Why do you believe in Socialism?

[Underverse]

In short, no. Wherever it seems to be 100% implemented, misery tends to ensue.

Same with any system. You want anarchocapitalism? Go for it. I'll watch.

Edit: Also, military dictatorships =/= "100% socialism". So let's just toss out that idea right now.

[Sci Fi Samurai]

Some taxes are fucked up, but atleast they'd usually support people in need.

In the US, most tax money goes to the military. After that, it goes to wealthy corporate interests.

Your federal taxes are more likely to blow up brown people in a desert or make the rich richer than they are to support anyone in need.

It's interesting to see how many people's response to this question has ethical roots, buried by layers of subjective broad brushing with statements concerning 'the masses' or 'the people'. It's comforting to know that out there, somewhere, is a stranger prepared to tell me what's best for me, and impose his opinions on me under the threat of force.

Because he's such a good and wonderful guy, of course.

[Osmeric]

In the US, most tax money goes to the military.

This is false.

[Chrysia]

In the US, most tax money goes to the military. After that, it goes to wealthy corporate interests.

Your federal taxes are more likely to blow up brown people in a desert or make the rich richer than they are to support anyone in need.

It's interesting to see how many people's response to this question has ethical roots, buried by layers of subjective broad brushing with statements concerning 'the masses' or 'the people'. It's comforting to know that out there, somewhere, is a stranger prepared to tell me what's best for me, and impose his opinions on me under the threat of force.

Because he's such a good and wonderful guy, of course.

Civilization beyond the tribal level is, always has been, and always will be predicated on the threat of force.

I support socialistic programs because it is, realistically, the only viable economic model of the future. Labor saving technologies, by design, create fewer jobs than they eliminate. The way forward will require either a severe reduction in the human population or that we provide basic care for everyone regardless of their societal utility.

[Jaylock]

Because I think we are stronger working together than for ourselves?

This is a common theme im seeing from people who believe in such a system.

So are you saying that a person who is highly successful, who builds a business, employs people, is essentially a very wealthy person. You are saying that we should penalize this person just for the sole reason that he is "wealthy" in the eyes of everyone else around him? We should say to this person: "Hello mr successful person, because you are successful, you need to give more than half your success to the masses, people you don't know, people who are not your family, people who are either unable to work, or unwilling to work as hard as you have to become successful, because socialism."

I don't think that is a very fair system. The successful person is more than likely not going to stay in a system for long if his wealth is forced and taken from him to spread out to "the people."

I think there needs to be a welfare system built to help teach people to get back up on their feet. Not pander to their thought "oh the state will pay for my basic needs, so i dont need to do shit. I'll sit back, collect a paycheck and play video games, watch TV, (in essence fuck off) because the wealthy will pay for me"

I mean I have some pretty good Australian friends that I skype with and play games with alot. They are unemployed. They openly admitted over skype, "oh I gotta fill out this paperwork proving I looked for a job, so i can get a pay check" He then proceeded to send out a dummy resume to 20 companies that he was unqualified for, and he knew he wouldn't get any offers or interviews with, because he was just doing it to cheese the Australian welfare system. That's sickening to me. Being lazy, and living off the backs of hard working citizens because the system allows for the spreading of their wealth.

[araine]

Even a fairly socialist country like Norway has a decent tax rate.

I am currently in one of the higher tax brackets and after my deductions I have about 35% tax which is not bad considering I dont pay for healthcare and so forth.

I like this system due to the fact that I live in a society, and its better for me and the people around me that this society prospers. The fewer people struggling financially the better it is for the system as a whole.

And here is the funny thing, you would have higher taxes in the USA and get less for it. no free healthcare etc etc. really folks in the USA needs to wake up and demand that they get free healthcare since they are already paying for it basically

[Underverse]

This is a common theme im seeing from people who believe in such a system.

So are you saying that a person who is highly successful, who builds a business, employs people, is essentially a very wealthy person. You are saying that we should penalize this person just for the sole reason that he is "wealthy" in the eyes of everyone else around him? We should say to this person: "Hello mr successful person, because you are successful, you need to give more than half your success to the masses, people you don't know, people who are not your family, people who are either unable to work, or unwilling to work as hard as you have to become successful, because socialism."

