Add Comment


All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by rainman0720 6 months, 4 weeks ago
    I know this is a gross overgeneralization, but this is how I've always seen the arguments for income equality.

    A Capitalist wants income equality by having the people at the lower end of the income scale increase their income and catch up to where they are.

    A Socialist wants income equality by pulling those at the top of the income scale back to those at the bottom.

    Put another way, I've always felt that Capitalism assumes that the pie can keep growing and growing in size, where the Socialist assumes that the pie is fixed in size, and there's only so much to go around.

    I honestly don't understand the Socialist mentality; for the life of me, I can't even begin to comprehend how having people improve their standings in life and becoming more self-sufficient and independent, and exploring all the opportunities they'll have, is a bad thing.

    I know I can be a bit naive at times, but I just don't get it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  pixelate 6 months, 4 weeks ago
      Socialism is a toddler's fantasy -- whether it be free ice cream, pony rides and hugs from momma or free health-care, university and housing. Most Socialists simply are incapable of thinking... they cannot conceptualize.

      A good many younger Socialists would rather give up personal accountability and responsibility for the promise of being cared for, without the concerns of adults.

      Some Socialists -- those who claim that they would be members of the board that distributes the resources -- these are the sociopaths. They lack self-awareness and work their will, no matter how destructive, with the general approval of their own conscience.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  LTUMFLEET 6 months, 3 weeks ago
        When I began my pursuit of a Doctorate in Economics at the New School of Social Research in 1972 I was appalled to learn that most of my fellow students were Socialists. I suggested to one that under Socialism, a board would assign jobs to the workers, and I asked if the board assigned him to dig ditches for the rest of his life, would he accept it. He laughed and said, "You don't understand. We are planning to be the board!" (That was the year that I went on strike.)
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  pixelate 6 months, 3 weeks ago
          I had a similar experience about 15 years ago. I was speaking with the son of a neighbor -- this kid was 19 years old or thereabouts. He was advancing Socialism in terms of "the board concept" consisting of very intelligent experts in science, agriculture, engineering and medicine. I asked him about the future -- where would he be 10 years after the implementation of this Socialism with these Politburos and Boards of Experts. He smiled (one of those smallish and "all knowing" smiles) and intoned his station on a Board that would place individuals in positions of employment based on the calculated optimized return to The State. This kid was very large -- think linebacker with about 80 extra pounds. As he eloquently described his future ... my mind visualized a different picture ... I saw him in a field with a yoke about his neck... he was pulling a plow. Machines that run on carbon-based fuels had been outlawed in this Utopian Vision ... and so here is this really big kid, pulling a plow like a beast of burden. I did not share my vision of his future. Way too much reality.

          These people are horrifyingly delusional. They are often "intelligent" and may actually score very well on IQ tests. Many of them work in software-engineering ... my field ... a field where one often works in the abstract ... math... code. They are often eloquent in their speech... or they will use a lot of pauses so as to emphasize their eloquence and elevation. They are the Self-Anointed. When they speak of the abandonment of money and dissolution of private property, they are also sliding in the unspoken "Of course someone will have to manage this economy ... someone that is very intelligent ... someone with a great compassion for their fellow man ... someone that is far above the realm of money and property."

          A person with such towering conceit -- such unbridled arrogance -- such a person must also lack all semblance of self-awareness. These people are very dangerous. Most of them, I suspect, end up as human waste product -- the wreckage from drug abuse as their delusions never materialize. Each one of us, here in The Gulch, may have a few such persons in our sphere of relationships. Their level of toxicity can certainly vary. A small few are good -- at inveigling their way into the substrate of The State and advance their positions from their lofty Boards. In terms of action items -- I continue to think about how they can be both identified (early) and be stopped. Perhaps the system is too ingrained with these sociopaths. Perhaps, as you've indicated, the only viable alternative is to shrug.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  exceller 6 months, 3 weeks ago
            Very apt characterization of the "socialist" specimen.

            You say many of them are in software development.

            I can attest to that: I have been friends with an individual for 10 years. "Friends" maybe a misnomer b/c after exchanging a few sentences at the beginning of our relationship, he concluded that I was against everything he stood for and therefore we sustained our status on the miracles of the weather and birds.

