In any group of dissimilar objects, one will always be superior to the others. It is my opinion that the same is true for people. A man who has minimum education, minimum ambition, and puts forth minimum effort is inferior to an intelligent man who works hard and strives to better himself. That equal playing field that you just described is far from equal, because it requires the superior players to play with a handicap.
I might need an explanation on that one. I don't see how everyone having the same opportunity to succeed became hard workers living with a handicap. If I go to, say, Canada, work my ass off, invent something revolutionary, and start selling it, I'll still be making more money than the loser who never gets off his ass, and sits around smoking dope all day.
I already posted a link previously that proves otherwise; you aren't remotely familiar with socialism. Additionally, under capitalism, a bourgeois who does little, if any productive work, reaps a vast fortune while those who actually work often earn just enough to live paycheck to paycheck. And in spite of this fact, we are supposed to blame a Hispanic man or woman who desperately came to the United States to escape crushing poverty and drug violence? I am not buying that!
“You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.” ― Adrian Rogers It is the Communists’ intention to make people think that personal success is somehow achieved at the expense of others and that every successful man has hurt somebody by becoming successful. It is the Communists’ aim to discourage all personal effort and to drive men into a hopeless, dispirited, gray herd of robots who have lost all personal ambition, who are easy to rule, willing to obey and willing to exist in selfless servitude to the State. - Ayn Rand The goal of socialism is communism. -Vladimir Lenin Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. -Winston Churchill
I figure posting a video is about on par with posting quotes. A decent job of giving a quick rundown of what socialism actually is. It's similar to what I said earlier, but it goes into a little more detail.
I don't agree that socialism leads to or is communism, but I get what Ridley is saying and agree with the sentiment. I'd like to keep the money I earn to support my family, since my government is taking my money in taxes, but failing to provide for them. So as a result, I get paid less, which means I and my family have less, but get no benefit from having less, because we don't qualify by the governments standards to be offered equal opportunity.
Part of trying to make your point was quoting Ayn Ran(d) and Vladimir Lenin. My mind boggles. Also, sharing quotes doesn't make or break an argument, quotes from (in)famous people can be made on both sides of the socialism is good/bad argument. *goes to look for the NFL referee argument meme pics*
The Lenin quote was to illustrate that socialism is a system that leads to communism, and I'm not entirely sure what you have against Ayn Rand.
what experience? his own personal goals for his country, which are removed from the goals of the actual political system?
Not just his personal goals, but the goals of the party in general. Goals that weren't removed from the political system, but rather formed the basis of it.
The leader of a party is like a figurehead. All they kinda really do is represent there party, say what their party and politicians want them to say, etc. It's the party adn the people behind the scenes that have the real power.
Ayn Rand is a hack, her theories have proven to not work in the real world. See: http://www.salon.com/2013/12/10/ayn_rand_loving_ceo_destroys_his_empire_partner/ http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-warring-divisions-model-adds-to-the-troubles http://www.businessinsider.com/list-of-sears-and-kmart-stores-closing-2016-2 And many, many other stories you can find about this on the internet. For Lenin, I just want to try this out Just because Lenin said it, that doesn't make it fact.
Those three articles are all about the same example, and Eddie Lampert is an extremist. That's really the problem with any philosophy, be it Ayn Rand, Karl Marx, or religion. The most devout followers fail to take into account that other people have free will and may not be willing to follow their beliefs. Because of that, they're unwilling and unable to find ways to adapt the philosophy to the real world. As for Lenin, he was the leader of what was, at the time, a world superpower founded on socialist principles. If that doesn't make an expert witness, I don't know what does.
yes, but he was using a particular version of the system, one he invented. perhaps the goal of leninism is communism, but that's a very specific branch of soacialism, that's quite different from, say, democratic socialism
Doesn't all government do this? Collecting taxes and spending them on the populace? I fail to see a point here. If you don't want the government to receive funds and spend it on the citizens, then please explain to us what you do want and how it would work. Democratic socialism != Robin Hood
