[rmnunez]

I'd suppose you think mere reference to those names ought to be evidence enough of the lack of seriousness with which conservatives regard politics and that none of them would be a good example of sensible limitation or pursuit of any greater good. Objectify these conclusions in a manner I can materially compare them with a better, more sensible and beneficial socialistic alternative.

This lefty-promoted perspective or worldview is like all ideologies, it explains everything and is of universal application -for those who accept its doctrine. For the rest of us, its just another ideology and if we are honest, not quite as valid, soundly-premised or with as much accomplishment, as our own and different perspectives.

It turns out lefty leaders also have clay feet, are just as susceptible to greed and avarice, as covetuous and nepotistic as their conservative counterparts. Power corrupts even the lefty and there’s Chavez front and center to prove it.

My difference with lefty perspectives is in their presumptions on human nature where I don’t see the willingness to share leftism requires. I suspect to share the wealth there will have to be some violence and you never know how far things will go, irreperable harm could result. So I don’t favour this revolutinary socialist crap regardless of what you call it.

The welfare state is a sop. Weak income-redistributing schemes have proven inadequate palliatives to diminish the strength of demands for some sort of adjustment or accomodation, but government services are costly to provide and at some point taxpayers are driven away or lose the capacity to contribute.

In many EU countries which had their defense budgets covered by the US in NATO, governments applied tax revenues first to improving infrastructure and then in a variety of social schemes that provide for the citizens from craddle to grave without regard to race, creed, age, gender, socio-economic background, nationality or ability.

This costs a bundle and in the EU is paid for with taxes, but not everyone has the unique advantages particularly western EUers have enjoyed; they have a lengthy history of fiscalization and public spending, they are relatively wealthy and they did have that US help subsidizing military expenditures for so long.

Now EUers have the closest thing to socialist success in several member states, all much more generous and widespread than any public services in the US and elsewhere. But this comes at a cost, Scandinavian countries have prohibitive taxes and costly regulations. The government is in everything, initiative is stiffled, the hurdles to overcome regulations are becoming insurmountable and the demands on the social system have grown exponentially. Declining birth rates, ageing populations and erosion of productivity signals their impending doom, as they become fraught with problems over immigration and struggle to add another layer of bureaucracy and regulations to the already overburdened taxpayers.