Why do people think Socialism is Evil
- Thread starter UpSkirtDistress
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yes because God forbid someone somewhere wants to be responsible for their lifeWouldukindly said:I don't think it's evil, I just disagree with it. But I'm a Libertarian, everybody hates us
You would think socialist would love us cause thats one less to take care of lol.Socialism is very anti individual, which I don't like. Robin Hood sounds justified and all but I don't think tyranny of the majority is a fair system. Which is what socialism boils down to, it's those that "want" taking from those that "have", in the name of "fairness" and "equality". Government can do some things better, but generally it's horribly inefficient.
Plus a government big enough to give you everything is big enough to take it away, and I don't want the govn't holding the threat over me of taking something away. Plus what happens when you can no longer exploit those that "have" I mean the UK has a 50% income tax on those making over 150k, and i'm sure they still have money trouble. At some point money in just can not cover what the govn't has agreed to take care of. Eventually you have to go to an authoritarian system to decide who gets what, and that is not a good thing.
Oh god, don't get me started on that!Jarrid said:
Thank you. I've been saying that what we saw from the USSR wasn't really communism for a while now.vultureX21 said:
socialism dosnt work because in a socialsit world, you can be the hardest worker ever but you will never get ahead of that asshole who sits around all day because he is drawing unemployment. what happen is every one gets exactly the same amount no matter how hard they work, and in turn the hard workers are paying for the bums to sit on their asses
As Regan doubled tax revenue from 80 to 90'Rigs83 said:
Many critics of reducing taxes claim that the Reagan tax cuts drained the U.S. Treasury. The reality is that federal revenues increased significantly between 1980 and 1990:
Total federal revenues doubled from just over $517 billion in 1980 to more than $1 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was a 28 percent increase in revenue.3
As a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP), federal revenues declined only slightly from 18.9 percent in 1980 to 18 percent in 1990.4
Revenues from individual income taxes climbed from just over $244 billion in 1980 to nearly $467 billion in 1990.5 In inflation-adjusted dollars, this amounts to a 25 percent increase.
Because Capitalism requires faith in it to work, its like Tinkerbell, only with rich people controlling the world.
..I still laugh when people say "Their keeping me down because i'm Black/Mexican/Asian"
No, silly! Their keeping you down because your /poor/!
..I still laugh when people say "Their keeping me down because i'm Black/Mexican/Asian"
No, silly! Their keeping you down because your /poor/!
The thing is socialism, if done properly, can improve YOUR life too. I know I don't own a car, so seeing improved public transit, keeping our roads from delapitating into a collection of potholes and (since I'm in Canada) having good snow removal helps my life out a lot. Not to mention the reduced tuition with me being a student.Orlana said:
social socialism(doesnt really makes sense here)works,but economic socialism does not.Look at North Korea and compare it to china.they are both socialist but very different economic ideas.
And why dems recently lost a lawsuit about the patriot act. Both sides are guilty.UpSkirtDistress said:
In yet another break with its campaign promise to fight to restore civil liberties and privacy, the Obama Administration has made a breathtaking claim of state secrets to block a public interest organization from suing the government for illegal surveillance. There is not a scintilla of difference in the legal position of President Obama and the position of President Bush in trying to quash any effort to challenge unlawful surveillance by the government. It appears the ?yes we can? means ?yes we can do most anything that we want? when it comes to unlawful programs. I discussed this story on this segment of MSNBC Countdown.
The Administration is moving to kill a lawsuit brought by the Electronic Frontier Foundation on behalf of AT&T customers who were unlawfully intercepted by the government. Not only is the Administration making an extreme argument under the military and state secrets doctrine but it is claimed that citizens cannot sue, even if the government engages in unlawful surveillance, under the Patriot Act. Due to changes put through with Democratic support, the statute is being used to block any lawsuit unless the citizens can show that there was ?willful disclosure?? of the communications by the government.
The Administration is moving to kill a lawsuit brought by the Electronic Frontier Foundation on behalf of AT&T customers who were unlawfully intercepted by the government. Not only is the Administration making an extreme argument under the military and state secrets doctrine but it is claimed that citizens cannot sue, even if the government engages in unlawful surveillance, under the Patriot Act. Due to changes put through with Democratic support, the statute is being used to block any lawsuit unless the citizens can show that there was ?willful disclosure?? of the communications by the government.
