It's to address great and/or blatantly unfair inequities or possible major catastrophies... national security, economic or environmental or natural disasters that our government steps in to help it's people.
Socialism is not about addressing just certain major targeted things as they come & go. It's all inclusive. That is the difference.
When there is no financial incentive to achieve and no personal ownership things stagnate.
The question is not clear but I'll give and overall opinion on taxes. A progressive tax rate is simply the only tax rate that will work. Neither Party would ever agree to cut so much government spending that a non-progressive tax would work.
The reason why they wouldn't cut that much. You have to hack away so severely (if not eliminate) major National Security military interests and Social Security & Medicare.
The reason why you can't have a non-progressive tax system. With any realistic & necessary government spending levels the "equal" tax rate would immediately throw millions of now out of poverty people into deep deep poverty.
Unless going out of business on their own they should be privately held businesses hence cultivating inovation & competition. This does not mean that for hundreds of reasons they should not be regulated. Furthermore if they were to go out of business for some reason the American people must be delivered their product by some means.
Fascist Germany forcefully took over businesses both profitable and not profitable. In America the government is stepping in to loan money to keep PRIVATE businesses from failing TOTALLY ON THEIR OWN. This is more of a loan situation. And as any banker would say if you are going to loan you need some combination of collateral and/or stake protecting your investment.
That's what the US government is doing.
Obviously against it.
Obviously against it. Anyone with knowledge of American politics realizes that political Parties change. Not to even get into the Federalist Party, the Wig Party & the Democratic-Republican Party, at the time of Lincoln the Republicans were a more Liberal Party and the Democrats more Southern Conservative in their platforms. It's not that Party competition for ideas is bad... it's that bad ideas are bad ideas.
Do people hope that the Parties evolve in a positive manor and the good in both Parties is accentuated and the bad is diminished? Yes.
Both must be fairly balanced. Extremeisum is the enemy here. The overall public interest is important but our government was also set up to not allow the minority to be unfairly victimized by the majority.
The line should be when someone or some thing's action directly harms another against their will with special consideration given to minor children. Hence I'm against motorcycle helmet and car seat belt laws for adults... but approve of them for minors.
Enough revenue must be raised to pay for programs. And that must be done in a way that does not tremendously increase poverty hence the progressive income tax. As far a "behavior" if the "behavior" is directly negatively affecting citizens taxation is a way to try and limit "bad behavior".
Regarding Objectivism there's a lot of good to it. As with anything it is not a "perfect" philosophy. The world creates ever evolving questions and unique circumstanses. I try to look at all sides of every specific situation and then make a decision in accordance to what I understand to be the the best choice available.
