There are many successful and beneficial implementations of socialist policies that do more good than harm, especially outside of the US. Most government institutions in the US and abroad are fundamentally socialist in nature–and some of them work very well (especially outside the US).
While there was once some truth to what you’ve said, I think you’re gravely over-simplifying the nature of what gives humans meaning and purpose in life. For one, it’s an extremely subjective topic, but for example, what gives me meaning has very little to do with the relationship between non-action and risk. Rather, things that have meaning for me are things I enjoy doing, and things I enjoy seeing. I don’t enjoy the thought of going out to hunt for food with hand-tools at the risk of hunger or death, maybe some people do–and if that gives them meaning, that’s fine, but that’s not how we need to live our lives.
Yes this I agree with, limits are everything. Where limits are designed is important. What I am discussing is not a program that would guarantee that everyone is capable of going out and buying a yacht. I am discussing social safety-net programs that ensure equal access to comfortable housing, enough food, good medical care, and the means to comfortably pursue a job, education, or business endeavor–and in addition, take care of those who are unable to care for themselves. At this point in our technological and social development as a species, these should be considered basics that can be guaranteed to everyone. To do this would not strip away the meaning of life, rather it would enable people to feel meaning in life and the foundation to build up greater meaning for themselves.
Some of the greatest threats to human health and life come from needs-based anxiety, and with the declining population growth rate, high degree of depression, and high rate of suicide, it’s imperative that we re-frame how we think about and treat each other.
There are many successful and beneficial implementations of socialist policies that do more good than harm, especially outside of the US. Most government institutions in the US and abroad are fundamentally socialist in nature–and some of them work very well (especially outside the US).
While there was once some truth to what you’ve said, I think you’re gravely over-simplifying the nature of what gives humans meaning and purpose in life. For one, it’s an extremely subjective topic, but for example, what gives me meaning has very little to do with the relationship between non-action and risk. Rather, things that have meaning for me are things I enjoy doing, and things I enjoy seeing. I don’t enjoy the thought of going out to hunt for food with hand-tools at the risk of hunger or death, maybe some people do–and if that gives them meaning, that’s fine, but that’s not how we need to live our lives.
Yes this I agree with, limits are everything. Where limits are designed is important. What I am discussing is not a program that would guarantee that everyone is capable of going out and buying a yacht. I am discussing social safety-net programs that ensure equal access to comfortable housing, enough food, good medical care, and the means to comfortably pursue a job, education, or business endeavor–and in addition, take care of those who are unable to care for themselves. At this point in our technological and social development as a species, these should be considered basics that can be guaranteed to everyone. To do this would not strip away the meaning of life, rather it would enable people to feel meaning in life and the foundation to build up greater meaning for themselves.
Some of the greatest threats to human health and life come from needs-based anxiety, and with the declining population growth rate, high degree of depression, and high rate of suicide, it’s imperative that we re-frame how we think about and treat each other.