special divine concern, and practically - Jewish Bolshevism etc.. Atheism is a startlingly destructive doctrine, mainly because it can't sustain a comparative advantage over anything, including the simplest pagan promptings of the human heart, except by tearing that other thing down.

    • Miks7 profile image
      Author

      Mike Dempsey 4 years ago from Sioux Falls SD

      Time will tell....socialism/communism/liberalism has a distinct flaw. You know I am right....thanks again! :)

    • Josak profile image

      Josak 4 years ago from variable

      Thankfully I am bright enough to not be swayed by an argument that has still not presented a single fact :P

    • Miks7 profile image
      Author

      Mike Dempsey 4 years ago from Sioux Falls SD

      Obviously you know I am right, and now I know you are not that bright! :)

    • Josak profile image

      Josak 4 years ago from variable

      Still haven't learned the difference between communism and socialism huh? You should get round to that.

      The statistics I have posted are all the important ones.

      GDP per capita is lead by socialists.

      GDP growth, massively lead by socialists.

      Poverty, much much lower in comparable socialist nations.

      Quality of life, Massively dominated by socialist nations.

      National happiness, completely dominated by socialist nations .

      I will throw in one more too just out of the kindness of my heart :D

      UN education rankings:

      #1 New Zealand: Socialist

      #2 Finland: Socialist

      #3 Denmark: Socialist

      #4 Australia: Socialist

      #5 Cuba: Communist

      #6 Canada: Semi Socialist

      #7 Norway: Socialist

      #8 Republic of Korea: Wow you actually got one in to the top ten this time, nice work :P

      #9 Ireland: Semi socialist.

      #10 Netherlands: Socialist

      So, utterly dominated by socialists there too.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_Index

    • Miks7 profile image
      Author

      Mike Dempsey 4 years ago from Sioux Falls SD

      I think you are confused to the point that you need to do something else! However, I have a simple question since you come up with statistics that are slanted toward your beliefs, and I believe in the facts!

      You mentioned that socialism is on the rise, which shows how clueless you are if you did a Google search of expanding economies of the world, and please educate yourself.

      Go believe your liberal/socialistic utopia, I really don't care what you think, because you have never answered the question truthfully. So, if socialism is the answer, why are there so many starving and deprived people in North Korea, while...North Korea has an expanding capitalistic country? Who is trying to migrate where? You know I am right....try as you may, but you don't know much about the subject at hand :)

      I think this shall be my last response to you, as I have made the statement to "never argue with an idiot...after a while, someone from the outside can't tell which is who!" I think I want to protect my intelligent status, and leave people to realize that you are the fool! :)

      Thanks and so long pal! Love ya anyway :)

    • Josak profile image

      Josak 4 years ago from variable

      Forgot to add the link to national happiness ranking:

      http://www.forbes.com/pictures/mef45jgim/1-norway/

    • Josak profile image

      Josak 4 years ago from variable

      Still no facts I see :P

      Well the Soviet Union was as I mentioned Communist but it's funny that you mention it because I suggest you go look at recent election results, the Communist party and socialist party along with a liberal party gained about twenty points last election and are predicted to gain power in the Duma next election cycle. The most recent poll in Russia by Gallup found that only 40% of Russians believe that a country is better off under a free market down from 65% in the mid 90s, apparently Russians have tried capitalism and are leaving it in droves!

      As I said capitalism is statistically the fastest shrinking system on earth, there are pretty much no true capitalist systems left now from absolutely nothing but capitalist systems a hundred years ago that is obviously the mark of a successful system right? :D and that is MOST definitely history on your side :D :P

      Yup that argument is incredibly tired and easily disproved (the vote themselves funds argument).

      There are two ways to prove it false. First is simple factual analysis, we will use the US as an example.

      98% of people who receive welfare of any sort are from working homes, disabled, retired or veterans. Of the remaining 2% of households the majority are single parents, leaving about 1% of people who are "voting themselves funds" and how many of those are just short term unemployed having lost their job during the crisis? Probably most so this voting themselves funds idea is just factually not occurring on any scale worthy of mentioning.

      http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3677

      The second is a quick demographic analysis of who is voting themselves money. You aim this article at liberals and liberals are indeed the most likely to vote for increased welfare but guess what? Liberals are THE wealthiest demographic in the US they make about 9% more than conservatives yearly and like 11% more than the average population so actually liberals far from voting themselves money are voting others money whom they will have to pay for with their taxes, sacrificing fro other in other words. That is simple mathematical fact.

