clairobscur

The point in the european healthcare system isn't that it is "free". It is that it is paid by the community of citizens and insure that everybody, whatever could be his wealth will receive a similar level (hopefully the best) of healthcare, and that nobody will have his life devastated if he happens to get seriously ill. <BR> <BR>It can hardly be argued that it's "slavery". I didn't heard of any wall built around western europe to prevent from fleeing people frightened by the taxes they have to pay in order to benefit from the healthcare system. <BR> <BR>Actually, people are extremely attached to this system. I do not doubt that putting an end to it would cause riots. Anyway, no politician supporting such an idea would have the slightest chance to get elected. <BR> <BR>You tend to encompass the whole spectrum of european policies under the word "socialism", which seems to have some dreadful meaning in your mind. More or less in the same way that european tend to consider american parties as slightly different right wing parties. <BR> <BR>But an european liberal (european vocabulary : liberal = moderate right wing as opposed to conservative right wing)feels he have close to nothing in common with a travaillist, social democrat or socialist. And in turn a socialist would certainly feel insulted if you were to imply that his political stance has something to do with the former eastern countries policies.

Sjoerd

Art, don't you think that you simplify European politics *a bit*? In many countries, the people WANT the state to be involved in health care, education, social security, etc. (see Mr. Blair's landslide victory in the UK) <BR>Capitalism works to a certain extent, but needs to be corrected by a powerful, democratically elected and controlled state. <BR>In most of Northern, Western, Central and Southern Europe, everybody has access to health care, everyone gets a decent income from the state if for whatever reason he can not work, all children can go to school and to University, etc. More needs to be done, but most Europeans realize they need to pay tax to pay for all these "expenses for civilization".

XXX

sjoerd and clairobscur-- <BR> <BR>HEAR&lt; HEAR &lt;&lt; Great points.

anon

Art, you need to go back to school and study political science. There's a huge difference between the socialism of western Europe and the communism of eastern Europe. I'm surprised that such stupid comments would come from you. You certainly sound paranoid about socialism. Basically it's just a system that provides health care and education for the masses and is paid for by everyone. Unlike the cold, uncompassionate system in the U.S. that turns its back on people who are down on their luck. Europeans look out for each other.

frank

Reagan was responsible for the fall of the Iron Curtain????You mean the old sleepy guy enerybody here made jokes about?The guy with the astrologers and the crazy wife? <BR>We all thought it was Gorbachov! <BR> <BR>Art the "socialists" got elected here (UK) by ANOTHER landslide last night (that means they got MORE votes than the other guy, strange local custom here)on an increased health & education ticket.No fences. <BR> <BR>Meanwhile US gov reps are over here trying to talk our leaders into supporting Star Wars II, because the Koreans will be invading London any day now! <BR>This is great as it means in return our techs will get big bucks for researching more silly stuff which won't work again(so no moral probs) - all this driven by US paranoia & xenophobia. <BR>Better than spending it on US healthcare I suppose, it would only make you weak then the Samoans would be all over you. <BR>As for football, its a game which exploits tribalism, its always been like that - if you want to find xenophobia it's your first stop after Star Wars. <BR> <BR>

dan woodlief

As far as I am aware, we have never had a socialist president in the U.S. Europeans know socialism. They have real socialist policies and even formal socialist parties that go back over a hundred years. In the U.S., too many people equate socialism with communism. Communism has usually turned into some degree of totalitarianism (another long-debated term), but I don't think you can say the same about true socialism. I think part of that mixup in terminology comes from the seemingly interchangeable use of the words by those who have practiced communism (after all, the Soviet Union was called the United Soviets Socialist Republic), and terms have been used such as "socialism with a human face." I think for the most part, here in the U.S., terms like "liberal," "socialist," "fundamentalist extremist," and others are thrown around indescriminately to label people and frighten audiences into following some opposing position. It is a lot easier to paint everyone with the same brush than to make the effort to understand the differences. It also makes it easier to propagandize. Certainly, Americans have no monopoly on this, however.

