SSDR wrote:But that doesn't matter because the way things were in the States before Reagan were NOT socialist. Having high paying wages, labour unions, and better welfare has nothing to do with socialism.
You could use those things to get to socialism, even though by definition, that's not what socialism is. But the States never used those pre Reagan economics to get to socialism.
The United States is a religious, family oriented, materialistic, and celebrity obsessed state that used high wages, unions, and welfare to get to that. What you said has nothing to do with socialism. This shows that you don't understand what socialism is, thus making your opinionated statements as useless.
Well I agree, but my goal is not to turn the United States into Soviet Republics where the means of production are commonly owned through the state. I do not want to see the US economy turned into an economy that is a total and completely planned socialist economy. My goal is not economic equality either. Economic inequality is not in and of itself objectionable. The focus should not be on economic equality but rather on reducing poverty and excessive affluence. That may very well entail a reduction of inequality.
The reduction of inequality cannot be our primary goal. Economic equality is not a compelling idea. Instead our efforts should be to repair a society where in which many have far too little while others have the comfort and influence that go with having more than enough. Those who are much better off have a serious advantage over those who are less affluent.
It's an advantage they tend to exploit in pursuing inappropriate influence over electoral and regulatory processes. The anti-democratic effects of this advantage must be dealt with, partly with legislation and regulation designed to protect such processes from abuse or being eliminated altogether.
What is morally important is that each should have enough and not necessarily the same. If everyone had enough money, it would be of no special concern whether some people had more money than others. Economic equality for it's own sake is a mistake in my view. If the view of economic equality is pushed far too much then you will inevitably end up with a situation where everybody is equal but nobody has enough.
So, it would seem our central goal is not such economic equality through an entirely state owned planned economy, but rather more a doctrine of sufficiency where not everybody is equal but everybody has enough. This comes through a mixed economy with social programs and private enterprise and proper legislation and regulation. However, these pieces of legislation and regulation need to be protected from distortion, manipulation and abuse once finally enacted.
Frankfurt, Harry G. "Chapter 1 Economic Equality as a Moral Ideal." On Inequality, Princeton University Press, 2015, pp. 1-9.
"All in all the time." -US Navy SEAL saying
"Put everything you’ve got in what you do. If you do that, win or lose, you will be a champion." -PO