Why is socialism so bad?

[GoldenBoy812]

Humbly, I disagree.

I think every human being is as capable as the next. I do not subscribe to the theory that our abilities and talents are set in stone from the moment we're born.

You are absolutely wrong! Not everyone is capable as the next to be an NBA basketball player, let alone a superstar. Not everyone can handle a 22 credit hour course load, let alone get straight A's.

We pick up almost every aspect of our beings as we going on, and thus I believe everyone IS equal in ability, the difference is their motive to use their abilities and the drive to always hone them.

I cannot play the guitar. I can however spar 30 rounds in a given session. Could i play the guitar if i really really wanted to? Most likely yes, but not as good as say Kayne West would be able to given the same amount of practice. With that said, even if Kayne West were to train in the gym hour for hour with me, i firmly believe i would tear him up in the ring. Not because he lacks desire, but because i am more physically blessed. Therefore people are not equal.

And I do have a compromise between the two, if anyone's interested.

Are you describing the utopia created in another thread? If so, you are going to have to prove how to virtually eliminate opportunity cost.

GoldenBoy812 Reviewed by GoldenBoy812 on 12-01-2008. Why is socialism so bad? Hello Everyone! I have been following the presidential race and the arguments in these forums for the past few weeks. One of the new issues is SOCIALISM. I lived in the United States for 17 years, but moved back to my home country of Finland a couple years ago. Finland is a Socialist Democracy. We have free health care, free education through your bachelor's degree (when you turn 18, the gov. also pays for 80% of your rent and grocery money(240â?¬/month), and allows you to take out Rating: 5

[delusionsofNORMALity]

This is where I stopped listening. There is nothing good about anarchy.....

i can't say as i blame you. i'm sure that you, along with most everyone else, have been brainwashed into believing in the need for the massive bureaucracy that is sucking dry the citizens of this country and doing their best to enslave us as they consolidate the power we so willingly abdicate to them. i'm certain you see the concept of anarchy as a wilderness with no rules and no law but the law of the jungle (much like the streets of many of our cities after the sun goes down). i have no doubt that you find the average person incapable of governing himself. that is, after all, the only reason we should endure these uncaring bureaucracies supported by the sweat of the people they claim to represent.

it's a pity you stop listening when you hear that someone may advocate an ideal so different from the reality you desperately cling to. it's a pity that most people refuse to listen to the idea that humanity is capable of ruling itself without the buffer of a million civil servants to water down the truth of what the people really need. if they bothered to listen and to think we might have fewer ignorant souls who cannot see beyond the mundane lies of their masters, who are capable of forming opinions based on something a bit more real than video games and the daily show.

[JakeMartinez]

No, it's not that "utopian" society.

I'm not even going to argue anymore. I'm sick of being talked down to from all angles when all I'm trying to do is give everyone a fighting chance at living a good life. I was hoping someone here would want to work with me to figure out something that would work better than the system we have now, but oh well.

I will say this, though. If you dig in to history, you'll find that a lot of what we know about socialism comes out of the propaganda pushed by neo-conservatives during the Cold War.

And by the way, even communist nations are still competitive, and no less capitalistic than we are. Did you think China just gave us all of the lovely little things we import from them?

[thcbongman]

i can't say as i blame you. i'm sure that you, along with most everyone else, have been brainwashed into believing in the need for the massive bureaucracy that is sucking dry the citizens of this country and doing their best to enslave us as they consolidate the power we so willingly abdicate to them. i'm certain you see the concept of anarchy as a wilderness with no rules and no law but the law of the jungle (much like the streets of many of our cities after the sun goes down). i have no doubt that you find the average person incapable of governing himself. that is, after all, the only reason we should endure these uncaring bureaucracies supported by the sweat of the people they claim to represent.

it's a pity you stop listening when you hear that someone may advocate an ideal so different from the reality you desperately cling to. it's a pity that most people refuse to listen to the idea that humanity is capable of ruling itself without the buffer of a million civil servants to water down the truth of what the people really need. if they bothered to listen and to think we might have fewer ignorant souls who cannot see beyond the mundane lies of their masters, who are capable of forming opinions based on something a bit more real than video games and the daily show.

Do you really think a million civil servants focus on watering the truth? That is quite delusional.

It's not like anarchy is a non-existant concept. There's plenty of anarchists applying their views. East Washington State is a prime example. They got their communities where they support themselves through marijuana traffiking, armed themselves to the teeth to protect themselves from the outside world. It works, it's self-sustainable for those that choose to participate in those communities.

But my question is how could you apply anarchy on a widespread scale of 300 million people and be feasible?

[DaBudhaStank]

i can't say as i blame you. i'm sure that you, along with most everyone else, have been brainwashed into believing in the need for the massive bureaucracy that is sucking dry the citizens of this country and doing their best to enslave us as they consolidate the power we so willingly abdicate to them. i'm certain you see the concept of anarchy as a wilderness with no rules and no law but the law of the jungle (much like the streets of many of our cities after the sun goes down). i have no doubt that you find the average person incapable of governing himself. that is, after all, the only reason we should endure these uncaring bureaucracies supported by the sweat of the people they claim to represent.

it's a pity you stop listening when you hear that someone may advocate an ideal so different from the reality you desperately cling to. it's a pity that most people refuse to listen to the idea that humanity is capable of ruling itself without the buffer of a million civil servants to water down the truth of what the people really need. if they bothered to listen and to think we might have fewer ignorant souls who cannot see beyond the mundane lies of their masters, who are capable of forming opinions based on something a bit more real than video games and the daily show.

