Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If it's against human nature then why are human babies more helpless at birth than babies of almost all other species? It's TOTALLY within human nature.
That said, you make it sound like slavery. Like all the product of someone's energy would go to someone else. That's not how it works. If I'm doing well and pulling extra resources for myself that I feel I don't need to ensure my basic survival and comfort, I have no problem having some of those extra resources being redistributed to the members with less ability, luck or advantages. Why? Because I'm a member of a group species not a solitary species. I work for the survival of my species, not just myself. When I'm doing well, I'm willing to share my resources with the group. If you're not, renounce your membership to the group and formerly declare yourself a separate species.
Human babies have a longer childhood and are more helpless due to the need for time to develop the more advanced human brain. It has nothing to do with socialism and everything to do with science.
You are a part of a "group species"? I am afraid that you are mixing science with politics, akin to those who espouse "social Darwinism". This is a misinterpretation of genetics and evolution which is a common error. I am afraid that you need to read a little more about these topics.
If you want to work for the pleasure of others in a system in which providing for the less willing and dependent is COMPULSORY, not VOLUNTARY, that is certainly your perrogative. When one is in a system in which "redistribution" is state policy, we have several problems-
a. how much of one's personal resources are redistributed
b. to whom are those resources redistributed
c. who decides where the resources go
d. what incentives, given no benefit, is there to producing more resources
These are the problems with socialism and eventually result in reducing effort, ingenuity, and production. When there is no benefit to working an additional ten to fifteen hours a week, most people would choose not to work. It is simple human nature. Likewise, one who recieves food and shelter without working has little incentive to work and will be perfectly happy being non productive.
A socialist US America, with a parallel capitalistic America, would result in the exodus of the productive from the socialistic system, in which they were being used as the work horses (Merry from Animal Farm) for the pleasure of the less initiated. These systems, without the use of military force and confinement, tend to fall apart. Did you ever wonder why there was a Berlin Wall and marked restrictions on emmigration from authoritarian socialist regimes? Everyone wanted to leave.
I am afraid that the left is pining for the same police state type situation in which the only way that the productive can be coerced into providing for the non productive is through force. Why not just move to North Korea now and "live the dream"?
Are you sure about that? Of course, that makes a lot of sense. Producers don't like to have their earnings taken from to give to the non-producers. I think that this split would result in an eventual "war" in the left leaning side since the producers there would gradually become conservative, also.
Anyone who was ever in the Soviet Union always tells the same story about that place. Like the farmers on the collective farms refused to produce 100% until they were given plots to grow food to sell in the cities and so on.
Yea, i'm quite sure of it.
Roy, in all societies, there will be producers and non-producers. The producers will always complain about the non-producers. But these things are a simple fact of life. Most people in America are producers, and although i wish EVERYONE was, i know that such thoughts are hopelessly pollyanish.
When we get to the point in the USA that we can no longer afford having non-producers around, then i'm sure something will have to change, but that's not the case right now.
What are you going to eat if you take from those farmers and ranchers? Have you ever given any thought to that?
What were people eating before there was a such thing as federal price supports?
Understand, i'm not for ending subsidies...not by any means. I just want it made clear that subsidies are corporate welfare, the same as any other welfare.
So do you agree with freeloading, entitlement mentality or is it only okay when your guy does it?
I believe in a solid social safety net. I'm old enough to understand that there will be freeloaders with an entitlement mentality, but that's life. WTH am i supposed to do about that? Kill them?
I'm not ok with freeloading, but i'm not going to be selective like you and pick out the freeloaders i don't like while leaving the others out of the conversation. I don't know anyone living in the housing projects that ever got a billion dollar no-bid contract, and i will make sure those people get pointed out right along with the project dweller because they're JUST AS GUILTY!!
All of which leaves us with the problem that the countries with the strongest welfare nets also tend to be the most economically successful.
Of course, the entire thing rests on the American tendency to confuse social benefits with socialism. From the American viewpoint, social policies and capitalism become points on the same line, and more of one must necessarily mean less of the other.
Other countries can run strongly capitalist economies, to pay for the welfare nets that seem to keep a larger fraction of the popuation in the tax-paying and consuming middle class.
If it's against human nature then why are human babies more helpless at birth than babies of almost all other species? It's TOTALLY within human nature.
That said, you make it sound like slavery. Like all the product of someone's energy would go to someone else. That's not how it works. If I'm doing well and pulling extra resources for myself that I feel I don't need to ensure my basic survival and comfort, I have no problem having some of those extra resources being redistributed to the members with less ability, luck or advantages. Why? Because I'm a member of a group species not a solitary species. I work for the survival of my species, not just myself. When I'm doing well, I'm willing to share my resources with the group. If you're not, renounce your membership to the group and formerly declare yourself a separate species.
Thats right...gimme...gimme..gimme! I am a sub B creature. I need because i am! gloop gloop gloop!
I believe the whole premise of this thread is bogus and nonsense.
Agree totally... however, it is entertaining and sad to see the partisan idiots argue and show their ignorance. One of the many reasons why this country is in about as bad a shape as it has ever been... too many stupid people
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
