First, socialist economics are not possible outside of a socialist (communist) system.
False statement.... just look at the many examples already provided in this thread where socialist economics and practices are applied in our own country and in our own government, which is a Parliamentary Democracy...... Not Communist.
You live in a country with a mostly private-run, (free?)market economy, not a government-run one.
Mostly true being mostly private then public, considering in this country we live in have both private-run and government-run programs and markets.... without the government milking taxes other resources from the public, many private-run businesses and operations that depend on many of those socialist hand outs from the government wouldn't exist today.
Just look at the most recent recession crap that happened and how so many countries around the world, including Canada and the US, dished out billions of dollars to bail out many of these private-run businesses, such as the housing, banks, auto companies, etc...... the claim was that if nothing was done to help them, they'd all go tits up and crumble, risking many jobs around the world that people depend on and further destroying the societies we take for granted.
And what caused many of the problems that led to the recent recession?
Lack of regulation and oversight on these private-run businesses and markets that took advantage of the situation for their own personal gains and risked everything for their own damn greed.
^ And they then needed to be bailed out from their mistakes by tax payers and the government so that everything we take for granted didn't turn into a pile of sh*t.
If it wasn't for government intervention and if we actually did leave these companies to crumble form their own mistakes
(which I think should have happened) We'd probably be living the Road Warrior life right now with total anarchy spreading through the world due to so many without jobs, so much profit from companies and the taxes from citizens drying up quickly..... leading to more citizens needing hand outs from the government in order to survive...... creating a massive feedback our governments couldn't handle and then things get worse from there.
When folks say "socialist economics" they're really just referring to policies that advocate more government intervention in the economy though regulations and actually owning larger potions of the market that are considered to be too important to expose to risk. Indirectly, that also means intervening on behalf of both citizens AND their industries (those that prove viable but are faced with economic factors beyond the unbiased "invisible hand" of the market), thus creating a safety net for the economy that necessarily includes a social component.
As far as the "average person" in a western style capitalist state is concerned, "socialist" translates into more public than private. Either way, you still get interference in your life. In fact, much of the reason the private sector doesn't interfere in your life more is precisely because of government interfering in the private sector by placing limitations on what it can and cannot do vis-a-vis the population.
Agreed.
To answer your question:
In theory, the change is a regulated economy that is inherently more stable and a population that is healthier, thus more productive in every way. That is, frankly, the only benefit anyone should come to expect of government; creating a healthy environment in which people can do what they need to do is the unwritten mandate of any legitimate government.
Environmental issues are economic issues. Sure there's a lot of "green" nonsense about but generally, these are serious problems that need to be dealt with. (Not so much "climate change" effects but rather direct effects of a very wide variety of pollution types on health--so health costs play a big role in that of course.)
Not sure what you mean by "minority." If you mean poor, then once you add what are called the "working poor" (i.e. people who have an income but lack all of the necessities and have no financial security) you're no longer talking a mere few hundred thousand Canadians. Although the term is open to interpretation due to the fact that necessity has never been strictly defined in Canadian law, reasonably, you could probably stretch it to cover nearly, if not over half the population of Canada at this point. We're talking millions of Canadians here. Not a small number.
As for not caring about the rich/poor issue: much of the cause of poverty among the non-indian population is due, as always, mainly to the centralization of wealth (i.e. a rich minority dominating the market and manipulating both it and government in favour of their interests, so naturally the poor majority have little choice but to be workers competing in vastly unfavourable conditions). Hence the 'disadvantage.'
As for taxes: well Canadians pay more taxes than most people in the world (way more in most cases) but the NDP rarely win provincially and have never won federally. So I don't see why the NDP gets special attention in that department. Aside from that, there's nothing wrong with taxes, so long as those funds aren't misused.
As for our international presence: wasn't it the NDP that objected to our going to Afghanistan? Anyway, I assume you're referring to their insistence on Canada taking a more active role in the UN (as opposed to US/UK actions). Just as bringing health to one's own people has long-term benefits for all, so does aiding others. World-wide instability and poverty imply costs, not to the governments/companies that caused the problem (at least not under presently toothless international law) but to the average person.
Considering the mainstream parties have a track record of far more interference in the private lives of citizens than any NDP government has engaged in and that the NDP as a rule advocates human rights (including rights to privacy) while frequently raising issues of infringement of personal freedoms, I really don't see why the NDP's "socialist" leanings and your freedom to live your own life are in conflict.
Also agreed.
No one political system is perfect, nor should one political system as it stand be adopted in it's entirety.
Having an all Capitalist system is doomed to fail.... having a pure, all-democratic system is doomed to fail..... having a pure, all-communist system, or all-socialist system, will all fail in the long run, which is why our system have traits from just about every political system out there and is modified in a way that works..... well..... decently I suppose.
But the majority of the system we use is Democratic and leans more towards Capitalism..... but it's not absolute and just because you may vote NDP which supports a few additional socialist programs intended to better the lives of every citizen in an equal fashion so they can better contribute to the capitalist system in the long run.... does not mean that suddenly the evil NDP boogie men will begin to introduce the next Soviet Union or form some police state.
Besides, the Conservatives are doing a good enough job with that as it stands without needing NDP's help. :lol:
In a system where society doesn't actually help you out, where you're expected to dish out money for your own medical needs, where you're expected to put out your own fires and solve the crimes committed against you on your own...... or in a system that won't lift a finger when you're laid off from your job because your boss wants a bigger pay, forcing you to live on the street because nobody gives a damn about anybody else except themselves...... then why call it a "Society?"
Doesn't sound very "Social" to me.
As I see it, a Society requires some level of Socialism in order to survive..... in a system where it's all about fending for yourself, sometimes at the expense of others, and you have no interest in helping others or expecting help from them when you need it..... isn't that a sign of anti-social behavior?
