How do you account for philanthropy and charitable donations and private groups who administer programs in their particular interest? People economically vote (for lack of a better way of putting it) in this way, too, by spending extra income and time toward these endeavors. They choose what interests them.
isnt that almost starting to happen now with welfare and the incredible efficiency of modern production I guess that is the fundamental question my whole issue is regardless of whether you agree with capitalism or socialism or a mix of both isn't it inevitable that socialism and social programs in general would flood the government because of certain economic interest mainly the middle class and poor people simply voting in their interest.If this is the case then could one logically make the argument at given how reality is down with resources and human labor in the necessity of government that socialism is the only outcome possible with maybe some gradient notion of private property still existing possibly private property meaning businesses and capital
Higher taxes and governmental control over these matters is less efficient and would stifle this large segment of the economy, no? I'm of the opinion that individuals want to say where their resources go and not have a governmental agency take that choice away. I don't believe that socialism is inevitable because there are other proven ways of administering social programs.
I think you're right in observing that this is the direction our federal government is heading, and has been for 200 years. In 1800 there were 4 cabinet positions. In 1900 there were 8, and today I think the number is 24. Not the way I prefer it to be, but obviously the trend it to identify a social issue and then create a whole Administrative arm of government to eff it up.
Edited by snafu, 27 April 2017 - 07:44 AM.