      "Of those who identified as liberal, 49% were college graduates and 41% had household incomes exceeding $75,000, compared to 27% and 28% as the national average, respectively."

      http://www.people-press.org/2005/05/10/beyond-red-...

      SO we have three falsehoods eliminated thus far? Let's continue.

      I did Answer the US question above you just don't read very carefully:

      "The US has been prosperous because for the better part of the last century all the competition was utterly ravaged by wars that never reached US shores. That stopped in the late 40s and the recovery began, all of those nations have begun catching up and several have surpassed the US with less capitalist systems."

      I will add to that, during the US's greatest period of dominance 1890s to 1960s it was almost universally competing with other capitalist systems which don't provide much competition, as soon as the first socialist wave stabilized in the 60s the US began to lose ground to all those socialist governments and has been overtaken by several.

      Your argument continues to be all rhetoric just regurgitated from something you heard, try quoting some statistics from the modern world, demonstrate in which fields capitalist states are beating socialist ones, we already covered the big ones poverty, GDP per capita, quality of life etc. capitalism lost in all of them but you must be able to find something right?

      I will share one more, national happiness top 5.

      #1 Norway: Socialist

      #2 Denmark: Socialist

      #3 Sweden: Socialist

      #4 Australia: Socialist

      #5 New Zealand: Socialist

      Ahh how the facts continue to pile up against absolutely nothing from you :D Every single one of those nations btw has well under a third of the US's poverty rate.

    • Miks7 profile image
      Author

      Mike Dempsey 4 years ago from Sioux Falls SD

      Interesting...thought the Soviet Union is going to Capitalism? How about China? They can't survive in socialism, and they know it. That is why Hong Kong has to be what it is, it can't be socialism.

      As stated, we had a good laugh at you. I told the class to watch this: The next thing will be definitions and finding a place that has a plausible case for socialism, but it is the only case. Too blind to know what is the truth, I told the class that you would define socialism, liberalism, communism...and I read you like a book. Because I know who you are, and you are easy to predict. You won't be getting any points across to me, because you have your theory, that is proven wrong, and you just can't admit you don't know what you are talking about. That is fine, I really don't care, because I have history on my side. As stated, you never explained what the problem was with the Soviet Union, you could only task definitions of communism and it isn't socialism. So...you don't get it.

      I thought you may find this interesting...actually you won't, but other readers will:

      Alexander Fraser Tyler, Cycle Of Democracy (1770)

      A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over lousy fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average of the world's great civilizations before they decline has been 200 years. These nations have progressed in this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; from faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to Complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependency; from dependency back again to bondage.

      It is how I define Liberalism...it becomes a dependency issue without any requirements for not living off everyone else. Alexander Fraser Tyler predicted this and it is true throughout the civilized world...but since it doesn't fit your template, you won't get it anyway.

      As stated, we all had a laugh and the students are writing some interesting thoughts that disprove your theory of socialism as being the future trend. Believe what you will, but I see China going through some changes, the Soviet Union developing a free market economy that will produce opportunities for the people.

      You never answered the question, why the US went from a country of discovery, to a world superpower....it wasn't socialism, it was a free market economy. What I can't understand about a socialist, is that you blame greedy capitalist for the problems, yet too confused to recognize that this human trait also could be a government?????? Yeah, that's right, continue to plug in your utopia! I know what your next comments will be...I plan on sharing them as I am reading your like a book...a book of fantasy land that has no merit!

    • Josak profile image

      Josak 4 years ago from variable

      Nothing to do with "wizards of smart" all I have done is cite provable sources and factual data, all you have done is respond with rhetoric and insults. Which is exactly why capitalism is the fastest shrinking governmental system on earth and socialism the fastest growing.

      We covered poverty, GDP per capita and quality of life, Capitalism failed in all of them, we can continue on to unemployment, economic mobility and opportunity, health, education etc. etc, and still have the same results.

      Facts are worth more than rhetoric.

    • Miks7 profile image
      Author

      Mike Dempsey 4 years ago from Sioux Falls SD

      Thanks for proving your incompetence. Our class had a laugh regarding your responses, because you are the typical liberal who thinks that they command the title "the wizards of smart". Failure is your course.

      Nonetheless, we are through with you, thanks for the comments!

