Communism and Socialism
- Thread starter Duke
- 256 comments
- 10,730 views
- 10,832
Socialists are not into hard work, the "high road", as it were. They are into being taken care of, into letting someone else do the work, while they sit back and reap the benefits. For instance, poor people are always more prone to vote socialist because they know that is the way for them to have the best life. If left to their own devices they will fail and be poor. The notion of hard work and goals is totally offensive to them so they vote for the candidate that tells them that they shouldn't have to work to live, that the people who already have done that owe them something, that they are entitled to have things provided for them by someone else. The candidate promises to take things away from others and give it away to the people who didn't work for it. Meanwhile, the people who did work for what they have get robbed by the big legal crime ring, socialist government.
If you **** up your life don't come crying to me about it. I have my family to take care of, and myself. I have no desire to pay for the drug rehab of some loser I've never met. I have no desire to feed someone elses kids because the government tells me I have to.
Charity is great. Voluntary charity. Socialists are the most pessimistic of all. They beleive that without the coersion of a handful of men in suits everybody will starve and die, that humans are inherently bad. Libertarian Capitalists are optimists. We believe that every human being has the potential to thrive in the world. We believe that it is not necessarily easy, and that it should not be easy, as Socialists want to make it. Accomplishment, achieving goals, and even failing, and learning... these are what make life worth living at all, not some untenable promise that your pathetic existence, no matter how detrimental to society, no matter how destructive and ugly, is entitled to everything you envy.
If you **** up your life don't come crying to me about it. I have my family to take care of, and myself. I have no desire to pay for the drug rehab of some loser I've never met. I have no desire to feed someone elses kids because the government tells me I have to.
Charity is great. Voluntary charity. Socialists are the most pessimistic of all. They beleive that without the coersion of a handful of men in suits everybody will starve and die, that humans are inherently bad. Libertarian Capitalists are optimists. We believe that every human being has the potential to thrive in the world. We believe that it is not necessarily easy, and that it should not be easy, as Socialists want to make it. Accomplishment, achieving goals, and even failing, and learning... these are what make life worth living at all, not some untenable promise that your pathetic existence, no matter how detrimental to society, no matter how destructive and ugly, is entitled to everything you envy.
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
Do I resent Paris Hilton? Not in the slightest. She didn't choose to be born into her situation any more than I asked to be born into mine, or you asked to be born into yours, or some poor Central American barrio child asked for that.
I can't say I respect Paris Hilton, but I definitely do not resent her.
But wait: which is it? Are these attacks the result of Al Quaeda, or aren't they?
If they are, then we were justified in invading Iraq. If they aren't, then the Spanish gave up for no reason. You decide: which way do you want it?
Either way, Spain sent a very clear message: scare the piss out of us, and we'll do whatever you want.
- 19,311
- Inland Empire SoCal
- SOLID_LIFTERS
I agree. I can only cringe as to what countries they're going to target next. Since the bombing worked so well against Spain, this will increase to other countries that might be waning from the war on terrorism. I sense Canada might be next.
I can't believe that Spain would appear so cowardly. I thought they had more pride than that.
- 10,832
As is becoming the case not only with Spain, they are European first. And all of continental Europe is going the way of the weak. Maybe after their thousands of years of history they are just tired. All great cultures and civilizations eventually succomb to time. Perhaps it is Europe's time.
- 19,311
- Inland Empire SoCal
- SOLID_LIFTERS
Yes, that might be possible, b]milefile[/b]. What if all European countries disappear? What would it become? A new country under one rule of government? They already have the money system in place with the Euro. What shall we call this new country? The United Territories of Europe, (UTE)? That, or Bonerland.
That just cracked me up major.
- 1,008
That's not necessarily true, infact I believe that to be an extremely naive statement. Just because people want equality and such doesnt make them lazy, the thing is you need a balance between Capitalism and Socialism, because extremes of either one are bad (Im sure we can all agree on that), the difference is Socialism is a people's movement, its an Idea of the unions to make life wasier for the working class, because without the working class capitalism cannot work. (You need industry before you can have commerce, I realise this is becoming less and less the reality but one way or another you need resources before you can make/sell something.) I don't like to consider myself either a capitalist or a socialist (acutally Im a capitalist in daily life but when talking about society as a whole I probablly swing more to the left) and would like to think I have an objective point of view. As far as I can see or have learned capitalism has its many shortfalls if you are not one of the lucky people making all the money.
