1. Scandinavica isnt a socialist nation and the only reason why those government programs work are because of CAPTIALISM. It sure isnt coming out the politicians' pockets. The myth of Nordic socialism is partially created by a confusion between socialism, meaning government exerting control or ownership of businesses, and the welfare state in the form of government-provided social safety net programs. However, the leftβs embrace of socialism is not merely a case of redefining a word. Simply look at the long-running affinity of leftists with socialist dictators in Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela for proof many on the left long for real socialism. In reality the Nordic countries practice mostly free market economics paired with high taxes exchanged for generous government entitlement programs.
I live in noway, so i don't know how an american views on socialism are, but if you have paid attention, you would have known that i have already stated what you have written. Nobody is advocating for socialism here. And a social democracy is a political, social and economic ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and capitalist economy. And if you had paid attention i never said capitalism is a bad thing, but i don't support an un-regulated market without a government intervention. So when i point to a scandinavian country, im trying to show you that everything here are better because of socialist elements in the system, comapred to less regulated economy in the u.s where the income inequality is skyrocketing, and the middleclass is becoming smaller. Im telling you, if you put the libertarian idoelogy in practice, it would only beceome worse, and impossible to have a balanced egalitarian society, because the market wouln't have an incentive to do so. It is basic logic. Libertariansim sounds fucking sexy, but it is a bad and irresponsible ideology which is supported by american conservatives. I think capitalism is a good thing, and there should be a free market, but an un-regulated one is a dengerous concept.
Liberterianism comes down to the beliefs that the principles that drive a free-market economy can be applied to how humans govern themselves. It's this idea that, an invicible hand that guides the free market will also drive human interaction with social order. This fundation is a false assumption, because when unchecked, man motivated by self gain will not ultimately do the right thing. This is why we have criminals, those who commit crimes even when there is a system that actively tries to prevent it. And the whole purpose of civilisation is to ensure that everyone is fed, clothed, housed and not to create conditions so that the few can secure a substantially greater portion of recources while others are virtually left with nothing. So in a libertarian society, who protects the unprotecte? Who defends the rights of the defendsless? Even libertarians acknowledge that a free market will drive a larger wealth disparaty, which some believe will be offset by the trickling down of wealth and technology. But wealth inequality paired with deregulation creates an oppurtunity for the haves to rule over the have-nots, this is one of the many reasons we need regulation. To ensure that the rich few, don't impose their will unjustly or destructively on the poor multitudes.
Another libertarian belief is the idea that the government should not be allowed to impose it's will on the citizenry. However, in a truly free market that promotes freedom of contract and deregulation, employers have a right to force rules that would never be permitted in our current democratic systems. Libertariansim is a rich man's ideal, it ostensibly gives ulitimate freedoms and choice to everyone at the cost of helping the helpless. It completley ignores the reality of economic forces which compel the poor to take jobs they don't want to, and live where they don't want to, just because they have to. That is something you can't deny.
Libertariansim is sort of similar to communism, on their face they're both noble but impossibly ambitious theories. One has individual freedoms as it's core principles, and the other equality. But in practice, both concepts leads to outcomes that are completly fucked.
