Socialism or Democracy?

1. I disagree. It's forced investment. As I said, I agree with universal healthcare. What I don't agree with is 100% free tuition. I agree on cutting it by 50%, but having I I 100% free turns the government into an individual so they can invest into certain privatized companies. 2. I went to UCI but I'll be attending UCSD in Fall 2016. Although our sports team (uci) is mediocre, we still invested a lot into them. The most prominent of them all would be UCLA. Their students constantly complain about how much the school actually invests into those sports Teams. But the school actually makes a ton of money doing that. If the school became 100% government funded, that would make it 100% government property (it's labeled as a public university now, but only because they follow the regulations the government has in place. They do this so they get money from the government). So they end up losing money in the long run, because a government can't invest in private companies and hope it'll be successful because think about our government and say... Pepsi being better business buddies than they already are.... Yeahhhhh 2.5. Taxes and the greater good. I was actually talking about it being for the general public and not for the selective few. Government subsidies, although a small percentage of how the budget is dispersed, makes no sense. It's kind of the same for 100% free tuition. If it's for everyone, I don't mind doing it, but if it's selective, nah son. 3. I feel bad for thinking that way, but I doubt I'll change it.

Neither. A social-democracy is what we already have, and it is by far the best current option. Keep programs in place to help the most vulnerable in society, while allowing for people to still compete in order to make money and advance their positions in a mostly free market (with some restrictions on monopolies). The problem lies more in what will happen if we DON'T enact social policies. There are some estimates that in 20 years almost 45% of current work done by humans will be automated. There are thinktanks looking into the possibility of a "universal minimum wage" so that the economy doesn't collapse. How our children and grandchildren will exist hinges on the decisions we make as a people over the next few years. I think we've got to be really forward-thinking if we're going to handle these issues, and to me, social-democracy is the only way to deal with these upcoming challenges.

Thinktanks? Like tachikomas? I'll take two please. But joking aside, I can see automated work happening with kiosks and stuff.

Found a link that quotes almost the same figures I gave and presents the case for a guaranteed income: http://www.fastcoexist.com/3040832/world-changing-ideas/a-universal-basic-income-is-the-bipartisan-solution-to-poverty-weve-bee

@shawnji: exactly! Social democracy. You pointed out an assumption that I hadn't made clear. That the current system works, but now it's just a question of adjustment of those two factors, namely free market competition and citizen welfare, that is required to make things fair. Interesting that you brought up the future. Mass automation certainly is coming, and it will first dominate the unskilled labor sector. The repercussions for future generations? Hopefully more will go to college to become specialized. But this leads me to question: what about full mass automation? What will happen when even white collar guys are replaced? I haven't a clue, and this could very well happen before 2100. Universal income sounds...like a not good idea to me at first glance. To be honest I haven't looked at it too deeply yet. All I know is that, quite recently, Switzerland voted about 70% against it. So I'm inclined to believe it isn't fully worked out yet just how such a system would work. I'd have to read up on it more to discuss the subject any further. @sunbae: I still don't see your logic behind the government "turning into an individual". Mind clarifying? As far as your sports argument goes, you're right: for the year 2013-2014, UCLA sports teams generated approximately 35% of the school's annual revenue. But this is an extreme case, as the other UC's sports teams generated less than 10% on average. However, most of the funding for UCLA sports comes in the form of private DONATIONS. If the school were to become 100% government funded, it wouldn't matter. Donations are still accepted, as they are not vehicles for investment. Government subsidies, in the corporate world, make little sense. But in the small-business to mid-cap world? They make perfect sense. In the ultra-competitive market we have in place, any bit of assistance is a godsend in trying to setup shop. Maintaining your foothold is even harder. Taxes that go into subsidies help small business. Of course, it also goes to corporations who dont really need it but, thats how taxes work: a little bit goes to everyone. The legislation that dictates who receives subsidies certainly needs some revision though. So it really depends on which context you're looking at it. And of course tuition would be free for everyone, rich or poor. Imagine the backlash from the mid-upper class if it weren't...