Imagine the following scenario.
An old white-haired gentleman with a sometimes kindly demeanor, except for a lot of shouting, drives around your neighborhood and offers a free ride and many free goodies to unsuspecting children. Though many persons seem to like him, he is really a monster because he invariably offers the children free poisoned candy. He just doesn’t say it’s poisoned, though any sensible adult should recognize it as such. He disregards the pile of corpses that his candy produces and goes on to the next neighborhood—blustering away to a fresh crop of unsuspecting children, all too ready to accept his offer of free delights. When media warn about evil crimes being perpetrated, he angrily shouts, “People are sick of hearing about your damn emails.”

Imagine the candy he gives away to the unsuspecting children is deadly, poisonous socialism. Now imagine that old gentleman monster is Bernie Sanders. Wait, you didn’t need to imagine anything at all.

Bernie is a monster. He offers free delights via socialism. But it is a poisonous system of evil and death, with an unremitting legacy of social and economic destruction, along with history’s largest pile of dead millions. Why am I the only one who calls him what he is, a monster?!

Granted I do oppose trump, but why would you think 'O' was a reference to Trump? ;^)
CG already mentioned Bernie and Donnie.
I would refer to Trump as statist, not a racist.

The problem with socialism, communism, etc., is simply "people". This -isms fail because they do not understand that people have their own hopes, dreams, aspirations and desires and on their timetable not the governments. And no controlling government at any level will ever be able to supply what everyone wants. Capitalism works best because you at least have the opportunity to fulfill your own needs. Some fail, many more succeed. And can you imagine the level of corruption in a government that controls the distribution of goods and services? Will never succeed.

thank you ...i will read this book next...

Not sure we really need to, to be fully honest. Nor would it really be helpful. Venezuelan politics do not directly conform to our politics, so it is not an exact analogy, or at least not close enough to impress socialists. And if we "went after it" to help Venezuela, that would be an even more futile effort.

You can use Venezuela as a way to support your arguments against the efficacy of socialism, but the crux and premise of your argument cannot be "we shouldn't do this because it makes people poorer." It should be "Socialism is based in collectivism, and it therefore denies the self and is inherently immoral. Every small step towards it is an evil. It's continual failures are evidence that it is an attempt to work contrary to nature, which makes it irrational and immoral. However it is not its failures that make it immoral or irrational."

The moment you concede the "argue from results" method, you are accepting that the purpose of a government or political system is to make the public happy, improve an economy, distribute wealth, take care of the sick, poor, infirm, lazy, or just plain unable to contribute. While a free economy will certainly help all of these classes of people by making it easier and cheaper to obtain the basic necessities of life, that is not why it is desirable.

I'd say that the best way to introduce this to a "rational" socialism fan is to possibly begin with some of its failures and atrocities, and then point to why any theory like it that is based on collectivism will, by its very nature, eventually result in this... Thereby introducing the flawed philosophy and having an opportunity to present an alternative view; Objectivism.

So how would you go after socialism in Venezuela?

How do u get "racist" applied to trump???

I was surprised Any Rand did not get a mention, when it came to influences. The problem with socialism is that it is like a disease which gets worse, until it becomes communism.Socialism seems like it is all feeling but not reasoning or building. Greatness comes with capitalism, but not with socialism. Group think replaces individualism. It is all too awful to even consider.

To continue your analogy, arguing results is like cutting off your legs to appease the tiger. You can't win with a fallacious premise.

To argue results rather than morals when dealing with the non-Objectivist public is simply common sense, because those people don't and won't accept our moral code. Telling them our moral viewpoint is futile. It's like trying to talk a tiger into turning vegetarian as he prepares to leap on you.

Me dino just learned a new word that explains the current state of our Obamanation.
I also notice the word is Greek, which may also explain the current state of Greece.
Note to self: store "kakistocracy" in my little dino brain for future use both here and elsewhere.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/kaki...

