I'm a little kid so don't expect me to be that knowledgeable on these types of things. I wanna expand my horizons and see what-

-you all think. I personally think it sounds good but is it really? Please enlighten me.

Sorry the title was too long

Little kid. lol

I think it's how far does it go. Having programs to improve the society isn't inherently bad, but can you afford it, will it end and will it be used by politicians to gain power by ensnaring the population?

I mean I am pretty young for someone in a stream like this

I see. Well, I'm not talking extreme socialism like communism, but rather things like socialized healthcare and education? Is that something good or bad? To me, I think it's a good idea because healthcare and education are basic human rights, and with the current situation, not all people can get those human rights.
And I've been wondering, where does it come from? The funds for it? Taxes?

Please answer, if you will, Syd. I really wanna learn about this kind of stuff.

Well, I'm not the best to explain it properly.

Socialism worked well in small European countries, where there was low crime, a push to succeed, the majority were healthy, high tax rates but many had a decent job, family oriented, with communities sticking together. But I think of it in America, 345 million people, the young getting free higher education, which you know will cause rates to increase. More government, more corruption. Free healthcare in a country where everyone cross country skis and eats fish all day is one thing but where 50% are obese and violence etc, how long can it last? And it always seems to get progressively closer to totalitarianism. And yes, the only answer I hear from socialists is to raise taxes, although cutting the military is often mentioned, which is okay if you're willing to comprimise world power, altho military waste is rampant. So I think the size of a country plays a role. Canada is still fairly small and benefits off some socialist policies, so far.

Sorry, wish I could give you more.

Thanks!

Ah, I see! And it's alright, Syd, that was a decent explanation

Not really.

There must be decent websites getting into it but I can't offer a recommendation.

Ohh but that's alright! I still learned something new

Things like socialized medicine and healthcare are just capitalism with benefits.

Socialism is very simply when the government owns the means of production. Nothing wrong at first glance, except that it only works when the government is incorruptible. A very difficult goal to achieve. Capitalism has security, but can always be better. Socialism is great, but only done right. And it is VERY difficult to get right.

I think a little capitalism is required to keep socialism from descending into communism, and a little socialism is required to keep capitalism from descending into plutocracy.

That's a middle ground fallacy. It's irrational to want a balance between capitalism and communism when communism is the system that is already a complete balancing of wealth. Plutocracy is a bad term to use in politics because governments are always rich. However, if we get a rich communist like Bernie Sanders, we can all achieve financial equality. You need to understand that socialism is only the bridge between communism and capitalism, meaning that socialists want only partial economic intervention. Most Americans are socialists. The only capitalists left are the anarcho-capitalists who are mostly found in the Libertarian Party, and there are some communists in the Democratic Party, including many recent presidential candidates, and maybe politicians like Obama would fall around the edge of communism.

I disagree. The middle ground fallacy assumes the truth is always in the middle, because it's the middle. I'm saying that I personally prefer the middle in this particular case, because I don't share the values of either communists or plutocrats.

The middle ground fallacy is not just about preferring the middle simply for the sake of preferring the middle, but also about logical inconsistency. For example, if you can't decide upon your stance on abortion, you just propose that coinflips should be used to determine whether a pregnant woman is worthy of getting an abortion. If you want to be logically consistent, you should make up your mind on whether you want an unregulated market where rich people ruin everything or a society where everyone shares the same wealth. Any in-between would mean that the rich people get to ruin the economy partially.

I disagree. You're committing a false dilemma fallacy.

TOO MANY FALLACIES

(This is probably also some kind of fallacy)

Is the false dilemma fallacy the same as the black & white fallacy? I think a false dilemma would be more like deciding on whether you want olives or mushrooms on your pizza when in reality, nothing is stopping you from getting both. Being a political centrist is more like choosing between drinking a cup of poison and not drinking a cup of poison, and then saying "I only want half a cup of poison". What makes one form of redistribution justifiable when another form thereof is not justifiable?

In communism, the rich government destroys the economy