Originally posted by: Rikter
In other words, not a free market. Government control of the economy. These are BAD things. The government has proven time and time again that it has no idea how to spend the money of the individual. That should be up to the person who makes it.
From Wikipedia:A primary concern of socialism (and, according to some, its defining feature) is social equality and an equitable distribution of wealth that would serve the interests of society as a whole.
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
That view is a bit out there to say the least.
Socialism may be 'fair', but it is not right. Rightness is different than fairness, which I would define as everyone being equal. If everyone is equal economically [except the leaders, of course!] then there is no incentive to do anything. Why should any person do their best when someone else who is slacking off is just as well off as them?
It doesn't matter who runs it; socialism is inherently flawed in that it punishes creativity and hard work and rewards laziness.
Darth Chaltab -
You should REALLY take a few poly sci classes and get a clue as to what the hell your talking about because you sound like an idiot
Ha, ha. Funny. Are you actually defending socialism? And, sorry, but political science isn't offered at my school. I could perhaps try to find one next year, but I've heard many a horror story about Pol-Sci classes that are nothing but proffessors bashing the capitialist system, so I'm hesitant.
But no, I really don't sound like an idiot. Because I'm right, and I'm certainly not the only one who has said what I just said.
Socialism as defined on dictionary.com: Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
That view is a bit out there to say the least.
Socialism may be 'fair', but it is not right. Rightness is different than fairness, which I would define as everyone being equal. If everyone is equal economically [except the leaders, of course!] then there is no incentive to do anything. Why should any person do their best when someone else who is slacking off is just as well off as them?
It doesn't matter who runs it; socialism is inherently flawed in that it punishes creativity and hard work and rewards laziness.
Darth Chaltab -
You should REALLY take a few poly sci classes and get a clue as to what the hell your talking about because you sound like an idiot
Ha, ha. Funny. Are you actually defending socialism? And, sorry, but political science isn't offered at my school. I could perhaps try to find one next year, but I've heard many a horror story about Pol-Sci classes that are nothing but proffessors bashing the capitialist system, so I'm hesitant.
But no, I really don't sound like an idiot. Because I'm right, and I'm certainly not the only one who has said what I just said.
Socialism as defined on dictionary.com: Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
In other words, not a free market. Government control of the economy. These are BAD things. The government has proven time and time again that it has no idea how to spend the money of the individual. That should be up to the person who makes it.
From Wikipedia:A primary concern of socialism (and, according to some, its defining feature) is social equality and an equitable distribution of wealth that would serve the interests of society as a whole.
Equitable distrubution of wealth. Right. How exactly is that good or healthy for anyone? Wealth is not something to be distributed. It is created, it is earned. It's not a pie that can be consumed. You don't tax a nation into prosperity, and you can't expect redistrubution of wealth to do anything but create dependency and discourage self-sufficiency.