What I mean to say is, you're trying to tell me that just because someone doesnt have a university degree and such means they do less work? Just because someone can't afford to live in the high-end of town and trade on Wall St. and the Nasdaq they are doing less work than the people building the infrastructure for commerce? If you honestly believe that capitalism is good for everyone you're in my opinion extremely naive. Capitalism only ever works in rich 1st world countries where there is a strong industrial base to work from, and even then whether or not it works is debatable. Capitalism can and will, only ever favour those with money to begin with because it simply becomes to hard for a less fortunate person to climb the ranks of society without government subsidisation (sp?). This is what I'm trying to get at. It' all well and good to say capitalism is great look at all the freedom we have in our country. But think about this, will you ever be spending sunday brunch freely with the big end of town?
- 13,827
- Down under
Spains new currency 👎
Edit: Although it must be noted O-sam is not the same as the Hadjj.
///M-Spec
Staff Emeritus
- 4,928
Focus your objective point of view on this concept: capitalism is designed to be fair, not equitable. The system is designed to reward ability. Socitalism is designed to reward need.
Say two men are in a foot race. Under capitalism, the one who is faster will win the race. That is a fair rule, but it is not equal. Under socialism, the one who is faster is made to carry more weight under both runners run at the same pace, and they both win. This is equal, but is it fair?
There are two problems with this sentance. 1) It is not a shortfall if your system is designed around fairness. 2) Wealth is not a static fixed thing, like a pizza or a stack of coins. No one can "make all the money." That is a very naive concept.
Once again, check your premises. Capitalism is not designed so everyone is guaranteed to make the same amount. People have different levels of ability. Therefore, under capitalism they receive different levels of reward.
Disagree strongly. South Korea, Malaysia and India are very good examples of countries that have quickly industrialized from a simple agrarian economy to strong contenders in the global market as major export countries with very skilled labor forces. India in particular has enjoyed a huge growth in its economy since the government de-regulated and quit messing with key industries in the early 90s.
Disagree strongly. My parents are a perfect example of why that is wrong. They came to the States in their late 20s, barely spoke English, no money, had 6 years of non-american college experience between them and had very little in the way of job skills. They now own their own company that does 15-20 million dollars worth of business annualy, own a very nice home on top of a hill, drive nice cars and pay income tax in the top 3 percentile. They are a shining example of what hard work can acheive in a country like the United States and they are not the first immigrants to do so.
Come again?
M
- 10,832
No. I'm not saying that. Nobody has said that and I'm not sure where you get that idea.
It doesn't matter what you do for a living. And in Capitalist societies no-one makes it big by going to work for someone else. Nobody gets rich working for a paycheck. It takes something more, something rarer; it takes individualism.
Well, I think it is naive to believe that government can force equality where there clearly is none.
Comments like these just make me angry. Is this what we want to be teaching our childen? Is this our perspective on the future? It is the reason I say socialists are so pessimistic. There is no faith in the individual's ability to succeed, only a cynical assumption that individuals are weak, and that the ones that aren't must be curbed and are inherently dangerous.
I have been supporting myself for thirteen years, give or take. In the beginning I used to think that things like electricity and telephone service should be automatically provided by the government. Of course I thought this because after repeatedly not paying my bill I spent most of the time with no phone. It was society's fault, capitalism's fault. I couldn't be bothered to take responsibility for my life because I was too busy reading existentialist literature in coffee houses to work full time. I was essentially a socialist snob who was too busy criticizing the world to take responsibility for my own shortcomings.
So yeah, I was poor. And now I'm not. I got my credit cleaned up. I bought a house. I've changed my life with no help from the government. I have goals to succeed and provide for my family and myself. I want property, nice cars and a big house with a big yard for my kid to play. I want to travel and have financial security. I want the freedom money makes available. So I have been working at it for years. Anyone who knew me ten years ago would not believe that I think this way now. And they also probably would envy the life I have. All because I got sick of complaining and struggling and decided to work and plan. Socialism tells people that they are un-able to do what I did, which is insulting and cynical. Socialism tells people who say it's the government's fault their phone got shut off that they are correct, and the fact that they were irresponsible and should've paid their bills is passed over completely, without mention.
To succeed in anything, including thriving in a capitalist society, you must be determined, patient, goal oriented. You also must have gratitude and humility. Life doesn't improve overnight, or even in a week. It takes hard work, a plan, and a long time. You must be able to appreciate the small advances, of which the larger goals are comprised, that are peceiveable in the shorter term. And you must not guage your success solely on the wealth of others. You must set your own standard and not be weak, looking to the "big end", or whatever, and thinking "either I am entitled to that, or they are not".
