What's being liberal? What's being socialist. I'm a UK Conservative who feels liberal and don't want to switch sides given it means switching over to a Socialist so feel centre right's better than hard left. But what of centre left? Not a nanny state but a freedom movement that looks out than in, that looks forward instead of living in the past. That doesn't try to dictate to me, hence why I'm not switching sides here in the UK from centre right any time soon.
Socialism is nationalising things, like healthcare and transport. Liberalism is legalising recreational marijuana, it's freedom, not a command economy.
The key difference for me, ideologically is... Liberalism is the right of the one outweighs the rights of the many. Socialism is the right of the many outweigh the rights of the one.
I can't help it if I like freedom. If being a UK Conservative means I'm not a Socialist, then I'm not a Socialist. <- Still a Tory while Labour is the only other serious answer though; 'for shaaaame UK', for shhhaaaammme!
Liberalism in its earliest form, before collectivist cooped it, was about small government, free markets, and individualism.
No it isn't. Was Heath socialist when he nationalised Rolls Royce? Socialism encompasses numerous schools of thought, from Christian to Marxist. Ultimately it describes how economic efficiency and equity go hand in hand.
Heath did what!? I never knew that. The Bastard! .. I guess you're going to thank it for that deal with Boeing engines?
I guess I'm going to refer to socialism correctly! Nationalisation is often for the public good (e.g. utilities and natural monopolies), but it isn't a sufficient criteria for socialism.
It's bad for two reasons, and one the reasons you said; Monopoly; Nationalisation creates a monopoly owned for and paid for by the public. The other reason is a reaction resulting from all that state owned service is that the state then gets 'lumbered' (for lack of a better word) with the responsibilities and the costs gets taxed for by the public making us all share holders in something that's a state run monopoly, which again, is big government giving Westminster one more thing to worry about. The less the government has to do the more we can do for ourselves.
No it doesn't. You can't create a monopoly through nationalisation. It either exists or it doesn't. It exists with utilities because of significant economies of scale. Evidence shows otherwise. National health care, for example, is found to be more efficient than market orientated 'solutions' (using DEA or stochastic frontier methods). You can also burrow down into the specifics. British Rail, for example, was found to be much more efficient in its investments.
When the state control everything - they tax the people to pay for it making us all shareholders of, if it wasn't for BUPA for example, what would otherwise be a monopoly.
Nope. Take two examples: Royal Mail and the water companies. Would nationalisation create monopoly? Nope. For Royal Mail there continues to be numerous competitors. For Water there is already a natural monopoly, reflecting the impact of fixed costs on economies of scale. You don't understand the basic economics.
I understand economy types and political systems and those economy types Socialist countries like to adopt with their Command Economy Vs. the UK which has a mixture of Free Trade Economy and Command Economy and feel NHS is enough is enough. I swear to God however, I assumed through word of mouth that The French, I.E, some French company, not British, but French company own all our water; I assumed it goes; France own all my water; I pay France for a bath, and Russia own all my gas, and, I fear a war with them would leave me with a cold bath the French sold me water for... But what can I say except, free trade and who's **** can I buy?
Clearly you don't. Your argument on monopoly was just wrong. You've added to that error with reference to command economy. National health care has nothing to do with a command economy. It's a simple reference to public and merit good provision. Note that such systems are also found to be more efficient. Privatisation of a natural monopoly is the height of economic stupidity. Conservatism for you...
Just saying; at this point, your arguments are now bringing me a source of amusement, and joy, and, as fun as this tit for tat can be, I can't seem to get through to you and everything you say, I don't believe and regard the NHS as Socialism.
The NHS represents provison of public good. There is no need to refer to socialism. You can just refer to neoclassical economics. Would socialists utilise national health care? Certainly. That's economic efficiency for you!
We know that national health care is more efficient. This is tested through methods such as DEA and stochastic frontier
You care about efficiency like turning life into an assembly line automating everything and having it state owned. We are human beings once born free, more government just makes the state decide everything and taxes you for it while giving the state one more thing to worry about.
Why not privately invest into something that gives BUPA a run for their money and elevates load off of the NHS, like another private healthcare, and get some real competition in, then let's get a couple more non profit organisations too who could come from any walk of society if they want to start a health service.
Efficiency is used here to refer to inputs and outputs (the latter referring to quality and quantity of service).