socialism

Discussion in 'Politics' started by smokeridge high, Mar 26, 2012.

  1. #121 Mirvs, Apr 6, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 6, 2012
    [​IMG]

    Working blue collar in a warehouse = Anyone can replace you. No one has to care about you because almost everyone is capable of doing manual labor. Get some training and some skills and then you'll pry start being treated the way you expect to be treated.

    Complains about not having money then complains about working overtime :confused: Simultaneously doesn't understand that investing money with the company will make him more money in the long run, making it possible to invest more money to make more money ...

    Give me a megaphone large enough to let the 400,000 McDonald's employees know that 80% of them are lacking the skills to care for themselves and they should be thankful for the people who run McDonald's for giving them the opportunity to not starve to death and I will.

    Yeah, Mark Twain just LOVED HIM SOME GUBMINT.

    "That's the difference between governments and individuals. Governments don't care, individuals do." - A Tramp Abroad, Mark Twain.
     

  2. I agree, so why the need to control people with an artificial system doomed to corruption and failure? What it comes down to is if you are valuable then people will give you money. You must contribute something of value for that money, but if you do have something people want they will want to give you their money. The more they want it the more money they will give you.

    That's why brain surgeons make more than manual workers, because you have to work a lot harder to find a good brain surgeon. So make yourself a rare commodity, and others will make sure you eat, trust me. No need to put in place a system that forces people to give others something for nothing, that kind of fucks over some fundamental economic principles.
     
  3. I have no problem with socialism when one can enter and leave the society engaging in it freely, and it is not forced on people. For example, I have no problem with a community of people acquiring land and opting to share that land with no individual ownership of anything. I only have a problem when they come to me and say that I can't own property and coerce me into their system.

    Again, if people want to go form their own communes, go for it. Just don't make me join. I think it can actually work to an extent on a tribal scale, but larger than that, as you lose human connection, it becomes impossible to sustain. So as a system of governance, I'd say no. As a voluntary system for local society, sure, why not.
     

Share This Page