No Socialism?

I must say, in response to a recent comment, that it seems logical to define Socialism prior to deciding that the country is not moving toward it. Simply put, the Libertarian Model of Government stresses negative rights. The libertarian supports individual freedom and as few constraints from government as is possible. The libertarian does not expect or require that the government provide anything other equal opportunity for all, protection from other countries or citizens who would attempt to take away our freedom to pursue life and happiness and basic infrastructure such as roads, schools, etc.

The Socialist Model of Government stresses positive rights to such things as universal health care, jobs, homes, etc. It is a model that advocates that government take a much larger role to ensure that the gap between the rich and the poor is bridged. Socialism does advocate the redistribution of wealth in order to bridge the gap.

That being said, it is up to each individual to decide which model would best serve their interest. It also makes it easier to answser the question. Is the U.S. moving closer to Socialism?

Perhaps we are moving closer to a middle ground best expressed by the Harvard Philosophy Professor John Rawls in his book Justice as Fairness. You might want to have a look at this work.

Comments

[Jim Mills]

It seems to me that when the government infuses as much capital into the major business markets, such as the auto industry, banking, housing et.al., they have a right to exercise some control. Is it not true that the government has done just that?

Secondly, I did not say a word about which of the two models of government I favor.

Third, the book from which I took the definition/s of the libertarian model and the socialist model is the introduction to social and political philsophy chapter from Fundamentals of Philosophy: 6th edition, by Stuart and Blocker. This is generally accepted to be a very good text.

Last. The story line of my novel has nothing to do with either of the models.

[L. Fleming]

I guess that I'm the guy who posted the comment to which you are responding with this post. I am wondering why you didn't just post a comment in the same thread as your original post rather than making it difficult for anybody to follow the conversation by originating a completely new post. Whatever. The important thing is the content of your post.

For starters, it is obvious that you did not really read my comment. I provided a very adequate definition of socialism before pointing out that this country simply isn't heading into a socialist system.

I wrote:

In a socialist system the government owns, operates and controls all players in vital industries. Look around. It isn't happening.

Well, it isn't happening. So, I stand by my original comment.

You write that "Socialism stresses positive rights to such things as universation healthcare..." Of course, it does not such thing. If you have a book that says that it does, you're book is wrong too. Socialism, as an economic model, and that's the context in which we are talking about it, doesn't concern itself with rights at all. Rights are philosophical concepts, and economics does not concern itself with philosophy. The problem here is that you are speaking about matters outside your expertise. I believe you said that you teach philosophy.

Is your book about libertarianism vs. socialism? If so, knowing that you wrote the story, I can guess how it turns out. The libertarian guy wins the girl, house and cars then lives happily ever after. You know, it occurs to me that I have never seen a libertarian who wasn't either really rich or really poor. People at both extremes of the economic spectrum seem to be more inclined to want a philosophical justification for stealing.