The only "problem" with socialism is that it is meant to "correct" the usual natural selection process, which capitalism would reflect so precisely if it were not for ownership and the inheritance of past superiority.
Socialism is a more softer form of Communism, which is no more than Christianity minus the authority of a divine entity (God).
In its place the State is raised as the supreme authority.
The "believer" turns to a "party member" and "sin" is converted to "criminality" or disloyalty to the party.
In more recent times and because of the indoctrination, brain-washing, institutionalization, education, caused by the Cold War, the communist ideals either revert back to their origins in Religion or they take-on new monikers, like: New age, or Modernity, or Democracy or Venus Project, or Humanism or Liberalism or Feminism or Egalitarianism.
It all amounts to the same uniforming shit and it all proposes an anti-nature, nihilism with a twist.
The "twist" consists in that it proposes annihilation, leveling, but consciousness is retained...reflecting the christian doctrine which proposes death with an after-life to make it more digestible.
'Anti-nature"? You are confused.
Surprisingly, I agree with you, just a tiny bit, hellforged one, in that there is something confusing about Satyr's notion of "nature". Nature encompasses all that we are, and it can't be "corrected", though it's in our human nature to try.
Having said that, I would like to point out that if you disregard the often relentless stream of insults pouring out of Satyr, it's perfectly possible to engage in an actual discussion about real issues with him. He has a standpoint as well as a viewpoint. I don't care for it, but he has one. You, on the other hand, have yet to define where you stand. I noticed that you didn't answer my latest post in your thread "Socialists are egomaniacs without a clue" so I repeat it here:
No, because the statement "no one owns me" means that the person has no right to assert anything on his own behalf.
How do you come to that conclusion? It sounds like nonsense to me. Just like ownership implies two separate entities, speaking on someboy's behalf implies that you are speaking for somebody else. I am me. I don't need to "own" me to speak for me.
If the real meaning of the statement is "no one owns me, but me," then it would be okay.
As far as I'm concerned there is no difference between the statements "no one owns me" and "no one owns me, but me" because the addition of "but me" makes no sense.
How can you jump to owning what you produce if you don't own yourself first?
Because if you work, it's you who do the work. How hard can it be?
A slave owner owns the wealth created by the slave.
Only if you acknowledge the ownership, the right to own another person in the first place.
A landlord owns the rents from people living on his property.
Only if you acknowledge the ownership, the right to own land in the first place.
A musician gets money from the sales of his song because he is the owner of the song.
Only if you acknowledge the ownership, the right to own an idea in the first place.
What justifies the recipient receiving the wealth in every case is the person owns the property creating the wealth. Therefore, applying the same principle to a person, the person owns himself, which is why the person owns the fruits of his labor.
You don't seem to realise that ownership is a much weaker bond. The slave owner, the landlord and the musician can claim ownership, a bond that binds the slave, the land and the song to them respectively. This bond is artificial and exists only as long as others acknowledge it. The bond can be severed and what is owned removed from them. A person has no use for self-ownership, an artificial bond, because he is
himself and can't be removed from himself.