I don't think that is a very fair system. The successful person is more than likely not going to stay in a system for long if his wealth is forced and taken from him to spread out to "the people."

I think there needs to be a welfare system built to help teach people to get back up on their feet. Not pander to their thought "oh the state will pay for my basic needs, so i dont need to do shit. I'll sit back, collect a paycheck and play video games, watch TV, (in essence fuck off) because the wealthy will pay for me"

I mean I have some pretty good Australian friends that I skype with and play games with alot. They are unemployed. They openly admitted over skype, "oh I gotta fill out this paperwork proving I looked for a job, so i can get a pay check" He then proceeded to send out a dummy resume to 20 companies that he was unqualified for, and he knew he wouldn't get any offers or interviews with, because he was just doing it to cheese the Australian welfare system. That's sickening to me. Being lazy, and living off the backs of hard working citizens because the system allows for the spreading of their wealth.

Penalize? They had an idea. That doesn't mean they deserve all of the credit for bringing that idea to life. In fact, this is the foundation for a capitalist system. If the people with the ideas got all the credit, then scientists would be the richest people on earth. What we have instead is these wealthy businessmen who simply bring the idea to the market. Now, I personally think that our system has swung too far in favor of those who market the idea. But the parallel here remains. Creating something is never a process done alone.

There are some lazy people. But that doesn't mean we should get rid of safety nets and social benefits. It simply means that we should modify how this money is awarded to be more precise in the people it helps.

[araine]

This is a common theme im seeing from people who believe in such a system.

So are you saying that a person who is highly successful, who builds a business, employs people, is essentially a very wealthy person. You are saying that we should penalize this person just for the sole reason that he is "wealthy" in the eyes of everyone else around him? We should say to this person: "Hello mr successful person, because you are successful, you need to give more than half your success to the masses, people you don't know, people who are not your family, people who are either unable to work, or unwilling to work as hard as you have to become successful, because socialism."

I don't think that is a very fair system. The successful person is more than likely not going to stay in a system for long if his wealth is forced and taken from him to spread out to "the people."

I think there needs to be a welfare system built to help teach people to get back up on their feet. Not pander to their thought "oh the state will pay for my basic needs, so i dont need to do shit. I'll sit back, collect a paycheck and play video games, watch TV, (in essence fuck off) because the wealthy will pay for me"

I mean I have some pretty good Australian friends that I skype with and play games with alot. They are unemployed. They openly admitted over skype, "oh I gotta fill out this paperwork proving I looked for a job, so i can get a pay check" He then proceeded to send out a dummy resume to 20 companies that he was unqualified for, and he knew he wouldn't get any offers or interviews with, because he was just doing it to cheese the Australian welfare system. That's sickening to me. Being lazy, and living off the backs of hard working citizens because the system allows for the spreading of their wealth.

Still a better system compared to where the top 0.1% hordes all the $$$

[Kalis]

This is a common theme im seeing from people who believe in such a system.

So are you saying that a person who is highly successful, who builds a business, employs people, is essentially a very wealthy person. You are saying that we should penalize this person just for the sole reason that he is "wealthy" in the eyes of everyone else around him? We should say to this person: "Hello mr successful person, because you are successful, you need to give more than half your success to the masses, people you don't know, people who are not your family, people who are either unable to work, or unwilling to work as hard as you have to become successful, because socialism."

I don't think that is a very fair system. The successful person is more than likely not going to stay in a system for long if his wealth is forced and taken from him to spread out to "the people."

Hence why no rich people live in countries that have lots of social programmes...apart from the ones that do, of course.

[Adam Jensen]

Because democratic socialism has proven to work in countries as far away as distant Canada.

I don't believe people should go bankrupt paying for things that are out of their control, like healthcare, or things that are necessary for personal advancement, like education. I believe that as the private sector has proven time and time again that they'll happily screw anyone over for a profit, the only entity that can provide such things is the government.

