So. A government forcing people to vaccinate themselves is not socialist, it is realistic. Government intervention for the public good is not socialism, it is realistic. There is an old saw: "There are those things the individual can not do, or must not do, or should not do, for lack of ability, authority, or training." Of course there is a corollary: the individual should so train himself that he can do, or may do, or be able to do. That is socialism: allowing popular access to or involvement in those facilities which enable the public good.
Are you saying, that it is the government that decides what the public good is? That it is the government that decides what is socially practical and necessary for the public good? Sounds like socialism to me. In a purely socialist system, all decisions are made by the government(distributions, productions, pricing, output, goods and services). The individual relies totally on the government's decision for everything, from food to healthcare. Sounds like a socialist authoritarian practice to me. In reality, there are only mixed economies in the world. There are no purely socialistic, capitalistic, communist, or even democratic economies.
How is the public good being served through lies, deceit, coercion, disinformation, and half-truths? How is the public good being served by imposing crippling mandates and restrictions, and by suspending our basic freedom of choice? Or, by the creation of hate, prejudice, elitism, and division into the Australian society? All because of a flu-like illness with a 98%+ survival rate? The only thing realistic about the governments juvenile and immature reaction to this flu virus, is its new spin about why these mandates will be partially lifted on the 14th in Queensland. People will no longer need to prove their vaccination status in pubs, restaurants, sporting venues, theaters, hotels, etc.
Was it ever realistic to expect over 26M people to keep 2 meters apart? Or, to enforce the wearing of useless masks by millions? Was it ever realistic to expect that man could ever prevent anyone from being infected by a virus smaller the the wavelength of visible light? Was it ever realistic to expect that any vaccine could prevent anyone from dying from a viral infection? It was insane and unrealistic from the beginning. Now the back-peddling is beginning. I suppose that the "public good", will now join the same mutable clichés, like WMD's.
The false narrative spewed by the government's media, was flawed with omissions, fallacious context, and intellectual dishonesty. The response to this pandemic was sensationalized and over the top. The response was reactionary, opportunistic, and politically self-serving. So, I respectfully disagree here. Everyone's medical history should stay between themselves and their doctor. Everyone should always have the choice, to decide voluntarily what to stick into their body. Surely you can see the slippery slope that involuntary vaccinations can lead to, if abused? No one should ever be coerced into making this type of decision(direct socialistic government policy). People who make these sorts of comments, simply do not fully understand how the immune system works. Or, how this experimental vaccine works.
Capitalism is the only tool needed in Utopian society. In a Utopian society it self-regulates according to the laws of supply and demand. But where the Utopian ideal is damaged, where there exist tiers of wealth, then Capitalism fails due to its inability to tolerate inefficiency in supply and demand which mandate lower prices which must be covered by lower wages.
Firstly, Socialism is the direct reaction to the failings/abuses of capitalism. And, just like the existence of a Utopian society, the law of supply and demand that actually regulates itself, is just another myth. Just another meaningless economic platitude, told to justify the efficacy of democratic capitalism. But in reality, what really drives supply and demand, is artificially creating a need for a product, backdoor international deals, industrial monopolies, price-fixing, false advertisings, destroying competition, industrial espionage and take-overs, destruction of our environmental resources, and the influence of wealthy lobbyists/political groups. To name a few.
There are many failings attributed to core capitalism. Capitalism can easily subvert the economic interests of the majority of citizens. Capitalism does not include social values and happiness in its profit-driven equations. Capitalism creates poverty by its design, and not as a consequence to its practices. It is designed specifically(in its purest form) to keep the poor poorer, and the rich richer. Capitalism is consumer-driven. This means that a person's worth is based entirely on how much he can consume(buy). Capitalism is not producer-driven.
Without some aspects of socialism in our mixed economy, those social tiers would become even more crystal. As long as the government controls all essential and critical goods and services, I think that most socialized government programs are a very necessary evil. Governments should always step in to guarantee that everyone have the same opportunities and freedoms, as everyone else. The government has a duty of care to protect its citizens, from both internal and external threats.
Socialism is effective in tiered societies where wealth may be sequestered to alleviate poverty. Note that while capitalism can work well in a socialist environment, the reverse is not true: socialism does not take root in a capitalist environment.
I agree. But since this system does not exist anywhere on the planet, I'm not sure of the relevance here. Maybe you can give me an example, where wealth is being sequestered from the rich to alleviate poverty?
Another was the indentureships given to newly graduated teachers from the cost-free Teachers' Colleges. The graduates were required to take positions in rural centers at raised rates of pay for a period of years and earn the right to teach in the Cities -- Perth/Fremantle, Geraldton and Albany. This imposition was accompanied by an incentive giving preferential promotion in metropolitan schools to those teachers who stayed longest in the bush, thus ensuring their twilight years would be spent in civilised circumstances.
I am familiar with this scheme. My daughter did three years teaching at a school in Mitchell. An 8 hr drive to visit and stay with her for a week. This scheme would add 3, or 4 years seniority, for every year spent teaching there. It is an incentive scheme that any qualified teacher can choose to join. It is voluntary. With almost 18 years of accumulated seniority, she is now head of the science department, in a newly built private school today. I think this is a win-win for both the students in the outback, and the students in the city.
No government privatises social programs out of divisiveness. They are privatised when a government wishes to move away from a socialist outlook, toward a capitalist program. However, most capitalists fail to understand that Utopia is but a day-dream of unattainable perfection, not realised in real life. Privatisation does not "take away the burdensome political bickering over performance/responsibility issues", it is the cost of unbridled egos placed in positions of authority by electors who no longer care.
Sorry, not sure what any of this means. The private and political sectors have different sources of motivation. I do agree that the human condition does plays a role.
Anyway, this was my two cents worth.
(I'll let you do the homework on how Oz is actually a Republic as we are now.) I will admit the way their kids are brought up does amount to child abuse, but the kids do seem happy enough, so...
FWIW, I'm fairly sure the cost is more than just dollars, although I haven't unwrapped that yet. Mostly because I did not think it necessary.
