Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="faulkton" data-source="post: 6232488" data-attributes="member: 561910">But people do consider socialism in the face of the blind forces of capitalism. You agree that a truly free market doesn&#039;t exist and hasn&#039;t for a very long time. Why is this? Because society has protected itself from such harshness by employing protectionist--often socialist--measures and regulations. Now if you are referencing the Modern American public refusing to accept socialism i would say that its just semantics. The term itself is used pejoratively yet the measures adopted are qualitatively socialist.Social contracts are always highly important, but i think perhaps you mean social relationships and insurance? Both personal and public?Is this improvement in the circumstances of the lower ranks of the people to be regarded as an advantage or as an inconveniency to the society? The answer seems at first sight abundantly plain. Servants, labourers, and workmen of different kinds, make up the far greater part of every great political society. But what improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe, and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed, and lodged.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="faulkton, post: 6232488, member: 561910"] But people do consider socialism in the face of the blind forces of capitalism. You agree that a truly free market doesn't exist and hasn't for a very long time. Why is this? Because society has protected itself from such harshness by employing protectionist--often socialist--measures and regulations. Now if you are referencing the Modern American public refusing to accept socialism i would say that its just semantics. The term itself is used pejoratively yet the measures adopted are qualitatively socialist. Social contracts are always highly important, but i think perhaps you mean social relationships and insurance? Both personal and public? Is this improvement in the circumstances of the lower ranks of the people to be regarded as an advantage or as an inconveniency to the society? The answer seems at first sight abundantly plain. Servants, labourers, and workmen of different kinds, make up the far greater part of every great political society. But what improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe, and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed, and lodged. [/QUOTE]

Verification