The Fundamental Problem of Socialism

[bobevenson]

The fundamental problem of socialism is the government forcibly taking money from one person to give to somebody else, an act a citizen would be thrown in jail for doing.

[FlashDangerpants]

an act a citizen would be thrown in jail for doing.

Is that a useful measure? The state does lots of things a citizen would be thrown in jail for (such as throwing people in jail).

[bobevenson]

an act a citizen would be thrown in jail for doing.

Is that a useful measure? The state does lots of things a citizen would be thrown in jail for (such as throwing people in jail).

Can't defend your fucking socialist government, huh?

[FlashDangerpants]

Can't defend your fucking socialist government, huh?

Let's start with you sorting your argument out.

Is it your claim that no government should ever take any action that a private citizen is not allowed to?
That is the only basis you have provided for the claim that socialism is bad.

I don't need, nor can I be arsed, to defend anything you aren't sensibly objecting to.

[bobevenson]

My argument as expressed in my opening post awaits your counterargument, if any.

[Hobbes' Choice]

The fundamental problem of socialism is the government forcibly taking money from one person to give to somebody else, an act a citizen would be thrown in jail for doing.

All money is granted by the state and they reserve the right to distribute it as they see fit. This is not an issue of socialism; capitalism does the same thing.
Next time you look at a coin or note, please PAY ATTENTION.

If you don't like it, don't use it.
Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.

[FlashDangerpants]

My argument as expressed in my opening post awaits your counterargument, if any.

Ok then.

All states take money from people and give it to other people.

All states must do things that a private individual is prohibited from doing, such as jailing criminals and transporting explosives. It is indeed the point of a state to do these things, and to deny others the right to do them.

Therefore your argument that Socialist government is worse than other types of government because it takes money from people, and that citizens would go to jail for doing the same reduces to: The problem with socialist government is that it is government.

That was really very easy.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

The fundamental problem of socialism is the government forcibly taking money from one person to give to somebody else, an act a citizen would be thrown in jail for doing.

The problem with 'socialism' is that morons like you complain about it endlessly but can't define it and don't even know what it means. I used to argue this with a moron on another site who was just like you. A yank, bloated with consumption, greedy littly piggy eyes glinting, whining non-stop about how he EARNED HIS MONEY, and no Govt. had the right to take ANY of it for all those miserable loser bastards who use the hospitals, schools, roads etc. etc. that HE PERSONALLY paid for with all his hard work sitting on his pink, lardy arse at a computer all day.

[FlashDangerpants]

Bob doesn't talk much about earning his money though. Perhaps this is because the government takes money from other people to give to him.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Bob doesn't talk much about earning his money though. Perhaps this is because the government takes money from other people to give to him.

He thinks his veteran's pension is different somehow.

[mickthinks]

The fundamental problem of Evenson is that he believes his worldview is the way the world really is. Thus his confirmation bias cannot be bias but must be solid proof that everyone else is a fool. Discuss (but not with Bob because he can't).

[Trajk Logik]

The fundamental problem of socialism is the government forcibly taking money from one person to give to somebody else, an act a citizen would be thrown in jail for doing.

No. The fundamental problem with socialism isn't that it takes money from one to give to another. That is only an effect of their fundamental problem. Their problem is that they want to take away your liberty in an effort to make all outcomes for everyone equal. They have this notion that resources are infinite, not limited, and don't understand that if all resources were divided equally among citizens of the world, each person would only get about $16,000 with only a fraction of that being in the form of cold-hard cash. So the end-result of socialism is that everyone is poor, and the destruction of an incentive to do better.

This comes out to be about $8/hr, yet they claim they want to raise the minimum wage to $15/hr which comes out to be about $30,0000/ yr., which is twice as much than the equal amount everyone should get if all resources were divided equally. In other words, this idea to raise the minimum wage will be detrimental to the poor because it will take money from the poor more than the rich because the rich don't shop at, or use the services of people who make minimum wage. They use professionals that already make more than minimum wage. The poor are the ones who use these services and products that will just skyrocket in costs - because the business must pass this cost down to the consumer or else go out of business - leaving the inner city without any products or services.

The fundamental problem of the socialist is that he has his mind full of this idealist notion they have a monopoly on good intentions. They believe that the results of their ideas don't count. Their "good" intentions of making everyone equal is what matters. What they seem to not realize is that in order to achieve their end result, the state would have to take complete control of procreation and the raising of the children. Everyone will born from the same stock of DNA and be raised in the exact same conditions. They don't seem to realize that inequality stems from what your nature (DNA) and your nurturing (or lack of it) make you to be as an adult.

[mickthinks]

[Socialists] want to take away your liberty in an effort to make all outcomes for everyone equal.
Er ... no they don't.

They have this notion that resources are infinite, not limited, ...
Er ... no they haven't.

... if all resources were divided equally among citizens of the world, each person would only get about $16,000 ...
Er ... no they wouldn't.

So the end-result of socialism is that everyone is poor ...
Er ... no it isn't

[The end-result of socialism is] the destruction of an incentive to do better.
No, that is complete bollocks too.

Sorry, couldn't be arsed to read any more of your mistaken opinions pronounced ex-cathedra, Trajk.

[henry quirk]

If socialism is simply community ownership (and control) of everything (beginning with economics, extending into the cultural), then there's nuthin' wrong with that...as long no one dissents.

Primitives, like myself, have a problem allowing folks to co-own, co-control, co-direct, resources such primitives harvest or produce for themselves. Primitives, like me, are all for the transaction, the mutally agreed upon 'this for that' and take a dim view of third parties dicking around with those transactions. Such primitives have the backward view a human individual should self-direct, -rely, -defend, and -possess; should transact and contract; should attend to his own affairs, leave others to theirs, and expects others to do the same.

So: socialism (or communitarianism in general) is not problematic; socialist (and communitarians in general) are not the issue...no, the problem, the nub, the burr, is the person, like me, who sez 'no' to utopia, the enlightenment, to the Brave New World.

[mickthinks]

Okay, but when did you last produce or harvest any resource entirely without the input or cooperation of anyone else, Henry? Show me such a resource and I'll show you what the rest of of society has no claim on.