In America you have the right to mind your own business, the right to not base your politics on envy, weakness, and socialism's unique brand of vengeful injustice disguised as "equality".
The more I try to articulate my politics the more passionate and fixed the beliefs become. I'm grateful for that. What would I do without an adversary?
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
No. No, we can't all agree on that. I find that statement to be extremely naive.
But somehow it's OK to make life harder for the "white collar" class?
You also need an idea of what you can make/use/do. Everybody has muscles they can use to scratch out a bare living. What everybody does not have is an idea, knowledge, curiosity, etc. required to envision something which can be made or improved. That's why workers need an employer more than an employer needs workers. A person with an idea can always do it himself if need be. But a person who is only a set of muscles without an idea has nothing to do.
As far as I can see luck is luck the world over. But in my view, Socialism has many shortfalls if you are one of the dilligent, hardworking people who is making all the money. Which would you rather reward?
Who said that? I didn't see it. Kindly point it out.
BUT, refer to my paragraph on having an idea, above. A hardworking set of muscles will earn X amount of money. A hardworking brain will earn many times that amount.
Actually, Scoialists are either naive, or vicious, or both. Capitalism has the potential to be good for everyone. Socialism, on the other hand, has a built-in, guaranteed unfairness against a particular group of people - those who succeed.
Lets take this a step further and perhaps you will realize that you have made the classic Socialist mistake of reversing cause and effect. Let me ask you this:
What were those "rich 1st world countries" before they became rich? Where exactly did those riches come from?
Wealth does not lie around like a static commodity to be shared or hoarded. Wealth is created... by people with ideas. No one simply said "America is going to be rich," and made it so. We took two thousand years of capitalism-driven European technology and knowledge, and cranked it up to 11. So did the Europeans themselves, but their political ideas about this very action have remained a thousand years old. They still fundamentally see wealth as something of which there is a fixed amount, and which has to be taken from someone in order to be given to someone else.
Countries are not Capitalist because they are rich and powerful. They are rich and powerful to the extent that they are Capitlist.
Socialism only ever works as long as the victims agree to be victimized.
Hard work pays off. No matter how much Socialists try to ignore this fact, it remains a fact. Some people work harder than others. Some people work smarter than others. There is no guarantee that your hard work will not be destroyed by a bad decision or an unlucky natural event. But all you need to look at is how many self-made rich Americans there are to see that overall, the system pays you back what you put into it. For highly visible examples, look at the NBA. How many inner city kids have built their hard work and talent into multi-million-dollar contracts? Many... but that's just a rarified example. How many dedicated guys have started out as lot boys at a car dealership, then learned some mechanics or became a good salesman, and then a manager, and then bought the dealership? The process is built in to the Capitalist system. That doesn't mean it is guaranteed, NOR SHOULD IT. But it is inherent in the system.
Socialism, on the other hand, is like a tractor pull. Have you ever seen one? A heavy weight on a sled is pulled by a tractor as far as possible. As the tractor moves further down the strip, the weight moves further and further off the wheels and onto the skid, making the sled harder and harder to pull, until the tractor stalls. Success is punished by making the task more and more difficult, until the person fails.
Does that sound particularly desirable? Or even remotely fair?
- 2,767
Ok... i've just let the dust to come down (or let the steam off) a bit before replying to this:
First, you seem to assume that I believe that we should completely change our way to the left on the current system, which is not what I meant... I worked my way hard to be where I am, and I don't want to give away what I've earned to someone that failed to find a way to become wealthy enough, whatever the cause is. My view is for us to keep an even playing field from the start... then it's up to you to make your life a success or a failure, we all agree on this one.
I don't resent Paris Hilton neither, my point was that I don"t see how or why she should deserve access to a better education than a children who's parent aren't rich... or that she would make better use of the chance she has.
I think this debate does not belong to this forum, but anyway, one year after this operation was launched, has a link to Al Quaeda been proven? or any WMD found? Al Quaeda seems to have more roots in (economically) "friendly" countries like Saoudi Arabia than in Irak... Saddam being removed was a good thing, but his actions against humanity wasn't bothering us much when they could be useful for us... we even supplied him to do so.
Going the direction Bush has taken, the only way to win that I see would be to nuke the whole middle east... When you want to get rid of hornets, do you set the nest on fire or hit it with a stick? Given how easy it is to enter drugs in the USA, what do you think terrorist will do as soon as they get their hands one a nuclear weapon? ever seen "The sum of all fears"? I've been pretty scared by this one...
