I think many systems of government try to uphold those principles through different welfare programs and training programs. Considering the idea that we in the US have a system that is sort of cross between a republic and a socialist government already, do you think moving to an even more socialist form of government through the policies you noted, necessitate even more government involvement, not only in limiting the corporate influences, but also in our personal lives?
You've confused popular politics with actual moral-political philosophy.Socialism
: the moral-political philosophy that claims equality as the basic ideal and justifies coercion insofar as it promotes equality (developed by the Ancient Greeks, most notably Plato, and revived by Marx & Lenin).Republicanism
: a.k.a, civic humanism, where the state is secured form the blows of fortune by its (male) citizens' devotion to its well-being. They should take turns ruling and being ruled, be always prepared to fight the republic, and limit their private possessions, is considered the most serious threat to the republic. Such men should possess a wholly secular virtu
because corruption, in the form of excessive attachment to private interest, is valued the most serious threat to the republic (developed by the Ancient Romans and revived and further developed by Machiavelli, James Harrington, Montesquieu; it was further modified by British & Continental philosophers, who strongly influenced founding fathers like Jefferson and Adams).
Republicanism, properly defined, is clearly a "lesser evil" than socialism, properly defined.
The proper name for what you're aiming at is Welfare Liberalism
: In contradistinction to classical liberalism (what we now call libertarianism,cf. Locke, Nozick et al), where constraints on liberty are viewed as positive acts that prevent people from doing what they otherwise could with two corollaries: (1) failing to help those in need does not restrict their liberty (2) protection (by the state) is minimal (a "night watchman" only). Welfare Liberalism
(cf. T.H. Green, Rawls et al), on the other hand, contends that constraints on liberty are negative acts that prevent people from doing what they otherwise could with two corollaries: (1) Failing to help the needy restricts their liberty (2) the justification of coercion is extended to include requiring a guaranteed social minimum and equal opportunity (don't confuse this last corollary with socialism proper).
So, what does any of this have to with the Buddha-Dhamma?
mindfullmom wrote:For those that responded to the questions, if you don't align with any party, who have you voted for in the past?
Why is it important for you to know this?