    • Josak profile image

      Josak 4 years ago from variable

      Socialism and communism are completely different systems, look them up and learn the difference, it's as ridiculous as suggesting that conservatism is the same as fascism.

      Japan was never socialist, what Japan did was over leverage it's economy to spend on growth through massive debt, nothing socialist about it just a bad policy with short term benefits and long term consequences as seen today.

      USSR= communist.

      The vast majority of socialist nations are very successful. They are either leading the world in everything in Scandinavia or growing rapidly since they took power in South America i.e. Brazil.

      Mexico is not at all socialist with he exception of one region, Chiapas, not coincidentally it is the fastest growing and improving region.

      The US has been prosperous because for the better part of the last century all the competition was utterly ravaged by wars that never reached US shores. That stopped in the late 40s and the recovery began, all of those nations have begun catching up and several have surpassed the US with less capitalist systems.

      There is nothing utopian in liberalism or socialism just simple visible appreciable and provable results ie. Scandinavia.

      You just keep repeating rhetoric in favor of actually looking at the facts which you have never and will never be able to compete on. Thus far we have seen poverty is far far higher in capitalist nations (happy to repost that info since you cut that comment if you like) that growth was weak in capitalist nations comparatively with no nations in the top 100 growth nations and now let's look at World Bank measured quality of life, top ten.

      #1 Iceland: Socialist

      #2 Norway: Socialist

      #3 Sweden: Socialist

      #4 Switzerland: semi socialist

      leave out Luxemburg

      #5 Austria: Socialist

      #6 Finland: Socialist

      #7 New Zealand: Socialist

      #8 Germany: Semi Socialist

      #9 Canada: Semi socialist

      #10 Denmark: Socialist

      Any other statistics you would like to completely fail in hmm?

      BTW I am an American but Norway for example has a bigger immigration problem per capita than we do, much bigger.

      http://nationranking.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/2...

    • Miks7 profile image
      Author

      Mike Dempsey 4 years ago from Sioux Falls SD

      Socialist and Communism are one of the same essentially. Before I ask a few questions for you to answer, please be aware you are about to embarrass yourself, so be careful how you answer these questions.

      The purpose of my post, is to demonstrate how Liberalism = less opportunity and the measurement of equality is questionable. As a liberal agenda is set upon more government spending based on the perceived needs of the people, my point is that socialism is at play, and it is not for the benefit of the country or the people.

      Answer me this: Japan's economy for 40 years was in a very high growth stage, while this wealth began the liberal agenda of high government spending and taxes. Although it isn't federal taxes as it is local tax hikes, the point is Japan has far outspent the capability the government can afford for social programs. What does that equal? Zero growth while other nations prosper in the region.

      You can try to explain that one, but you will just embarrass yourself.

      Mexico has a "democracy" that really is a socialist agenda. Most socialist aren't doing anything for the people, it is about corruption while spreading liberal agenda's. It doesn't work.

      Socialism has never proved to work...no matter how you may want to portray it. Yes, there are a few governments that seem to be socialistic and prosperous, but overwhelmingly by 90% plus, they fail. Can you say USSR? What a wonderful strategy of tyranny you have.

      Why has the United States been so prosperous? Freedom which means less government. You may not want to come to the Unites States, but millions do. What country are you from? I bet you have a tough immigrant problem don't you?

      The problem with liberal thought, is that it eveolves around a utopia that never produces the benefit that was intended. Liberals and socialist are the same thing, thinking we can make everything even by the government running everything. Mexico..runs Pemex. Where does the money go? Not to the people, they have too much corruption and at the same time, they portray this liberal agenda...that hasn't worked and won't work.

    • Josak profile image

      Josak 4 years ago from variable

      Sorry forgot to actually post that link:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_...

    • Josak profile image

      Josak 4 years ago from variable

      Hmm I see you don't want to play the poverty comparison game, if I was a capitalist I wouldn't want to either :D

      Soviet union = communist, learn the difference, a dictionary might help.

      Cuba is one of the most successful third world nations and by far the most successful Caribbean nation.

      China was communist and is now certainly not socialist so again nothing there.

      Love to live here? AHHAHAHA nope I have lived there, no one wants to move here from there, just look at the quality of life rankings, Norway has #1 the US has in the 30s, no one wants to swap. Norway also has more economic mobility than the US which has the second lowest in the first world. Great opportunities in this capitalist system huh :P

      Norway's petroleum reserves are as already noted minuscule when compared to the American ones and smaller per capita without even beginning to consider the massive amounts of other minerals that we have that they don't.