            He is a software developer. My several attempts to explore deeper what each of us stood for regularly led to rabid outbursts from him, running out of the room. His intolerance is typical of what we see from the left. I am sure we would have found common grounds but his leaping to conclusions effectively blocked any attempt to bridge the gap.

            Yes, I shrugged. But that is also a disconcerting way to go b/c we know that the other side keeps at it with the final goal of eliminating us. It is a tensed status, anticipating the worst to come.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Lucky 6 months, 3 weeks ago
            See, George Orwell's Animal Farm. The hard working and strong horse (Boxer) was a loyal follower of who-ever-it-was-at-the-moment leading the revolution. He worked himself into exhaustion, when he could only just walk, the pigs sold him
            to the blood and bone yard. The motivation of the mass of supporters is altruism. Those at the top know what is going on, their skill is scheming.
            It is the same today with intelligence replacing strength, that 19yo has a mind swamped by altruism.
            In the example above, the language of altruism is a cover for power lust. Not everyone can see it if close up.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Abaco 6 months, 4 weeks ago
      Why would a capitalist want income equality, for starters? Hmmm, that's interesting.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by rainman0720 6 months, 4 weeks ago
        You're right; I didn't state my argument correctly. I should have said something like this:

        A Capitalist says "If you want income equality, then catch up with me. Raise your income to my level."

        Thanks for calling me on it.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Abaco 6 months, 3 weeks ago
          Ack! I didn't mean to "call you" on it. That's why I said "interesting". Comments like yours always get me to stop and think. I like your follow-up, though. Seems pretty accurate. Cheers!
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by mccannon01 7 months ago
    I've said before, "Socialist policies can be made to appear to work as long as there is a strong enough Capitalist base to support them." As Margaret Thatcher noted they'll work until they run out of other people's money.

    Stalin set the solution of what to do when other people's money runs out: Guns and Gulags. That solution will always be the final act of the failing socialist system unless new sources of "other people's money" can be obtained. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn chronicled the process rather well in his two "Gulag Archipelago" books. The only mystery in my mind regarding Solzhenitsyn was even after all he went through and after publishing those two books I read he still believed socialism could work.

    Socialism is theft and theft is always violent one way or another.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by GaryL 6 months, 4 weeks ago
    The proof socialism is right in Obama care. Free for the very poor and way too expensive for those who thought they would be better off. Not enough paying into the worthless insurance to make it worth having. The MSM continues to portray it as some sort of wonderful healthcare plan when very few can afford the deductibles. Big deal, they have insurance but can't afford to go to a doctor.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jimjamesjames 6 months, 4 weeks ago
    Every thing socialists, communists, democrats, progressives, liberals advocate is predicated on THEFT of wealth or of the freedom of choice by others. Everything they say (social, economic justice, equality, fairness) is an attempt to justify that theft
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 6 months, 4 weeks ago
    Socialism is based on theft- taking wealth from those who work for it, and give it to others who havent worked. The only way to do this is through the use of force. That means violence against the people.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by chad 6 months, 4 weeks ago
    Any governing body allowed to use violence against its citizens will use it and those who would commit the violence will be those who volunteer or desire to be elected to the posts that will commit the violence. The larger requirement though are the slaves who are willing to be subjected and will excuse what is done with the rationalization that those who are moral, workers and builders deserve it because their work was done at the expense of those who are too lazy to do it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 7 months ago
    Demon crapic socialism makes sure that no one is too poor to live!???
    1 I don't know anyone in that situation in America.
    2 Demo socialist will end up killing anyone to poor to live or killing someone that wasn't too poor to live to save the one that was.
    3 Either way, Net reduction in the population so the ponzi scheme can go a bit longer before they run out of money or...people?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Abaco 6 months, 4 weeks ago
    "Regimes that call themselves socialist have killed millions of people. Tens of millions were killed in the USSR. Same in China. Millions also died in Cambodia and North Korea, which claimed to follow socialist ideals."

    OK, I'm going to reference a book, once again, that I REALLY think my fellow Objectivists might find thought-provoking. It's "The Stones Cry Out, A Cambodian Childhood". Honestly...find this book and buy it. It's no longer in print. It should be MANDITORY reading in American high schools. If you get it and read it please let me know your thoughts...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  


  • Comment hidden. Undo