Unilaterally invading a country wihtout global internationnal support, bypassing UN, Nato, sends a clear message to the rest of the world... and I think the reaction in Spain was as much a reaction to this as a reaction to terrorist attacks.
This is "the point I wasn't making" in one of my "piss-pour sarcasm", milefile. I don't think we are in a position to give any lessons on how to react on a terrorist attack, or how to not use them to achieve political or economical goals... Great empires were also lost because they failed to look at themselves from the outside, or becauses of overconfidence.
now back on topic...
Not everyone is smart enough to start on his own, and we obviously need manual workers, secretaries, technicians... I don't think in any way that the should be rewarded as much as a CEO or a sport star. But I don't think theirs kids shouldn't have access to the same education facility or the same healthcare services as the CEO's kids.... and no, I don't mind being "stealed" a bit for this, as I would be happy to have if I were in their shoes... I think it matters more than me having a 65 inch TV in my living room sooner. Is that weak?
And by the way milefile, nice job trying to make me look stupid... my "subtle" avatar, as you said in another thread, and my signature was just a laugh at your mooning smilies || like you really need to try to make me look dumb to prove your point. I wonder how this thread would have ended if I had put middlefinger symbols between each of my sentences... you're able to state your opinions better than me, so why do you have to act like a kid and add this to make your point, and then brag about it in other threads? Irony has been used to back political opinions (not for personnal attacks) in this thread by me and others, I'm sorry that you took this on a personnal level...
I'm sorry about this because so far I have respect for you and what you are posting, I found your Churchill's quote was a pretty good one there, and I was in the same situation that you are at work recently...
First, you seem to assume that I believe that we should completely change our way to the left on the current system, which is not what I meant... I worked my way hard to be where I am, and I don't want to give away what I've earned to someone that failed to find a way to become wealthy enough, whatever the cause is. My view is for us to keep an even playing field from the start... then it's up to you to make your life a success or a failure, we all agree on this one.
I don't resent Paris Hilton neither, my point was that I don"t see how or why she should deserve access to a better education than a children who's parent aren't rich... or that she would make better use of the chance she has.
I think this debate does not belong to this forum, but anyway, one year after this operation was launched, has a link to Al Quaeda been proven? or any WMD found? Al Quaeda seems to have more roots in (economically) "friendly" countries like Saoudi Arabia than in Irak... Saddam being removed was a good thing, but his actions against humanity wasn't bothering us much when they could be useful for us... we even supplied him to do so.
Going the direction Bush has taken, the only way to win that I see would be to nuke the whole middle east... When you want to get rid of hornets, do you set the nest on fire or hit it with a stick? Given how easy it is to enter drugs in the USA, what do you think terrorist will do as soon as they get their hands one a nuclear weapon? ever seen "The sum of all fears"? I've been pretty scared by this one...
Unilaterally invading a country wihtout global internationnal support, bypassing UN, Nato, sends a clear message to the rest of the world... and I think the reaction in Spain was as much a reaction to this as a reaction to terrorist attacks.
This is "the point I wasn't making" in one of my "piss-pour sarcasm", milefile. I don't think we are in a position to give any lessons on how to react on a terrorist attack, or how to not use them to achieve political or economical goals... Great empires were also lost because they failed to look at themselves from the outside, or becauses of overconfidence.
now back on topic...
Not everyone is smart enough to start on his own, and we obviously need manual workers, secretaries, technicians... I don't think in any way that the should be rewarded as much as a CEO or a sport star. But I don't think theirs kids shouldn't have access to the same education facility or the same healthcare services as the CEO's kids.... and no, I don't mind being "stealed" a bit for this, as I would be happy to have if I were in their shoes... I think it matters more than me having a 65 inch TV in my living room sooner. Is that weak?
And by the way milefile, nice job trying to make me look stupid... my "subtle" avatar, as you said in another thread, and my signature was just a laugh at your mooning smilies || like you really need to try to make me look dumb to prove your point. I wonder how this thread would have ended if I had put middlefinger symbols between each of my sentences... you're able to state your opinions better than me, so why do you have to act like a kid and add this to make your point, and then brag about it in other threads? Irony has been used to back political opinions (not for personnal attacks) in this thread by me and others, I'm sorry that you took this on a personnal level...
I'm sorry about this because so far I have respect for you and what you are posting, I found your Churchill's quote was a pretty good one there, and I was in the same situation that you are at work recently...