I don't believe people who work a full time job should be working wages so low that they still qualify for welfare. A person performing a full time job, at minimum wage, should be able to financially secure at least himself without welfare. And it requires government regulation to ensure that employers provide fair wages.

I also believe that unfettered capitalism is an extreme danger to society. The rich get richer and they just take and take and take and stomp on and exploit the people at the bottom. This is what happened in the Gilded Age with the robber barons, and this historical precedent is why I can't stand libertarian arguments. We've seen the market trample the poor, so I don't get why libertarians believe their policies would work. Socialism mitigates this damage, keeps the people at the bottom above poverty and keeps the people at the top from abusing the system too much.

I do understand that socialism in extreme can be dangerous, this is true of every economic system we've developed, so I prefer a mixed economy. A capitalist system that encourages growth and a socialist system that protects society from the excess of capitalism.

Most of the first world (even to an extent the US) is mixed.

[Endus]

This is a common theme im seeing from people who believe in such a system.

So are you saying that a person who is highly successful, who builds a business, employs people, is essentially a very wealthy person. You are saying that we should penalize this person just for the sole reason that he is "wealthy" in the eyes of everyone else around him? We should say to this person: "Hello mr successful person, because you are successful, you need to give more than half your success to the masses, people you don't know, people who are not your family, people who are either unable to work, or unwilling to work as hard as you have to become successful, because socialism."

If they're that wealthy, and their employees aren't, then they're taking the lion's share of the company's performance themselves, rather than sharing it with those who earned that performance through their hard work. We're not talking about "penalizing" anyone. Socialism isn't about high taxes. It's about [i]collective ownership.

[Adam Jensen]

In short, no. Wherever it seems to be 100% implemented, misery tends to ensue.

100% implementation of capitalism is also a horrible thing.

No one's arguing for 100% socialism. Not except the extremists.

[TZucchini]

Regulated capitalism with strong social safety nets.

[Deleted]

Capitalism works because it's practically the law of jungle made into Economics. Those who are intelligent/lucky/strong will always be higher in the food chain than those that are stupid/unlucky/weak.
And this law has worked ever since the Earth was populated by nothing but viruses.

Socialism attempts to break this law and assume some life forms would sacrifice part of themselves to help others for no other reason than empathy. Empathy is a bizarre phenomenon in nature, it practically doesn't exist because everything has a price and no life form would pay that price just to help another that is not their mate nor offspring.

Natures pushes the law of the survival of the fittest - which makes it that only the most efficient organisms get to live and reproduce and improve the species over time. But socialism says it should not be like this and even less effective organisms should continue at some of the expense of the strong, despite the consequences. This encourages some people to put in very little effort into improving themselves.
The smart don't feel like working because they know that whatever they gain is going to be cut in half and given to moochers and the moochers don't work because they know they can't do much better than they already do, so they don't bother at all. And nobody gives a shit.

You guys know the AK-47 developed by a man named Mikhail Kalashnikov. Unfortunately for him, he was living in Russia at that time. Had he lived somewhere in Europe, USA or Japan, he would have been a billionaire after selling his design for the most effective and easy to maintain assault rifle in history. BUT since he was living in Russia, the government just took it and gave him some pocket change. - Socialism - Why bother since you don't get your work's worth?

[Austilias]

I don't. That said, unbridled capitalism is just as terrible.

Nonetheless, if we must bear the cross of 'mixed economies', then I'd much rather the mix be weighted in favour of capitalism.

[Kalis]

You guys know the AK-47 developed by a man named Mikhail Kalashnikov. Unfortunately for him, he was living in Russia at that time. Had he lived somewhere in Europe, USA or Japan, he would have been a billionaire after selling his design for the most effective and easy to maintain assault rifle in history. BUT since he was living in Russia, the government just took it and gave him some pocket change. - Socialism - Why bother since you don't get your work's worth?

You're assuming that Kalashnikov would have been working for himself in the West, but if he'd been working for a company at the time of creating the AK-47, then he'd likely have seen his bosses get wealthy and him get a pat on the back.

[Jaylock]

If they're that wealthy, and their employees aren't, then they're taking the lion's share of the company's performance themselves, rather than sharing it with those who earned that performance through their hard work. We're not talking about "penalizing" anyone. Socialism isn't about high taxes. It's about [i]collective ownership.

