I've written long threads about why I disagree with the collectivist ideologies that socialism promotes but now I want to discuss things on a slightly
more technical level. For people who live inside the U.S. and see a problem with wealth inequality, it's very easy to view socialism as a quick easy
fix because it appeals to their sense of morality and it's a system which focuses more on the greater good so it couldn't possibly fail could it?
It's kind of odd that I even have to explain why excessive socialism and communist ideals are flawed when history clearly shows us a common trend
among most nations who try it and even now there are nations suffering from wide spread poverty due to an overzealous adoption of ideologies based on
emotions rather than logic. As I've said several times before, I think some level of socialism is justified and can help balance the flaws of
The true threat of socialism arises when we decide that individual liberty no longer matters and that people should be forced into a certain way of
living and a certain way of conducting business. Free market capitalism will always be superior to hardcore socialism for a simple reason: capitalism
is something that arises naturally when a society of people engage in free trade, whereas excessive socialism requires governmental force to ensure
some degree of equality.
Capitalism encourages people to make products that other people want and drives the economy, whereas overly taxing the productive citizens forces them
to pay for things that they don't want, which is not fair to those creating the wealth. This will harm the economy if taken too far because it will
force businesses to cut costs by letting go of people or lowering the quality of their product, resulting in less people buying that product.
It may seem to work at first but over the long term it will result in even greater problems and even wider spread poverty then what you started with.
I've provided stats
several times before showing how the nations which have the
lowest taxes and highest degree of economic freedom have the highest standards of living and their poorest citizens have much higher standards of
living compared to the more socialist nations with less economic freedom.
How much of your labor is owed to society? Would it be fair to give up 75% of your paycheck if that's what it took to have true wealth equality? It's
for the greater good right, so why wouldn't you? Does it even matter how much each person contributes to society? Critics of capitalism say it's based
on selfishness, but what is more selfish is to expect that one should have a right to the same amount of wealth as everyone else even if they
When we decide that increasing taxes and expanding the size of the government is always a good thing we are heading down a very dangerous path, and
I'm seeing that type of thinking from the left now more than ever because Trump is lowering taxes and trying to get a handle on government debt by
cutting costs and trimming unnecessary fat. This according to their fantasy economics is a bad thing despite all the clear indications the economy is
What taxes really do is take spending power from individuals and businesses and give it to the government. Excessive socialism always leads to a nanny
state and it truly boggles my mind that so many people believe such a huge bloated government could spend money more effectively than the private
sector. It really doesn't take much analysis to understand why over-taxing and over-regulating an economy can harm it and destroy a nation in the long
Ultimately it's a choice between liberty and freedom, or governmental coercion and intrusions into the way we live our lives. This is the core
difference between people who promote a one world government and those who oppose it. Those in favor of it may say "oh but it's for the greater good,
it's an all powerful government that can care for every person on Earth". They are willing to put all their faith in one highly centralized
The "greater good" is not always the right choice. For example would you want to live in a society where everyone is assigned an occupation by the
government in order to most efficiently meet the needs of the population? It would be for the greater good, there would never be a shortage of
doctors, but would you actually be willing to give up that amount of liberty? At what point does your own desires and aspirations outweigh the need of
the greater good?
I've had many debates with people about fluoride and it always seems to come down to one argument "it helps protect the teeth of those less fortunate
who cannot afford to brush their teeth", obviously I disagree strongly with this argument. The Wikipedia page titled
water fluoridation controversy
has a very interesting paragraph under the
section about ethics which I think is quite an apt demonstration of how these two different mind sets view the world:
Water fluoridation pits the common good against individual rights. Some say the common good overrides individual rights, and equate it to
vaccination and food fortification.Others say that individual rights override the common good, and say that individuals have no choice in the
water that they drink, unless they drink more expensive bottled water, and some argue unequivocally that it does not stand up to scrutiny relative
to the Nuremberg Code and other codes of medical ethics.
The argument is that a large fraction of the population should have to ingest fluoride despite all the health risks and the fact it only works when
applied to the surface of your teeth, because there is some evidence it reduces cavities among the poorer population, we're all medicated for the
"greater good". Lets just forget the fact most other developing nations have seen the same rates of decline in cavity rates despite not fluoridating
I mention this topic because I find it to be a very analogous to the arguments made in favor of excessive socialism, and shows how intellectuals can
easily be swayed by appealing to the "greater good". They only look at the short term benefits without really considering the long term costs and they
allow their emotions to win against logic. At the end of the day it harms more people than it helps and that is why I'll always oppose these naive
What's truly ironic is that they cling to every world the MSM says and appeal to big government authority, while simultaneously yelling about Trump
abusing government power, not seeing the obvious risks imposed by a totalitarian nanny state... "oh it's based on an ethical foundation so it couldn't
possibly become corrupt". What nonsense. In my experience the most corrupt politicians are those who yell the loudest about their unmatched
edit on 31/8/2018 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)