ImnotamemberofthenuttyGOPand

IMHO, in US politics: <BR> <BR>Democrat = Socialism <BR> <BR>Republican = Socialism-Lite <BR> <BR>Remember, THIS IS _MY_ OPINION (I do not expect everyone to agree w/it.) Also IMO, it is unfortunate that people do not see the danger, as did the brilliant writers of the US Constitution, in doing things for the "common good". That is why I thank God that the US is a Constitutional Republic, based on LAW, and not as many seem to believe, majority rule. I am horrified at the way things seem to be going more and more away from the sound, timeless ideals expressed in our constitution. <BR> <BR>I know, I know, this is not a political forum, but sometimes, I just can't resist! <BR> <BR>ME, the Crazy Libertarian <BR>

Sheila

Actaully the USSR was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" (pedant mode off). <BR> <BR>More interestingly (and what wouldn't be more interesting than that?) <BR>could you tell me, dear ImnotamemberofthenuttyGOPand <BR>what your definition of socialist. I understand your leaning to libertarianism, although, as a real liberal I don't agree with it, but it defaets me to think how you could define either of your major parties as socialist and I would genuinely like to know <BR>

dan woodlief

You're right about the USSR. I can't believe I typed that one wrong.

Sam

top.

ImnotamemberofthenuttyGOPand

Sheila & all, <BR> <BR>Sorry about going on politically, but I wanted to answer your question as best as I could. Basically I believe "Socialism" to be defined as a big government trying to make everyone the same. I absolutely believe that everyone should have equal RIGHTS, but it is absurd to believe that everyone is EQUAL. Equal to me is defined as identical (just so I'm not misunderstood - race, creed, color etc. being completely irrelevant to my argument) I find it hard to accept that a hard worker who gets up every day and does what he/she has to to make a living should watch as "daddy" government pays for another to live just as comfortably while sitting on their butt every day. I believe that people in the US get (for the most part) and demand good service because the workers know that (at least for now) if they don't deliver, they don't have a job. <BR> <BR>this is the definition from the online Cambridge dictionary: <BR> <BR> socialism noun [U] <BR> the set of beliefs which states that all people are equal and should share equally in the wealth of the country, or the political systems based on these beliefs <BR> <BR>this is from websters: <BR> Main Entry: so·cial·ism <BR> Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m <BR> Function: noun <BR> Date: 1837 <BR> 1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods <BR> 2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state 3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done <BR> <BR>I don't believe that the US today is Socialist at all - it just seems like the Democrats and Republicans are moving us in that direction. No matter what they say, both of our major US parties advocate MORE federal government , more Federal programs, MORE federal police, etc., things that they are simply not entitled to do according to the US constitution. Though many are unaware, the Libertarian Party is the third largest in the US. Our 2000 presidential candidate, Harry Browne, was on the ballot in all 50 states. We have been around since the 70's and are dedicated to the idea of individual liberty hand in hand with personal RESPONSIBILITY. I'm sorry if this is not what you're asking for. I'm not very articulate when it comes to expressing my political ideas. I jump from place to place. I have many more opinions (as I'm sure we all do) but again, this isn't a political forum. All of my libertarian opinions are written out in plain english and in great detail at www.lp.org - check it out if you're interested (I have nothing to gain other than that I personally agree with what it states at the party's site) - especially under Issues & Positions. <BR> <BR>My sincere regards to all - no matter your political affiliation! <BR> <BR>ME, the Crazy Libertarian <BR> <BR>PS just in case you were wondering, I am a 23yr old female.

Roger

A couple of rhetorical questions that Traveler's question brings to mind. Is it wrong for a cultural group or nation to defend its culture or nation by keeping out immigrants wildly different from themselves? Is it xenophobic to defend one's unique culture? Except for Europe, Canada and the USA, no other countries on Earth allow widespread immigration-are the other nations of the world xenophobic? Can the Indians, Chinese, Japanese, Iranians and the rest be considered racist if they do not allow the immigration of Europeans? Does the West have a demographic and cultural death wish? Just questions I'm shooting by as the Western culture many of you wish to visit dies of dry rot or lack of self-confidence.

Roger

Just read some of the poltical brickbats and thoroughly enjoyed them. The best guide to "socialism", if that is what you call it, is Ortega y Gasset's 1930 classic REVOLT OF THE MASSES. The mediocre majority votes for an adept elite which manipulates the mediocre to give the elite more power of the lives of the mediocre. If you have little respect for the average person's intelligence, the current state of European politics makes a lot of sense. Hilaire Belloc's SERVILE STATE was also very prescient when it was written about 1910. The European masses are generally happy, bought off by the welfare state, and almost totally servile. Europe is dry-rotting, however. Its demographic nightmare will be frightening twenty years from now.

rick steves

<BR>where can I find a really cheap hotel in the 7th? <BR>