Socialism, with the rise of Bernie Sanders as a politician, has been a hot topic of controversy. The majority of arguments are fallacious, but the valid ones are excellent.
One of the main arguments is simple — it is just, “What’s so bad about socialistic reformation?”
Unfortunately this is one of the arguments with a severe lack of validity. This question shifts the responsibility of knowledge of socialism to the opposition. Anyone arguing in favor of socialism cannot use this as a valid token of rhetorical checkmate because they are the ones seeking a change, to have government enforcement of economic action, as opposed to their counterpart, capitalism, that requires no enforcement.
In other words, socialism has prerequisites of governmental interference of the economy, which is the part that should be substantively justified in order to prove that the reformation is favorable for the whole, individual, or both.
When it all boils down, a justification is needed for the change, not for the continuation, of the current economic system.
Joshua Morissette
Winslow
Copy the Story LinkSend questions/comments to the editors.
Success. Please wait for the page to reload. If the page does not reload within 5 seconds, please refresh the page.
Enter your email and password to access comments.
Hi, to comment on stories you must . This profile is in addition to your subscription and website login.
Already have a commenting profile? .
Invalid username/password.
Please check your email to confirm and complete your registration.
Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or login first for digital access. Here’s why.
Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.