Oh, no I can govern myself quite well, given the resources. But can others? Fuck no! All it takes is a few people who want nothing more than what they can get for themselves while they can get it, and with no one to stop them, they WILL get it and fuck a lot of people in the process. The problem with anarchy is it focuses explicitly on the self, the individual. Watch Mad Max; anarchy in action. You're honestly going to tell me that if we did away with all laws and guide lines, even if over a 100 year period, that things will be fine and dandy? We might regress to a tribal state, but I can't say that'd be terribly fun.

[DaBudhaStank]

That is quite delusional.

Given who we're talking to, I had to lol a little at that.

[psychocat]

Oh, no I can govern myself quite well, given the resources. But can others? Fuck no! All it takes is a few people who want nothing more than what they can get for themselves while they can get it, and with no one to stop them, they WILL get it and fuck a lot of people in the process. The problem with anarchy is it focuses explicitly on the self, the individual. Watch Mad Max; anarchy in action. You're honestly going to tell me that if we did away with all laws and guide lines, even if over a 100 year period, that things will be fine and dandy? We might regress to a tribal state, but I can't say that'd be terribly fun.

A state of lawlessness would only be a good idea for those who wish to live in a world where people like me would pretty much have great fun in running rampage and having no regard for anyone.
If there were no punishments then there would be a lot more murders , if it is kill or be killed I would certainly not hesitate .

The whole tribal side of humanity has made it possible to enjoy the luxuries we often take for granted , without team work many of mankinds greatest achievements simply would never have happened.
Safety in numbers is also a reason for mankinds compromise toward each other that we call society , the realisation that one man can never do everything makes each person a part of the whole.

YouTube - The Cramps - People Ain't No Good

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

This is where I stopped listening. There is nothing good about anarchy, not one thing. I'm sorry, there just isn't. There's nothing good about a world where people are free to rape, murder and pillage at will with little to no consequences, as most people can't/won't/don't know how to defend themselves or others. Ever play Fallout 3? Yeah, no thanks. There might not be a nuclear holocaust where everything you touch is irradiated, but it's largely the same thing.

you say that as if people are incapable of exacting revenge WITHOUT police.



Isnt that all the police do? legal vengeance?

you murder someone, and they will put you to death, or imprison you for life, which is the same as being put to death, it jsut takes a LOT longer. that's more like torture...

well, eliminate the police, and what REALLY changes?


more people will be policing themselves and everyone else, but not getting payed to do it, so they wouldnt be overzealous about apprehending "criminals" and more focused on keeping peace.


theft wouldnt be given much care, except between the thief and the victim. wherein the victim, if they desire justice, must seek it out htemselves, instead of being pampered little fucktard brats who can just call someone else to do it for them.



im in direct disagreement with your idea of what anarchy entails.

[DaBudhaStank]

you say that as if people are incapable of exacting revenge WITHOUT police.



Isnt that all the police do? legal vengeance?

you murder someone, and they will put you to death, or imprison you for life, which is the same as being put to death, it jsut takes a LOT longer. that's more like torture...

well, eliminate the police, and what REALLY changes?


more people will be policing themselves and everyone else, but not getting payed to do it, so they wouldnt be overzealous about apprehending "criminals" and more focused on keeping peace.


theft wouldnt be given much care, except between the thief and the victim. wherein the victim, if they desire justice, must seek it out htemselves, instead of being pampered little fucktard brats who can just call someone else to do it for them.



im in direct disagreement with your idea of what anarchy entails.

we'll just have to agree to disagree then. personally, I don't see society as a whole just policing itself and everyone doing the right thing without being forced to. Looking out for yourself all the time just ruins society, since no one cares about anyone else. If you want to arm everyone and say "Go nuts", you're in for a VERY rude awakening.

And no, I don't call police legal vengeance. There's a difference between the words Justice and Vengeance for a reason. Vengeance is for personal satisfaction, to settle a score, justice is to see that those who pray on the innocent are punished. Eliminate the police, and I'll fuckin' kill you, because who's to stop me? You? Indeed, perhaps the police wouldn't have a chance to STOP me, but they have a MUCH better chance of catching me than your family and friends do. Also, god forbid we have a set of people who seek out thieves and crooks. I don't know about you, but if I get robbed at gun point by some psycho, I don't think I wanna try and get my shit back from them. Why you ask? Because I'll get fucking SHOT, and that bastard will get away with it without a team of dedicated, well equipped and well armed people to stop them. I guess my desire to NOT murder and steal makes me ill-equipped for anarchy.

People are more than capable of getting revenge without police, and that's why its wrong. If you're seeking revenge instead of justice, if you want personal satisfaction instead of benefiting your society, you need to step back and analyze your life.

[DaBudhaStank]

A state of lawlessness would only be a good idea for those who wish to live in a world where people like me would pretty much have great fun in running rampage and having no regard for anyone.
If there were no punishments then there would be a lot more murders , if it is kill or be killed I would certainly not hesitate .

The whole tribal side of humanity has made it possible to enjoy the luxuries we often take for granted , without team work many of mankinds greatest achievements simply would never have happened.
Safety in numbers is also a reason for mankinds compromise toward each other that we call society , the realisation that one man can never do everything makes each person a part of the whole.

YouTube - The Cramps - People Ain't No Good

I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or not.