- 2,767
Correct me if I'm mistaken on this one, but I thought that's what you meant in there (end of the page):
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=40077&perpage=20&highlight=mooning&pagenumber=1
- 10,832
I see what you mean, and you are mistaken. To tell you the truth I can't remember what the hell I was thinking when I posted || in that thread. I'd forgotten about it. But in my sig the lines are there purely as a formatting tool. I orignally tried to use :: but they were too small and looked bad, to me. So, sorry for the misunderstanding.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,007
- Mile High City
Why should a CEO not be able to use the money he has earned to help his children. You say a CEO's children should not have access to better education or healthcare than everyone else. Why not go a step further and say that they shouldn't have access to better food, clothing, or parenting. I suppose you wouldn't want the government to take care of those things though.
I couldn't care less if you don't mind some of your money being stolen to help people less fortunate than yourself. You have all kinds of rights over what you want to do with your money, you can donate all kinds of money to charity. What's stoping you?
What I care about is when you say that you don't mind everyone else having their money stolen for this. It's one thing to give up your own cash, it's another to force other people to.
I really want to hear your explanation for why CEO's should not be able to use their money to help their children, and why you think everyone should start out with a "level playing field". I also want to hear exactly what you think that playing field should be. Who determines that? Who gives them the authority to determine that.
Above all, what gives anyone the right to tell someone that they can't spend their money on their own children's education?
- 2,767
Good, I may over-reacted to this misunderstanding... Guess I'll change this avatar, .... and I'll try to use irony and sarcasm with parsimony, I'm not here to pick up a fight (anyway the odds are clearly against me
), but to debate ideas. Danoff, I don't say that the rich should not be able to spend the money to help their children... but I value more universal access to basic education, then accessibility based on academic results and potential than me enjoying a bit more luxury, or a CEO enjoying a second Ferrari... And wether or not this should be forced or not, I don't have the answer, this should be voted by a nation's population... it's been done here, and this is working... not perfectly, but it works, even if sometime I get pissed when I look at my paycheck...
- 2,767
yes, then if this "socialist" measure is accepted, if those kids have free access to basic education, shouldn't they have access to healthcare?... For other needs, Their parents are at least able to provide food and clothes, even working at the minimum wage, but medical services may cost much more than that...
Or should this measure be removed and then their parents pay for it?
Or should this measure be removed and then their parents pay for it?
- 10,832
There is a thing called fairness, and there is also a thing called unfairness. The problem is there are as many ways to define these things as there are people who care to try. I have seen people with good, comfortable lives lose it all and end up destitute. I especially feel for their kids, if they have any. In fact, my empathy for the adults is more related to their feelings of inadequacy over not being able to provide for their children what they thought they would be able to. It is not good to make fun of poverty and misfortune, both of which have always existed. It is not good to patronize the vulnerable, which is what liberal, socialist government does. Is it fair that so-and-so lost his job and his house when I got a raise and a new car? YES! What would be unfair is if I had to loose something so me and my neighbor can both end up with less.
I say the things I say coming from a background of living poor for a long time and never taking a dime from the government, even if I thought at times I "deserved" it because I "needed" it. I ended up being able to manage on my own and am doing far better than I ever could've hoped to be doing had I taken government handouts instead of working hard, being patient, and trying my best to make good decisions.
The fact that I have sympathy for those less fortunate than me does mean I want to support them all. I truly beleive this is detrimental to all involved, although I haven't said how in terns of the "less fortunate". But it's lunchtime so I'll have to come back to this.
I say the things I say coming from a background of living poor for a long time and never taking a dime from the government, even if I thought at times I "deserved" it because I "needed" it. I ended up being able to manage on my own and am doing far better than I ever could've hoped to be doing had I taken government handouts instead of working hard, being patient, and trying my best to make good decisions.
The fact that I have sympathy for those less fortunate than me does mean I want to support them all. I truly beleive this is detrimental to all involved, although I haven't said how in terns of the "less fortunate". But it's lunchtime so I'll have to come back to this.
- 10,832
Okay. Yummy lunch.
There was a time when i was younger and I got fired from my job. Yeah the employer was an ass and all that, but it was her business. I made a half-assed effort to get on unemployment. It never panned out, mostly because I looked for a job harder than I tried to get the government to support me. I also had friends in school who were on food stamps. I thought about how nice it would be to not have to pay for my food, but never actively pursued it.
Looking back I can imagine how things may have turned out for me had I ended up on the government dole. It would've formed my ideas on work and accomplishment. Today I would consider myself entitled to everything simply because I was born. But that's not what happened. I endured hardship. I worked my way through it and out of it. I look at my life as an accomplishment, so far, and expect nothing except from myself.
