Wouldn't we benefit more from a properly maintained/controlled mixture of Capitalism and Socialism?
Can Capitalism by itself take care of the poor? Capitalism does not guarantee that everyone will have access to the basic necessities of life, much less a proper, comfortable life, does it?
And what of those who have mental challenges? If they cannot function in society in such a way as to work and earn "their keep" (as I believe Capitalism would require of everyone?), then how does Capitalism purport to look after these people, or any people in society who need to looked after as a result of not being able to work?
A wealthy country with a functionally healthy economy should be able to easily look after the less fortunate or needy of said society, which is where the socialism part of the equation comes in.
Surely at least 30+ years since reading Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, remember very little, perhaps these issues were addressed in that work?
Besides, we're talking much different times some 100s of years ago, smaller communities means that most everybody knows one another, there were possibly more empathetic, caring people in those days, so the less fortunate might have been taken care of nearly automatically in comparison to today?
The reason I say that is that I know that in my grandfather's time, homeless people would travel from house to house, night after night, be given supper and a place to sleep overnight, virtually every and any household would have done the same, so the "burden" of helping these people was well distributed, which is what I mean when I say that the taking care of the less fortunate might have been more "automatic" than nowadays.
"The white man can make anything. But he does not know how to distribute it."
-Sitting Bull
Wouldn't we benefit more from a properly maintained/controlled mixture of Capitalism and Socialism?
Can Capitalism by itself take care of the poor? Capitalism does not guarantee that everyone will have access to the basic necessities of life, much less a proper, comfortable life, does it?
And what of those who have mental challenges? If they cannot function in society in such a way as to work and earn "their keep" (as I believe Capitalism would require of everyone?), then how does Capitalism purport to look after these people, or any people in society who need to looked after as a result of not being able to work?
A wealthy country with a functionally healthy economy should be able to easily look after the less fortunate or needy of said society, which is where the socialism part of the equation comes in.
Surely at least 30+ years since reading Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, remember very little, perhaps these issues were addressed in that work?
Besides, we're talking much different times some 100s of years ago, smaller communities means that most everybody knows one another, there were possibly more empathetic, caring people in those days, so the less fortunate might have been taken care of nearly automatically in comparison to today?
The reason I say that is that I know that in my grandfather's time, homeless people would travel from house to house, night after night, be given supper and a place to sleep overnight, virtually every and any household would have done the same, so the "burden" of helping these people was well distributed, which is what I mean when I say that the taking care of the less fortunate might have been more "automatic" than nowadays.