      Socialist countries have contributed so many things that I couldn't even possibly begin to list them, laser eye surgery, nylon, contact lenses and the meningitis vaccine to name just a few.

      Spending is not a socialist policy, if it was then Reagan is a socialist since he massively increased spending, Japan never has been socialist.

      Any more errors to regurgitate?

      Let's talk about growth though you mention it a few times. The GDP growth list is linked, one has to all the way to 103 to find the vaguest resemblance of a capitalist system in Israel, meanwhile dozens upon dozens of socialist nations grow faster.

      Capitalism is disappearing, being replaced by a better system, all around the world, even in America.

    • Miks7 profile image
      Author

      Mike Dempsey 4 years ago from Sioux Falls SD

      There you go again, trying to prove socialism works, which it never has. How about the Soviet Union? Hmmm, yeah give me some data on the great socialist program there. Cuba, what a great country, health care is FREE! I know, it is OUR fault, but come on. How about China? Yeah, using Hong Kong as a capitalist market to create wealth and opportunity while at the same time, the rest of the country is in complete poverty DUE to socialism? I think you are in denial with your head in the sand.

      Nonetheless, since I have proven your wrong...or you really don't know anything about society, I have this to say: Never argue with an idiot, because after a period of time an observer cannot distinguish between the two. Freedom is key. Be honest because I have been to the countries you defined as socialist and living in a utopia of LOW unemployment...I have been to those countries, they would LOVE to have the opportunity to live in the United States! Upward mobility??? Yeah, GET IT? Probably not, you obviously don't know history and have been to these countries, to you it is just another fantasy land to have everyone equal.

      The petroleum reserves in Norway are huge and does provide and income and high GDP, for the population. You aren't schooled enough to understand how this relates to per capital income and operating a government. If you want, you can ask the question: What has these great socialistic countries contributed to the world? Try that one on for size. Lets see...they didn't come up with the PC, didn't invent the airplane, didn't build the iPhone (intellectual property), yeah, wonderful places for pushing humanity.

      The UK and Europe is a socialist county with capitalism keeping them alive pilgrim! I think you need to Google Japanese government spending on socialism to see why the economy is in zero expansion. Again, never argue with an idiot.

    • Miks7 profile image
      Author

      Mike Dempsey 4 years ago from Sioux Falls SD

      It is easy to pick a nation that has a high per capita income, and try to make it sound like they have such a great economy while being leftist. The reason they have such a high GDP is that they also have the 4th best economy as luck would have it. They have one of the highest natural reserves of petroleum, natural gas, lumber, seafood, minerals, and fresh water. To believe that it is because of its socialist government that gives it such a high GDP is wishful thinking.

      A more relevant study about liberalism/socialism is the Japanese economy...which is an experience we will have if we don't get it figured out soon. In Japan in the 80's, they had a vibrant economy with growth and a GDP that was excellent. The Liberals decided that they needed to have the government spend money on all types of social programs...to make it fair to everyone.

      The economy has been virtually stagnant ever since, because you can only tax people so much before you have diminishing returns. The Japanese economy has cost the people opportunities and potential growth, whereby the South Korean economy has been thriving because they are true capitalist. Whenever you have the government taking over private business and property, all under the guise of it being for the people, the economy always stalls.

      Why? Government is NEVER efficient. It is driven by bribes, kickbacks, and bureaucracy. You don't have to go very far, as in Mexico to the south of the US to see what socialism does to a people. 90% are in abject poverty...but they are happy, right??? Guess that is why they are all trying to move to the US. Yes, you get a ruling class that "knows what is best for the people", and corruption takes place, period!@

    • Josak profile image

      Josak 4 years ago from variable

      Yup there is evil in too much government, there is evil in too little also, free market principles were tested, not just here all around the world, it was a miserable failure, people starved during the industrial revolution, quality of life and life expectancy fell, children were worked to death inf factories and the populace as a whole all around the world rejected it in favor of governments who play an active role in protecting them.

      That system has been an astounding success the wealthiest country in the world per capita is the most leftist in the first world; Norway, it has a big government and yet also has the highest income in the world per capita, the lowest poverty rate in the world, the highest quality of life in the world, the highest happiness index ranking in the world etc. etc.

      The answer then is obviously neither small government on the scale that conservatives would like nor big government in the fascist or communist sense but a balance between the two which has proved by far the most successful system. Social democracy in other words.