Oppose Redistribution; Communism and Socialism

Post Reply New Topic

Giving everyone an equal opportunity is okay. But in a system where everyone who has different abilities and strengths is allowed to pursue their own endeavors, inequality will be natural. Oppose redistribution of wealth to the parasites who seek to steal our livelihood. Let's keep Communism and Socialism where they belong. Not on this North American Continent.

I work for my dollars. I want them. I'm building my business from the ground up. I deserve the fruits of MY labor. I'll be damned if I pay a one-percent transaction tax. As a matter of fact I'll be damned if I sit down and let Social Security steal my money- the money of someone who will never retire. Giving our hard-earned money to those with disabilities, I applaud; I myself am handicapped. However, those who have no legitimate reason for not contributing to society are but leeches, and deserve none of my money; or yours for that matter. And I'm angry because that's what they think they're entitled to.

What do you think? SOMEONE must agree! MY money- MY choice!

I am basically in agreement, with a couple of caveats. (1) Anyone can fall on hard times and I think a *temporary* societal safety net is needed (by this I do not mean living off government funding for years and years, but rather preserving one's human dignity while looking for another job) and (2) Corporations which cannot pull their own weight should be treated the same way and not be given welfare either.

~Kate

You're angry because you're 17. Kate's already hit the nail on the head as well.

The biggest welfare bums in the U.S. are corporations supported by government contracts and subsidies. They make the legendary "welfare queens" look like hard working citizens.

ruveyn

Yes, and if the money is distributed "naturally" in a manner that guarantees feudalism, well, that's how the cookie crumbles. Prepare for lives of servitude and saying "Melord"...

As those on the top take more wealth and power they take more of a stranglehold of the government and pass laws to ensure they take more still so as to increase their power more and this continues until they are absolute masters of all and everyone else is effectively their slaves. But that's OK as "redistributionism" is bad - as a Matter of Principle, better to be a slave than a "thief".

Hear, hear! Socialism and communism suck! You may find fascism is more up your ally. In fascism, the state actively supports the business class because, in their social Darwinism, they believe the businessman is life's winner and deserves the spoils.

Let me do a quick psychoanalysis of you and you tell me if I'm correct...

Buys into tradition or commonly accepted societal beliefs- holds an ageist viewpoint;
Feels inferior about oneself and so has "Something to prove" to others and does this by using age as a leverage for superiority over others;

Does that sound right? If not, please correct me. However your analysis of my being "Angry" because I'm seventeen has no basis in truth. I'm not angry because I'm seventeen. I'm angry because parasites take my money and the money of other hard working people of this nation, and now I'm also angry because some little pissant thought they could size me up deducing their conclusion of me in totality from one little post.

@Kate: Of course society needs a safety net. But forced equality as an economic outcome is not good. Equal opportunity is. Since everyone has differing abilities and strengths it is only natural that inequality will inevitably manifest itself in the outcome of people's individual actions. Safety nets are good. Forced equalization is bad. It holds the intelligent and affluent back from pursuing financial ambition which is the driving force behind Capitalist innovation of technology and products in the market.

Furthermore, are you autistic Ben? By basing your conclusion of me solely on age and accepting societal norms, and also by going with the status quo, you put yourself in a box. Also by rejecting individual freedom and the goodness of inequality and difference to allow people of varying degrees of ability to succeed, you also submit yourself to going along with what the majority of society than says. You then accept what society calls people with autism or Asperger's. You're little more than a sheep if you can't stand on your own.

I agree in general and I also agree about the points brought up about corporate welfare.

There is much more to society than a mere safety net for the unfortunates. Those who prosper well do so from the entire social complex of social and physical infrastructure and they are the resource upon which society as a whole depends for sustenance. Those who succeed may see themselves as self sustaining but they operate under an egotistical illusion and without the support of all of society which includes many varieties of success and failure they too would disappear.

There's a precarious balance between giving money to people who actually need it and would otherwise starve economically, and giving it to parasites who aren't working because they don't feel like it. The parasites of the upper-class created those of the lower-class. But both the lowly street-rat and the affluent glutton are different faces of the same criminal.

I'm not disputing that they would disappear. What about it? We're all economically and socially interconnected in some way. The problem is differentiating between those who deserve money and those who're just parasites, and also those for whom the system must be adjusted to give them an equal opportunity, and those who just want to be gluttonous.

Some amount of social insurance is needed, however I'd agree that the government should not be dolling out corporate welfare or saying that anything is 'too big to fail'. On the other side of the coin government should be held accountable for any safe-guards it removes in the name of social policy or political favors, as I also believe that if a union drowns a corporation that they should be held legally and fiscally accountable for the mess left in the aftermath - even to an individual level if necessary.

Your money, your choice. Unfortunately the tax collector has a different view.

ruveyn

Taxes are necessary. Equally necessary is the regulation of their application. All in moderation I think.

I doubt that the "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" slogan, refers to leeching from the government.