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.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. Giving the kid a chunk for doing nothing is wrong. That is stealing. Nothing to do with the word socialism. A better example would be that 9 dollars taken out of 10 and mailed to the government.
You keep focusing on the end result of where the taken resources end up. Collectivism in any form involves systems of taking. The collective, asserting authority simply by virtue of being the collective, takes from individuals by force. Everything after that is blah blah blah.
System of taking, by force. Socialism, communism, whateverism. ALL collectivism has an organized system of taking, by force, as its first and most necessary component.
If you take $9 of every $10 and give it to government, keep it for yourself or light it on fire, the first action was the taking. That was the immoral precursor that makes all follow on actions with that $9 immoral.
Even better, don't pay the kid who cleaned the bathroom. Tell him that's his duty to the motherland, and that he is expected to do the same each week, or else he'd lose his allowance (such as it is). Tell him that his brother is now a party member and that he'd be your eyes and ears.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. Giving the kid a chunk for doing nothing is wrong. That is stealing. Nothing to do with the word socialism. A better example would be that 9 dollars taken out of 10 and mailed to the government.
You are working way too hard. Socialism (the world has suffered socialism as defined by Marx and more recently the social-democratic type) both are all about penalizing the those that do and rewarding those that don't as a central ethos. The effective 70% tax rate suffered by the kid who cleaned the toilet is a perfect illustration.
Keep in mind one of Marx' favored tools toward disincentivizing success was a high and progressive income tax.
David Webb
@davidwebbshow
·
15h
Innoculate your kids against Socialism by having them clean the bathroom.
Pay them $10, then take away $7 and give it to their sibling who didn't help. Socialism won't seem so attractive then!
So the goal is to prevent liberal indoctrination by providing another kind of indoctrination?
At least it is pretty clear who took the money and where the money went. The child can decide if there is value in that distribution or if he should work for $3.00. As of right now in our current system, it is not easy for me to determine who gets the money to distribute it and where to sign-up for access to this money or to check that the quality of the services that it provides is being applied equally across the board. But that is not a socialist vs capitalist issue. It is politics.
Take away seven and place it into a college fund for both. Is that socialism? Everything is socialism as is life. Now, if you want to give examples of Fascism, communism etc....
Hey professor, If I'm losing 70% of my labor for a communal benefit and other benefactors are laying around doing nothing, why would I continue to work? That would be stupid.
Get this through your head: YOU ARE NOT OWED ANYTHING BECAUSE YOU EXIST!!!
Take away seven and place it into a college fund for both. Is that socialism? Everything is socialism as is life. Now, if you want to give examples of Fascism, communism etc....
Socialism is a rives of chocolate and dancing sugar plumbs in your head.
In reality, the power it takes to take your money and save it for college is same power implicit in fascism. Its the power of the few over the many. Its a ready to eat , heat and serve oligarchy.
The division of power is what makes a good society: and socialism, specifically at the federal level, is the exact opposite. These are not my ideas. These are the ideas of others based upon their historical observations.
Internally independent, but unified from an external threat. Those have frequently resulted in the civilizations of note:
As a certain kind of confidence forms the glory and stability of monarchies, republics, on the contrary, must have something to apprehend*. A fear of the Persians supported the laws of Greece. Carthage and Rome were alarmed and strengthened by each other. Strange, that, the greater security those states enjoyed, the more, like stagnated waters, they were subject to corruption!
...
This form of government is a convention, by which several petty states agree to become members of a larger one, which they intend to establish. It is a kind of assemblage of societies, that constitute a new one, capable of increasing by means of farther associations, till they arrive to such a degree of power, as to be able to provide for the security of the whole body.
It was these associations that so long contributed to the prosperity of Greece. By these the Romans attacked the whole globe; and by these alone the whole globe withstood them. For, when Rome was arrived to her highest pitch of grandeur, it was the associations beyond the Danube and the Rhine, associations [166] formed by the terror of her arms, that enabled the barbarians to resist her.
-Montesquieu
Keep in mind this was written well before the United States which had the Confederate , Independent structure and the looming external threat of Europe which created it. Really little different that the modern German state which which Bismarck created by making an enemy out of France. Highly predictive I would say since the 2 most powerful modern states were newly unified independents facing external pressure.
I find that economists, especially socialists and Marxists , make up Adam and Eve stories and logically decide social behavior with bothering to look at what actually happens like psychologists , historians or anthropologists do. Socialists have no observational , scientific component to their beliefs. That is why socialism " is risible and ludicrous nonsense, a whiff of smoke from an intoxicating pipe. There is also no consistency with each utopian ideal being specific to the dreamer. A perfect society in one's own mind is best delivered by avoiding unified ,and tyrannical majorities.
Yes. One person who did no input labor was given a portion of the compensation due the person who actually did all the labor. Even if the portion is 1%, it was still unearned.
For your above red herring to not be socialism, the kid who cleans the bathroom gets the whole $10, the kid who does nothing gets nothing, and if the kid who earned the money chooses to give charity to their sibling, or they choose to take $7 of their $10 and invest it for college, then we have capitalism and investing at work, as well as charity. And in case you are unclear on how charity works, it requires a voluntary giving component. Socialism involves involuntary taking. They are different, regardless of what the money is used for.
No, all systems of taking are socialism. Systems of voluntary giving, agreed upon compensation for labor, and investing fall under free market individualism that is covered by the loose umbrella term of capitalism.
Great post. Way too many people do not understand this in the least--it's like string theory or something to them. The blame is on a failed education system and failed parenting.
There really should be a "Dick and Jane" book about free market vs socialism, individualism vs collectivism, etc. Not just for kids, but for adults lacking in the basics as well.
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.
