T Nation

Why Does Everyone Hate Socialism?

Now, communism is very bad. Governing by force won’t work.

But Socialism? Providing for everyone’s needs?

If it works for Starfleet than why not in the real world?

Is it just lack of technology to provide everyone with their needs?

If we had the technology, would it work?

Rather than strive for money we might strive for rank, power, knowledge but always have food, shelther and a holodeck for some fun?

I am very curious as to why Socialism is considered evil.

The lack of motivation will destroy a society but what if we could focus on only striving for our wants and not our needs?

Cheers,
Spry.

Why should I pay for someone who has no sense of responcibility for himself?

This is the land of opportunity. Too many people piss this away in exchange for a handout.

And it’s sucks for those who bust their ass to get to where they are.

If I want to give someone charity I’ll do it myself. If I need charity I want to accept it graciously from another human being, with dignity. I want to struggle against ruthless existence with a safety net of individuals earned or spurned by the merits of my own actions and character, not on the dole of some bean-counter’s legal mandate.

Infringement of liberties. (Maybe with good intentions)

No, no, no.

You all did not read my question.

What if a government had the means to provide for the NEEDS of its citizens but allowed complete freedom to pursue your WANTS?

Think about Star Trek for what I mean.

Is Star Trek possible or can someone use logic to show me that such a society would ultimately fail?

[quote]Spry wrote:
No, no, no.

You all did not read my question.

What if a government had the means to provide for the NEEDS of its citizens but allowed complete freedom to pursue your WANTS?

Think about Star Trek for what I mean.

Is Star Trek possible or can someone use logic to show me that such a society would ultimately fail?[/quote]

it is not the job of the government to provide for its citizens…

socialism goes against innate human nature.

[quote]Spry wrote:
No, no, no.

You all did not read my question.

What if a government had the means to provide for the NEEDS of its citizens but allowed complete freedom to pursue your WANTS?

Think about Star Trek for what I mean.

Is Star Trek possible or can someone use logic to show me that such a society would ultimately fail?[/quote]

Ludwig von Mises “Gemeinwirtschaft”, you kind find a free copy here.

Basically a central planner could not plan, for he lacks prices that can only be determined using a market.

No private property no markets, no markets no prices, no prices no rational planning.

You cannot help the poor, by destroying the rich.

You cannot strengthen the weak, by weakening the strong.

You cannot bring about prosperity, by discouraging thrift.

You cannot lift the wage earner up, by pulling the wage payer down.

You cannot further the brotherhood of man, by inciting class hatred.

You cannot build character and courage, by taking away men’s initiative and independence.

You cannot help men permanently, by doing for them what they could and should, do for themselves.

This is an excert from Ronald Reagan’s Address on behalf of Senator Barry Goldwater
Rendezvous with Destiny
October 27, 1964
(this is from the 60’s so the numbers are outdated, but this still applies to the current time, only with bigger numbers)

We have so many people who can’t see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion that the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So they are going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer and they’ve had almost 30 years of it, shouldn’t we expect government to almost read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn’t they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing?

But the reverse is true. Each year the need grows greater, the program grows greater. We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry each night. Well, that was probably true. They were all on a diet. But now we are told that 9.3 million families in this country are poverty-stricken on the basis of earning less than $3,000 a year. Welfare spending is 10 times greater than in the dark depths of the Depression. We are spending $45 billion on welfare. Now do a little arithmetic, and you will find that if we divided the $45 billion up equally among those 9 million poor families, we would be able to give each family $4,600 a year, and this added to their present income should eliminate poverty! Direct aid to the poor, however, is running only about $600 per family. It would seem that someplace there must be some overhead.

click on the link to read the entire speech
http://www.reaganlibrary.com/reagan/speeches/rendezvous.asp

[quote]Spry wrote:
No, no, no.

You all did not read my question.

What if a government had the means to provide for the NEEDS of its citizens but allowed complete freedom to pursue your WANTS?

Think about Star Trek for what I mean.

Is Star Trek possible or can someone use logic to show me that such a society would ultimately fail?[/quote]

Could you use logic to show me that Star Trek would work in real life?

Socialism isn’t just a theory or something they did in Star Trek, it really exists moron.

