Hiro posted while I was writting this. It's 6:30AM and I'm tired and I go to bed, I'll read and respond later. Excuse me for the typo and the like.
While you're not wrong, what you're describing is universal. I'd say it's even worse in socialist countries, where if you start moving up, you clearly have more than you need and should behave accordingly.
First of all, you're thinking in a black and white fashion. Most of Europe, if not all of Europe, is capitalist. You can have capitalism with some kind of government intervention, it doesn't make it socialism.
Some big differences between America and some more leftist country, like France for example, is that people know that their children have access to a good education and, would they choose to go to college, the fee wouldn't so high they couldn't go. Also they know that, should something happen on the health level, it wouldn't completely destroy their family by making them go bankrupt. This 2 insurances give them a good hope that their children may go up in the social ladder, despite them being poor. Having a society where people know their children can "go up" socially is usually something you want, because it reduces the feelings of injustice lower social classes may have and thus reduce criminality and the like.
Again, this issue is practically universal, and it comes from unpredictable change (economics, etc) coming faster than deliberate ones, like those made by the government, as well as likely pressure from businesses, etc. I definitely wouldn't say that people don't care. That said, common goals are one thing, but people aren't obliged to be "united" in anything. They're individuals before they're citizens, and people are generally united in smaller groups over many different things. Personally, I take something like that as reassuring, as it means people are shaping a more unique identity for themselves instead of being defined by the immediate and obvious, as in previous generations.
But people should realise that it's in their own interest to be united as a "nation", so to say, on some point. The fact is that businesses and rich people have a lot of leverage, due to their resources. If the poorer, less powerful people want a chances to have their voices heard, they have to band together to amass enough power to have their claim heard.
Not seeing that is, in fact, being obvious
On the contrary. I think the reason we're starting to see so much more anti-goverment, etc rhetoric is because people are more educated than ever about the world around them, politics, economics, and growth, which gives them a greater understanding of not only why things are the way they are, but that they should be better. Granted, I do feel that many people are willing victims or ignorant, but that generally stems from more left wing types, I find.
When anti-government gain power, it's a bad sign, because it means that the government is doing a sloppy job. His job being to take care of his citizen.
Human will always need to live in society. This means needing rules to live together and the need to have a government to enforce them. Society can't exist without a government of some sort. People spouting anti-government nonsense are usually, I find, blind to the real causes of their problem and use the anti-government things like some other people use racism to make a situation seems easier by putting all the blame on someone. So I don't share your view on this issue.
I'd like to highlight this
Granted, I do feel that many people are willing victims or ignorant, but that generally stems from more left wing types, I find.
This kind of black and white thinking is a typical problem that stop yourself from finding a solution. "Duh, left-wing people are dumb" mentality isn't a good one, because it makes you look down on every thing they say without even considering it. They may not be right on everything, but neither are you. In every debate I see about the American politics, everyone go from one extreme to an other : "nanny-state" versus no state. "socialist" vs "liberal" or whatever. That's a real problem, because you may only be "united" to a smaller group that your whole country but you gotta live with all the people in your country, or at least your state, since you're all under the same lawn and politician. So you gotta be united with everyone from time to time.
Of course. They have a culture of lies, a corrupt government, a dysfunctional economic structure, are in a state of perpetual growth despite the fact that they can't accommodate it fast enough, and are exploited, and are forced into obligation then worked to death. If it doesn't come in our lifetime (it might.) Things are definitely going to get dicey before it comes, and I'd definitely say that almost the entire world is due for a similar measure.
Here I also disagree. People aren't being let down by their government as much in Western Europe. France has a huge young unemployment level but still give them money so they can eat and still take care of the old people so they don't die in the street. Countries have to really be in the real shit to begin to have an approach similar to the US on social services.
One of the main point of having a country is that, if you stick together with more people, life becomes easier because everyone is making a small sacrifice that could maybe help you a great deal. I feel like the US miss the point.
While I don't really care about all that beef with Hiro, what you describe towards the end is symptomatic of the times we live in, where nothing seems to be working, so we'll cling to anything that "might" work. Again, this is universal.
You missed my point. My point is that the US does seem to be able to have a cold-headed debate while taking things with a grain of salt, think not only in absolute but also in shades of grey and so on.
Currently political debate I saw felt more like people yelling their truth and whoever yelled the strongest win. This is not a global thing.
As an aside, is the tax rate in socialist countries really 60%? Because that's fucking disgusting.
No it's not. Also taxe rate is usually progressive. Like, for example (totally made up number), if you make 1 million per year, the first 100'000 will be taxed at 10%, then the following 500'000 at 13% and so on or something like that.