I doubt on a gameing forum there would be something like a serious discussion about politics possible..
What many people stated here is often wishful thinking and it seems they have no clue
Anyway, socialism mainly means the state is given the power to take away money from the ones which have more to give it the ones which have less.. That is not really good, (to give someone the power to take away something which belongs to someone else is never good) because it is not productive and the state should not be given such power. However, it can proof as a way to establish a good society and there seems to be no real good alternative to give a whole lot of money to the poorer people. The main problem is that people can get less productive, because the state cares for them and there would always be freeriders abusing everything.. also to take away something from someone is never good, even if they are rich and have enough..
Socialism and communism are not economic systems!! They are political systems.. Economy always works the same way, no matter if it is capitalism or communism, its always the same princibles.. However, should a state take care of its citizens and spread wealth more equal? (by taking it away from the wealthier) That is what socialism is. Should a state take care of its citizens completly and control the economy to spread everything equal? That is what communism is.
It is often not about the political system, it is always about what the people do.. However, a political system also sets a path for power and in the long run, its misuse can be fatal
What many people stated here is often wishful thinking and it seems they have no clue
Anyway, socialism mainly means the state is given the power to take away money from the ones which have more to give it the ones which have less.. That is not really good, (to give someone the power to take away something which belongs to someone else is never good) because it is not productive and the state should not be given such power. However, it can proof as a way to establish a good society and there seems to be no real good alternative to give a whole lot of money to the poorer people. The main problem is that people can get less productive, because the state cares for them and there would always be freeriders abusing everything.. also to take away something from someone is never good, even if they are rich and have enough..
Socialism and communism are not economic systems!! They are political systems.. Economy always works the same way, no matter if it is capitalism or communism, its always the same princibles.. However, should a state take care of its citizens and spread wealth more equal? (by taking it away from the wealthier) That is what socialism is. Should a state take care of its citizens completly and control the economy to spread everything equal? That is what communism is.
It is often not about the political system, it is always about what the people do.. However, a political system also sets a path for power and in the long run, its misuse can be fatal
I can explain that for you right here lad.UpSkirtDistress said:
First of all, I think it best we clarify that Socialism and Communism are NOT political systems, rather they are economic structures that can be established in different political systems (i.e. the U.S.S.R. was a Despotism with a Communist-styled economic system [rather ironically I might add]. Although some political ideologies may identify with the them, they are not inherently tied to any form of government (Students of Political Theory love to theorize about different political/economic combinations, and what implications, orderings, etc. would look like).
You see, with the end of World War II, the power of the Soviet Union and the rather poignant ideological differences of the Russians and the Western Capitalist powers led to a break down of communication and a buildup of hostilities between the two nations. Here, in the West, Socialism, Communism, Pacificism, anything that didn't fall in rank behind sentiments of pro-military conflict (poorly and disrespectfully guised as patriotism), as well as dominant Capitalist theory, were demonized and overshadowed with negative connotations. This was in the Late 40s and mid-50s. The generations since then have then grown up and politically developed in a culture of extreme hatred for Socialism, Communism, etc. (but not really the ideas of them, rather the words themselves and the connotations they bring to mind). This mindset has more or less transferred over to today.
Yes i've heard of her but never actually read any of her stuff, (atlas shrugged?) if i remember correctly. I've also never read Orwell's 1984, lol I guess I should prolly look into those if they are along my lines of thinking.Wouldukindly said:
There are a lot of good points on here, but (and I hate to sound like a paranoid conspiracy theory nut) a lot of the most influential people in modern culture are the super rich. A socialist system heavily penalises the most wealthy citizens so it's not difficult to imagine that the top echelon of society would oppose the thought, and that bleeds into everyday culture.
I'm going to say what I know about Socialism so if I don't get everything 100% correct, don't burn down my house for it.
Socialism says that everyone should make the same amount of money no matter what they do. Sounds good in theory but when someone who does repetitive office work 10 hours a day gets payed as much as someone who sits on his couch all day smoking weed, not a whole lot of people are going to go to work.
If you must spam me with hate, remember, I'm 15.
Socialism says that everyone should make the same amount of money no matter what they do. Sounds good in theory but when someone who does repetitive office work 10 hours a day gets payed as much as someone who sits on his couch all day smoking weed, not a whole lot of people are going to go to work.
If you must spam me with hate, remember, I'm 15.
