Life was made easier for you, but at what cost?

If you were made to work very hard for school, meaning you had to work full time and pay for it yourself… take out a loan... whatever, you still would have been able complete your education.

In the US, poor people go to Universities all the time. They just pay for it with loans, private grants, or working through school (how I did it).

With the system you are in, you got a few easier years, only to now pay for that education the rest of your life. If you follow in your father’s footsteps (making a 6 figure income), you will end up paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for that education. That’s money you could use to better your family, feed people with through charities, improve your standard of living, etc…

I never said capitalism isn’t hard, but what it does do, is reward you for your successes. Socialistic programs rewards complacency, by punishing those that succeed.

To be fair the United Kingdom is like 6 times smaller than the US in just about every way.

European economy -Yes, plenty of proof, because it is n http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

Individual european economies - No, because there is no proof, because they aren't

	Country	GDP (millions of USD)
	World	60,689,812
	European Union	18,394,115
	United States	14,264,600

That's grand. Did you know that in 1900 Australia was sitll a colony to the UK? I think I'm looking at the same data. Also do you realize Europe owned all of Africa and all that GDP and gain should be added in? Between slavery trade, precious metals, etc. and the industry at home, Europe was far far more prospsrous at the begigning of WWI than the US was.

vlad - Provide some hard data.

Look, I understand that and I like the capitalism system because of that. I just think that education benefits from being socialised, that's all. It's not like I want to deny peoples rights to be rewarded for their hard work, or have everyone earning the same despite what they do. I support a free market and so on, I support a capitalist economy. I'm just saying that there are one or two factors where I don't think capitalism works all that well. Healthcare and education are two of them. To me it makes as much sense as privatising the police force or the fire brigade.

Also it doesn't reward complacency in these closed cases where the greater good is helping those in need of help. If it wasn't for medicaid I would imagine half of Americans would be in dire need of healthcare, but can't afford suitable insurance, etc...

Erm, no it doesn't, not in this country, any way. In the UK, the police is seperate, above, and equal to the Government in power and authority. Hell, there isn't even a UK-wide high-level police force (like the FBI). The control of the military is a power of the Queen, which she exclusively uses only when told - so the PM does have an air of power, here. But both Labour and Conservative (so no matter who wins the next election) are going to be changing this in the next few years, and soon, the power of the military will be at Parliaments control, removing more power from the Government.

In the UK, the Government cannot legally do those things, either. Death sentences are abolished, and this cannot be undone (due to EU legislation). Both the executive and the legislature are subject to the judiciary, so, if you feel that your rights are being infringed on, set fourth in the Human Rights Act, you can go to court and get something done about it. The Government can take away your land - but they have to pay for it, any other form of property is (I think) protected by the HRA.

1925 was the height of the British Empire, we held about a quater of the Earth (in both population and landmass, so, resources). Since then, we've declned to our small little country, and our population has dropped from about half a billion, to 60 million.

Since 1925, the US has grown in landmass (accession of Hawaii and Alaska (resource-rich Alaska, one adds)), and the population has grown from around 120 million to 300 million.

All things considered, that stat just shows how well the UK has done.

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZgFu2p5uogwC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=GDP+from+african+colonies+1900&source=bl&ots=5DdpRDxDsT&sig=_m3BzlM_duHiIE1mG9QE7w49xa8&hl=en&ei=KHTvSfzIN57EtAPpzODnAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPA3,M1

The best i could find given the fact I don't wanna get fired from work.

If you look this is before WWII. And even then, the GDP of colonies of the UK was just as much as the UK itself. UK is the only one of the powers that was actually able to keep its most profitable colonies, like India, while just about all other powers lost theirs due to the turbulance and loss of control during WWI. Also in your data where you got the 1900 not only was Australia also separate, but wasn't India as well? Overall the European GDP an their colonies was probably higher.

 I love this analogy. It makes you think. Or at least it should.

The way i see it, it is the Government's job to protect people's lives. That means when you are sick, you should be able to go to a hospital and get treatment without having to worry about having the financial privileges that other people have.

I mean it's ludicrous that in America healthcare isn't 'free'.