Question:
Most of the comments I have made in this forum have been in regards to
organized labor. there should be no doubt that I am pro-labor as for the
fact that I have defended and will continue to defend labor interest.
However, I have noticed in this forum much debate on socialism and the free
market, etc. by being quiet and reading some of the postings I find a
certain few who consider any type of government intervention as a form of
socialism. this may be a true assumption on the part of the writers or the
readers. I suppose the definition of socialism is depending on ones own
assumption. With this issue made I must question what is wrong with
government intervention in ones life as long as certain freedoms are left
untouched, such as free speech , freedom of religion, and free press? For
example, here in the United States we have the USDA grade of foods, this is
a government strong arm that grades food, especially meats. when the USDA
had its budget cut we saw the out break of the Ecoli virus. So I suppose it
may be safe to say that this type of government is important to the welfare
of the people, is this also a form of socialism. The answer would be in ones
on definition.
I find it a little scary that there are those among us who wish there was
no intervention of government in the lives of the people. The reason being
is that I have seen how the elderly depend of Medicare and Medicaid and
without these government programs they would not be able to afford proper
medical treatment or medicines. Are these programs also considered a form of
socialism? There is also the issue of welfare, is this socialism? I agree
that our welfare system must be more strongly policed but I also believe it
essential to the people so does that make me a socialist? Again I suppose
that this is another question that depends on ones own assumption and
definition.
Answer:
think the "right wing crazys" would have you believe that everything a
Government does is "socialism". But it isn't so. Communism was a system in
which there was no freedom for individuals and no respect for the human
rights of the individual. Socialism, most people would agree, is a system
in which the Government participates in the economy in areas that are not
related directly to its core constitutional responsibilities. An
"American" socialist may be somewhat different from a "Canadian" socialist
depending upon how the country is organized and laid out. However, once
the essentials are looked after, only socialists governments go further
and do things like own and run telephone companies and explore for oil and
gas by drilling new oil wells using state owned companies.
There is a lot that we can do for ourselves, and we should have a
reasonable amount of freedom to do so. However it is the proper role of
any Government to protect its own citizens. It may feed, cloth and house
its own citizens at certain times, and when it does so, it does not follow
that is is being "socialistic".
Its something like me calling the "right wing crazys" on this website
"capitalists". That would not necessarily be true. You gotta have money to
be a capitalist. And most of these right wing NONAMEs don't have the glue
