Comparing quality of life in one socialist country to another socialist country is meaningless. You should be comparing socialism to free market instead. You'll see that there isn't anything good to say about Finland or Sweden. Back in the USSR, we had the lowest unemployment rate ever, anywhere. It was illegal not to work, and it was illegal to get paid decent wage for your work. Socialism looks great from the outside, when you read Communist manifesto, UN resolutions, or Murdoch-owned newspaper. But you wouldn't want to live under it. It is the same argument you are using that they used in "Pravda" newspaper. Regions where most people could afford meat were considered wealthy because the alternative was to live in a place where monthly wages don't pay for basic expenses. The reason you think Finland has good economy is because you are comparing it to other socialist economies where things are even worse.
There are degrees of socialism. There are still democratic elections in all three of those countries.
I am pretty sure I just said those countries did have democratic elections didn't I? My point was that they can vote as to what degree they want to be socialist. Get off your high horse before you fall off.
"There are still democratic elections" ovbiously hinted at the fact you think socialist countries don't have democratic elections.
Right, and I am telling you that Democracy is not an ideal to strive for. The USSR had democratic elections. You could vote for anyone in the communist party you wanted. It's what we are becoming dangerously close to accepting in this country. Two parties that have one common goal. A massive state through taxation, one through warfare, the other through welfare.
No, that's worse. lol We need to find a system that gets what 80-90% of the public want, not just 40% or 30% of voters, if that is democracy, where only 30% of people get a leader that suits their views while the other 70% are left in the dark then i don't want a part of it.
Direct democracy is ugly. How's the quote go: "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner"? It doesn't work. Representative republics work, and ours would work, but for the exact reason you listed it fails: apathy. People don't vote, so the people who care get what they want.
A 2 party system where 2 partys are exactly the same dosen't give the voter much choice, I wouldn't call it the perfect system myself.
80 or 90% is not acceptable. We need to talk about the role of government. In my opinion, the primary function of government should be protecting universal personal freedom. It's when we tell our government, "you regulate the highways" and "you tax us to help the poor" and "you decide what kind of energy we can use" that government starts to cater to one group over another, and individual freedoms are compromised. If 90% of the people want to limit free speech, is that a good thing? Not in my mind or in the mind's of the Founders. These rights are absolute and unalienable. Freedom of speech. Freedom to assemble. Freedom to practice any religion. A swift trial by a jury of my peers. These are basic human rights. It's not perfect, but the problem is misinformation and apathy. The American people unfortunately have had a bad habit of allowing government to grow, and rights to be eroded under threat of crisis. The system could be a little bit better, if only the Founders had used clearer language in the Constitution. Unfortunately, they could not envision how it would be abused 200 years later.
If anything Chomsky is an anarchist, or a libertarian socialist as he calls himself. The point about what Chomsky is arguing is that he seeks individuality within a collective framework, not the individualistic anarcho-capitalism of Ron Paul. Paul's idea, if enacted, are very, very dangerous.
What is dangerouos about this "individualistic anarcho-capitalism" thing? It worked fine before we abolished it, better than any other model that our civilization tried
But Chomsky is an anarchist? Chomsky is a gatekeeper. He says it doens't matter what happened on 9/11, it doesn't matter who killed JFK, and he doesn't support the guy who would really end the war in Iraq and try to abolish the Fed. That says all you really need to know about Chomsky.