Government sponsored entitlement programs and social welfare only serve to create a class of people who live parasitically off of others. The government sponsorship of this expectation reinforces it over and over; the recipients of social welfare programs come to learn that there is no point in struggling to succeed, so they don't. Social welfare hurts individuals.
Unfairness and inequity are absolutely necessary for humanity to thrive and excell. We can only judge success or failure in comparison on various scales.
There was a time when i was younger and I got fired from my job. Yeah the employer was an ass and all that, but it was her business. I made a half-assed effort to get on unemployment. It never panned out, mostly because I looked for a job harder than I tried to get the government to support me. I also had friends in school who were on food stamps. I thought about how nice it would be to not have to pay for my food, but never actively pursued it.
Looking back I can imagine how things may have turned out for me had I ended up on the government dole. It would've formed my ideas on work and accomplishment. Today I would consider myself entitled to everything simply because I was born. But that's not what happened. I endured hardship. I worked my way through it and out of it. I look at my life as an accomplishment, so far, and expect nothing except from myself.
Government sponsored entitlement programs and social welfare only serve to create a class of people who live parasitically off of others. The government sponsorship of this expectation reinforces it over and over; the recipients of social welfare programs come to learn that there is no point in struggling to succeed, so they don't. Social welfare hurts individuals.
Unfairness and inequity are absolutely necessary for humanity to thrive and excell. We can only judge success or failure in comparison on various scales.
- 1,008
Im not talking about the theory, Im talking about how it is in real life. People at a disadvantage finnancially may not be able to recieve a formal education. Even though they are just as smart as the next guy. This is why everyone (not just the wealthy) should pay taxes that subsidise everyone based on their yearly earnings. That way you would still be rewarded for you're ability but if you dont have a head-start it is easier to catch up. I'm not approving of socialism, Im trying to point out the disadvantages of capitalism.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,007
- Mile High City
Why should you be rewarded of your ability if youre not using it?
How hard is it really to get an education in America today? I think the hardest part is making the grade, not paying the bills. My parents havent paid for a dime of my college tuition. I worked my way through, and now Im in a much better place.
So the point is, people at a financial disadvantage only fail to receive a formal education because of lack of initiative.
Thats part of the reason why nobody should be subsidized based on their yearly earnings.
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
So where is the long-term reward for hard work and success? How do I pass the benefits of my success on to my children, if my money is taken to subsidize someone else's kids who don't have successful parents?
How are my children supposed to learn the value of self improvement, if the benefits are taken away and given to others?
Danoff
Premium
- 34,007
- Mile High City
When it comes to public policy don't use your head, trust your heart. Everyone knows that nothing bad has come from following the best of intentions.
When you see homeless person on the sidewalk asking for change, you know he's hungry. He's fallen on hard times and needs your help to be able to eat. How can you say no to that? Trust your heart. Your heart tells you that you don't need that quarter and that it would mean so much more to the homeless person than it does to you.
Your heart tells you that some people have more need than others and that it would be easy to satisfy those needs by taking from those that need less. Can't you feel it in your bleeding heart - that you can solve everyone's problems by forcing wealthy people to be generous?
Is freedom worth it? Is it worth everyone's freedom that some people have to pay the price of failure so harshly? Is it worth the freedom to make money when it comes with the freedom to fail? What if that person dies? Is it worth a human life for people to be free? What if lots of people die because of freedom? Not everyone can handle it. Some people will die because they had the freedom to buy too much food, other people will die because they had the freedom to smoke. Still more will die because they have the freedom to own a gun. Innocent children will die because we have the freedom to purchase toys with small parts. People will die if they have the freedom not to wear seatbelts or buy a car without airbags.
The freedom to drink alcohol kills. The freedom to take a shower kills. The freedom to drive a car kills. The freedom of speech causes people to get murdered. Just look at Martin Luther King! I'm certain that if he'd been told he'd be killed for speaking out, he would support legislation banning his freedom of speech. It's just not worth a life.
The problem is that we have the freedom to fail. But in order to eliminate failure, it is necesary to eliminate success.
Definitely a valid point if youre discussing total income redistribution like with communism, just dont try to apply that to a system where the upper class have to pay more taxes than the middle class, youll never have to pay so much in taxes that youre poorer than the poor (I know it feels that way sometimes, but thats the price you pay for wanting to live in society
). The single mothers on welfare with waitressing jobs dont consider themselves "successes," certainly not economically, im sure.Similar threads
- Poll
