Politics
Out of context: Reply #14248
- Started
- Last post
- 33,770 Responses
- ********0
I think the problem I have is that in a world where people have no social safety net or public investment at all, the natural outcome is that the people who have more consolidate their power, and the people who don't fall further and further behind.
That was the situation around the turn of the century (100 years old) when America was industrializing and people were pissed that they, and their wives and kids, were stuck working in what were basically slave labor conditions in factories. Ideas like socialism and anarchism were actually much more mainstream in America during that time, because they were seen as a solution to the horrible lives people were stuck leading.
And so we got some measures like progressive income tax and social security in response to that. And went on to 50 years of being the most prosperous country in the world.
So in other words, the whole "originalist" argument you're describing might sound appealing because of its simplicity, but its already been shown as a failure. I guess you could argue that it's worth doing for its own ideological sake, but it's hard to see how it produces any kind of lasting stability.
- and secuirty net goes with security vs freedom cant have both. best to find a sustainable balance. educated voters needed for that********
- needed for that********
- Thats what I mean, find the right balance. But it also creates freedom to give people more security.********
- but you are against public education, deathboy. How will voters become educated?DrBombay
- It is a privilege and not a right is what you said.DrBombay
- and secuirty net goes with security vs freedom cant have both. best to find a sustainable balance. educated voters needed for that