Socialism caused these governments to fail: Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Benin, Bolgaria, Congo, Czeckoslavakia three times, Ethiopia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Hungary twice, Kampuchea, Mongolia, Mozambique, Poland, Romania twice, Somali, USSR, Tuvinia, Vietnam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Algeria, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Burma, Cape Verde, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Indonesia, Iraq, Madagascar, Mali, Nicaragua, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sudan, Suriname, Tunisia, Uganda, Chile, United Arab Republic, Zanzibar.

This website is for weightlifters, not trekies

[quote]conorh wrote:
If I want to give someone charity I’ll do it myself. If I need charity I want to accept it graciously from another human being, with dignity. I want to struggle against ruthless existence with a safety net of individuals earned or spurned by the merits of my own actions and character, not on the dole of some bean-counter’s legal mandate.[/quote]

Will you Conor? Do ugly gingers ever give to charity? I think they just take. Boooh hooo… I’m a ginger. :oP

[quote]jc10etheridge90 wrote:
You cannot help the poor, by destroying the rich.

You cannot strengthen the weak, by weakening the strong.

You cannot bring about prosperity, by discouraging thrift.

You cannot lift the wage earner up, by pulling the wage payer down.

You cannot further the brotherhood of man, by inciting class hatred.

You cannot build character and courage, by taking away men’s initiative and independence.

You cannot help men permanently, by doing for them what they could and should, do for themselves.[/quote]

I vote for this.

And I was just kiddin’ Conor.

[quote]Spry wrote:
No, no, no.

You all did not read my question.

What if a government had the means to provide for the NEEDS of its citizens but allowed complete freedom to pursue your WANTS?

Think about Star Trek for what I mean.

Is Star Trek possible or can someone use logic to show me that such a society would ultimately fail?[/quote]

You’re assuming that people would pursue ‘high-minded’ goals that would somehow benefit society.

In reality, the holodeck would be used (almost exclusively) for virtual-sex, video games and mindless entertainment.

Take a look at the internet. Or at people on welfare.

The ‘Holodeck’ is nothing but a Utopian fantasy. Like Socialism. (The ability to create something from nothing.)

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

Who would do the work?

[quote]Spry wrote:
If it works for Starfleet than why not in the real world?

Is it just lack of technology to provide everyone with their needs?
[/quote]

If the technology were available to this extent there would be no government at all.

Why have a government just for the sake of controlling people?

This website is for weightlifters, not trekies[/quote]

You’re new to this site aren’t you? lol nevertheless, welcome.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Spry wrote:
If it works for Starfleet than why not in the real world?

Is it just lack of technology to provide everyone with their needs?

If the technology were available to this extent there would be no government at all.

Why have a government just for the sake of controlling people?[/quote]

Without government there would be no Starfleet. And without starfleet there would be no Starfleet uniforms. And those uniforms are soooooo cool.

[quote]Spry wrote:
No, no, no.

You all did not read my question.

What if a government had the means to provide for the NEEDS of its citizens but allowed complete freedom to pursue your WANTS?

Think about Star Trek for what I mean.

Is Star Trek possible or can someone use logic to show me that such a society would ultimately fail?[/quote]

Your logic flaw here is thinking that the government can somehow produce something.

Everything the government spends comes from somewhere. The more it ?provides? the more it has to take.

Freedom in a socialist society is inherently different than a capitalist one. We generally define freedom as the ability to do what you want with your life as long as you don?t mess with someone else. Socialists general define freedom as being free of want. Free of the worry of things like unemployment, old age, medical care, retirement, ect. It?s an interesting take on freedom really.

There are some interesting socialist manifestos that in their utopia have people breed for and drafted into jobs, have your meals, vacations, and even purpose for life, planned and monitored by the government. And these same authors thought their utopias were the freest places on imaginable.

The real problem is that without fear of being fired or hope of being promoted, why work hard? Without fear of having enough for retirement, why save and invest?

The substitution for these fears eventually has to be fear of the government. They in the end have to scare their own people into working at the end of a rifle.

[quote]Spry wrote:
Now, communism is very bad. Governing by force won’t work.

But Socialism? Providing for everyone’s needs?
[/quote]

You have failed to convince me that Socialism isn’t “governing by force”.

Please give us your definitions of Communism and Socialism and how they are different.