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.
for one the one article mentions eugenics, and i for one nearly stopped reading at that point as THAT word as the negative impact on me, as the authors imply "socialism" has on many....
as i understand it the "smarter" people already have in force a "new" form of socialism in place with all the perks offered by many of the leading IT companies google for instance...some have been said to explain whats needed and they are unknowingly explaining whats already being adopted by some.
and if i hear another person mention the "hard working" rich people without also mentioning the larger group of rich people who inherited their wealth. many "smart" people are motivated by job satisfaction for example money is NOT always the prime motivator..but this notion SEEMS to be outside many conservatives comprehension
The second article about eugenics is not explicitly advocating smart socialism but part of that similar scene. It seems that conservatives have a knee-jerk reaction to anything with socialism and liberals think it is eugenics. The blogger who wrote the Smart Socialism article describes himself as Alt-Center.
"We can easily reason from these premises that society should invest in its most promising and intelligent people, not in the slowest, least capable, and lowest in character. Thus, if we re-think socialism we might realize a welfare queen with 8 kids, a high iq, and demonstrable talent isn’t such a bad idea.
The real reason why redistribution programs meet with such opposition isn’t because of the principle of redistribution itself, but because of who the wealth is redistributed to."
"What if instead of disability checks, the system was more concerned in dealing out ability checks. If someone has a talent for drawing, music, or even for poetry, why not send them a monthly check simply for being what they are? A disabled person collects checks on the same premise after all. Why then do we not also recognize the abled, whose prosperity benefits everyone and rewards the best in us rather than the very worst?
If someone has good genes and superior intelligence why not send them a monthly check? The extra wealth renders them better able to support children and to influence our world.
If someone has sound spending habits why not send them a check, just because it’s known they’ll save it up for something important?"
Smart Socialism is a form of socialism that rejects egalitarianism
That is not socialism. Anything that rejects egalitarianism is right wing and therefore not socialist.
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.