They argue "it works in theory, but not in practice" and then state that they just need the right people to run it. You can't win the argument if you start with flawed logic... That something is good or desirable if "it works." This is a central point Ayn Rand makes, that if we concede the moral ground of benefitting the collective as our goal, we have already lost the argument.

Me dino just read what is wrong with our country right here and right now.

I do think that most people are concerned more with day to day living than "morality". This is unfortunate, but I think its the way it is.

I have pondered why socialism seems to be the "go to" economic system which is gaining strength every day- and it always seems to get a pass when it comes to its failures.

I think not enough time and effort is spent on taking away this free pass. Socialism is a practical failure everywhere its tried and this needs to be shown at every turn to get the attention of enough people to turn the tide.

High flying morality arguments are just going right over their heads at present.

Ignoring the facts of reality IS WHY socialism doesnt work. Looking at what works is a pretty good indication of how a system is in line with the facts of reality actually.

Looks as if this is a definitive book I always start my anti socialist rants with a Thatcher quote "Socialism is good until the money runs out" or words to that effect.

The problem with socialism is that implementing and sustaining it requires massive and continuous initiation of force.

Until Rand, the fundamental problem under which Socialism inescapably labors was never properly understood. It is this:

The politics of Socialism are incompatible with the moral requirements of Man. More fundamentally, they are incompatible with the metaphysics of existence and the epistemology of reason.

In summary, they are inconsistent with the nature of Man and life on Earth. THAT is the reason all variants of Socialism endlessly produce the results they invariably MUST.

Socialists and so called "progressives" believe that the "common good" is to be enforced by punitive action and punishment. The old adage "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar" is completely lost on them. The economics of Socialism is flawed but because their goals are based on wishful thinking rather than logic they have immunized themselves against reality, or so they believe. It is true that civilization is the result of people cooperating with one another. However, when that cooperation is forced rather than simply encouraged the results are unsustainable. Capitalism encourages cooperation by providing incentives to all participants while Socialism punishes those that fail to meet the standards set by the ruling elite. One system works and the other doesn't.

THE problem, is that it is immoral and ignores facts of reality. The fact that it doesn't work is NOT why we oppose it, as "what works" is not our standard of judging political or ethical models. Socialism not working is a natural and unavoidable consequence of the fact that it tries to ignore reality. It is an illogical and irrational philosophy and political model. That is what we need to stick to if we are going to win this philosophical war. Arguing about "what works" only leaves open the argument that there just wasn't enough benevolent people, enough technology, or just not the right ruler.

AJ
socialism IS the problem to say what is the problem with socialism is to break it down into components. there is nothing good about socialism in its entirety, so socialism IS the problem!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Adam Smith's gift to the enlightened is his recognition that the market is simply too complex, with too many unknowns for any agency to hope to exercise credible control. His "invisible hand" description of how the market operates has been misinterpreted as meaning God is the controller (I suppose that comes from his strong faith), when in fact he was simply describing how the operations of a real free market are so fluid and unpredictable that it seems mysterious.

Pure socialism requires government ownership and control of both production and consumption, which is a task destined to fail, proven by socialist governments repeatedly. "Democratic" socialism leaves the means of production in private hands, but under heavy government regulation and control. The latter works, but at less efficiency than a real free market with purposefully limited government restriction.

A classic quote, which applies equally, or perhaps more so, to the mythical "third way", "mixed economy", or most widely used: "Welfare State". Although I applaud her use of the word socialism because "Welfare State" is the non-revolutionary, slow but inevitable road to full Socialism, which she gallantly tried to reverse, unfortunately only temporarily. Maybe the post-Brexit UK will fare better...

I just ordered it on Kindle so I can read whenever I have time.

The problem with socialism is that it just doesnt work. It flies in the face of human nature so much that the side effects of it overcome anything it tries to do and renders it a total failure.

By the time one reworked and tempered socialism so that it actually worked, we would have capitalism.

Same thing with monarchy. Before you would ever find the benevolent and all knowing person to be king, you might as well give capitalism a shot.

This is all apart from the philosophical arguments against statism of course.

Makes me think of "Chuckie"!