Talk:Democratic Socialism

What is the problem with combining democracy, civil liberties, and socialism? In Australia we have been doing it for years. Those on the right nibble away at one side while the left does its best to make inroads into the other. But by and large they cancel each other out. The Murdoch press carries on about the unions while the Fairfax papers slam the banks.

Whatever else happens, we're socialist (Sort of. By your standards.) I'm 72. I get a pension. So does my 67 y.o. wife. It is tax free. I can make a certain amount before this pension is reduced. We both have health issues that require drugs. Mine are the usual heart related - aspirin, beta blocker, statins etc., They cost about $5 a script until about September each year when the "safety net" kicks in then they don't cost me (or Susan) a thing till January. I get 30% off my home and property rates, and automobile registration, driving license, plus various amounts off public transport, picture theatres and the like. My local doctor, of course, is free. As is treatment at a public hospital. (And here, the public hospital system is second to none if you are really in strife.)

And every three years, Federal, and four years, State, I (we) call in at one of the local school halls and cast my (our) vote(s). It rarely takes more than 15 minutes for the four members of our family to do our civic duty. Unlike in America where you can stand out in the snow for hours, democracy here is quick and simple and easy. And almost foolproof.

And compulsory. It negates the squeaky wheel.

And none of us has been shot recently.

AlanE (talk) 01:08, 13 November 2016 (EST)

If democratic socialism works for you in Australia, then that's great. I admire the fact that you actually have border security, a system that keeps out illegal immigrants and makes people do it the right way (but the Labor Party opposed such a common-sense policy and the more conservative Liberal Party supported it [1]).

What I have against democratic socialism is what I mentioned on the article. There are so many regulations and taxes under that system (I've heard that in Denmark, for example, a middle class person has to pay half their income in taxes). Even if corporations don't have to deal with so many, there are a lot of laws that affect everyday people (the nanny State).

Also, why is it that democratic socialists strongly support abortion, homosexual "marriage", feminism, anti-homeschooling, and other socially liberal policies? Are there any democratic socialists who oppose those things? I would be much less opposed to that system if it were, at least, less connected with those policies.

In regards to your comments on gun violence and voting, why is it that the inner cities in America, which are in many cases virtual war zones, continue to see so much violence despite the large amount of gun control? In Chicago, for example, it was illegal to own a handgun until very recently, and there is still a lot of gun control in that city (and the criminals pay absolutely no attention to them). What I mean is that gun control is not the solution, it is a problem. As for compulsory voting, it does not sound like a good idea. If someone does not want to vote, for whatever reason (and I do vote, btw), they should not be forced to vote (another example of the nanny state).

You may like your system, and yes, it is much better than several others. But I do not desire to emulate it, with its regulations, social liberalism, and government involvement in daily lives of the people. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:56, 13 November 2016 (EST)