Why are people so opposed to Socialism?

[Jeremy Vi]

Specifically americans. I mean, a little bit of socialism combined would actually be good for a country. But not like full-blown communism, like some countries seem to think is smart.
how am I so 'moronic'? how? America is in a huge DEBT right now. I'm not blaming that on capitalism or anything. seriously, socialism is not a bad thing, I'm not trying to convert america to a socialist country.

[?]

That's exactly what I've been saying!!!!!! It's usually the conservative old farts who are totally against it.

[Duke Nukem]

In the free market, transactions between people don't tend to take place unless both parties are better off for it. Any government solution can only be force, and will only be seen as force. People don't like force...

[hwh]

You are a moron. America was working just fine with the free market. Now hipsters like yourself want Socialism and look where were going now. That's the problem Socialism and Communism looks like it would work, but it always has failed miserably and usually results in the death of millions. The free market however has made the USA the most successful and powerful country for a few hundred years. If you enjoy Socialism then go live in a Socialist country, America needs to stay out of that and they have, that's why we are the best and freest country.



My point exactly "America is in a huge DEBT right now". Before Bush and Obama America was easily the greatest country under the free market and a democracy/republic. Now people are pushing for Socialism and voting for Obama just because he's cool, or he's black, and now the country is slowly turning towards Socialism. Can you give one example of successful Socialism? If America can turn from complete freedom, to Socialism couldn't it just as easily turn from Socialism to Communism?

[john]

Because of the nature of government regulation in economics. The problem is in the fact that government wastes money and misuses it. The regulatory agencies and state-sponsored bureaus over-hire, over-spend, and are free from market competition and regulation which, in the case of the postal service, have shown private companies to be both more efficient and therefore more beneficial to both the consumer and producer of the service. Now, that is not to say that government involvement is all bad, but in theory if there were only laws put in place to protect laborers ect. instead of regulatory agencies (which hold unchecked power in their fields because they make their own rules, and both enforce those rules and decide the punishment for violations of those rules.) the market forces would work out problems faster than a government or administration could dictate the problem away. The only problem with capitalist libertarian theory is that the market can be corrupted and it is very difficult to create a completely equal system. However, this problem also lies in socialism.

Another core opposition to socialism is the reduced degree of economic freedom. It is much harder to start a business, the taxes are usually higher, most often a lack of competition among producers. These kinds of things may not be a huge problem in a semi-socialist system but it is hard to determine what amount of regulation is just right. Many people agree that the government over regulates in some areas and under regulates in others.

[Terrier (UK)]

"America was working just fine with the free market".

Right. So the latest economic crisis has nothing to do with the banking sector then? That's news to me!

Incidentally - the only reason we didn't have an even bigger financial collapse in the UK was because government bailed the banks out. But then - that's a bit like socialism isn't it? The reason the banks failed so spectacularly in the first place? The government de-regulated them, so they were free to take more risks - take enough risks & eventually something goes wrong, and it did. Horribly.

Don't get me wrong - I'm no more convinced by pure socialism than I am by pure capitalism. We need a mixed economy if we are to create a society in which people have a decent standard of living. Try to harness the best of each system. My own preference would be an economy based on social liberalism, with elements of social democracy where that fails (see links below).

So, to return to your question - the answer is simple. The people who most benefit from a free market are the ones who are already phenomenally wealthy. That money = power, and that power is used to influence the media. Media then influences the electorate, who vote for more power to the free market.

[blackroses]

Because most people actually have brains, and want freedom. And lower tax rates. With socialism, they take money from those who worked hard for it, and give it to a fat and lazy turd without a job claiming "disability". America is in huge debt because there just isn't enough tax dollars to give to all the people on wellfare. Who aren't contributing anything to taxes, and are basically leeches of society. Besides, even if people didn't misuse the system and become leeches, the government screws everything up. Post office is the biggest disaster in the world. The government runs the DMV, which I wait hours in line for. The government also subsidises education. The same education in which most kids don't even know who the first president was and tak lyk dis. If the government was given the Sahara desert, in a couple weeks it'd be out of sand.