With risk comes reward.

The guy who took the risk, might have put his life savings on the line to start a company, might have worked 80 hours a week to build the company, hire the right talent, and do the right marketing moves. (this scenario I described is very common with most businesses)

The risk is that he could lose it all. The reward is the unlimited potential that he can make by having took the risk. The reward that the employees get is a stable salary. "Security". They dont have to take any risks, other than the risk of being fired if they do a poor job. They will always have a paycheck coming in. They agree to a salary when they get hired. They contracted for whatever they are making. Are you suggesting that these contracted employees who agreed to a salary, have claim to any upside the business makes?

I am saying no. No they do not have any claim to the upside the business makes, because they agreed to their salary. They took no risks. They didn't put anything on the line. They are working for their Salary. Shouldn't the owner of the business have sole disgression on how he spends his money? If he wants to give some to his employees in the form of bonuses, so be it. But why should he be penalized if he chooses not to, but keeps to his contracts with his employees to what they signed up for?

[Elegiac]

Capitalism works because it's practically the law of jungle made into Economics. Those who are intelligent/lucky/strong will always be higher in the food chain than those that are stupid/unlucky/weak.
And this law has worked ever since the Earth was populated by nothing but viruses.

Socialism attempts to break this law and assume some life forms would sacrifice part of themselves to help others for no other reason than empathy. Empathy is a bizarre phenomenon in nature, it practically doesn't exist because everything has a price and no life form would pay that price just to help another that is not their mate nor offspring.

Natures pushes the law of the survival of the fittest - which makes it that only the most efficient organisms get to live and reproduce and improve the species over time. But socialism says it should not be like this and even less effective organisms should continue at some of the expense of the strong, despite the consequences. This encourages some people to put in very little effort into improving themselves.
The smart don't feel like working because they know that whatever they gain is going to be cut in half and given to moochers and the moochers don't work because they know they can't do much better than they already do, so they don't bother at all. And nobody gives a shit.

You guys know the AK-47 developed by a man named Mikhail Kalashnikov. Unfortunately for him, he was living in Russia at that time. Had he lived somewhere in Europe, USA or Japan, he would have been a billionaire after selling his design for the most effective and easy to maintain assault rifle in history. BUT since he was living in Russia, the government just took it and gave him some pocket change. - Socialism - Why bother since you don't get your work's worth?

This is based on a fundamentally false understanding of how evolution works. Natural selection is not 'individual versus individual' or 'the strong versus the weak'. It happens on the level of species and whether or not a given population of organisms possesses by chance the trait which their environment selects for or against. Moreover, humans as a species are highly social; empathy and altruism make sense because they help to maintain the integrity of the social unit through mutual obligation.

Quetzl's reasoning probably best explains the basis behind socialism; being that cooperation is a markedly more efficient method of organization than competition - the latter representing a large waste in terms of economy. Inequality in society is not something to be lauded but an unpleasant byproduct of a flawed human nature, something to be remedied by rationalised and effective institutions.

Moreover, while competition provides an -impetus- for innovation the actual means by which it is accomplished represents a high degree of internal cooperation.

[derpkitteh]

because i'd rather sit at home than work.

it's the easier path, it's the natural order to try to take the easier path. if a cheetah sees an antelope with it's baby, does it take the grown one or the baby? it takes the baby, cause it's easier. if i see a job, or free money, which one's the easier one?

[Elegiac]

With risk comes reward.

The guy who took the risk, might have put his life savings on the line to start a company, might have worked 80 hours a week to build the company, hire the right talent, and do the right marketing moves. (this scenario I described is very common with most businesses)

The risk is that he could lose it all. The reward is the unlimited potential that he can make by having took the risk. The reward that the employees get is a stable salary. "Security". They dont have to take any risks, other than the risk of being fired if they do a poor job. They will always have a paycheck coming in. They agree to a salary when they get hired. They contracted for whatever they are making. Are you suggesting that these contracted employees who agreed to a salary, have claim to any upside the business makes?

Yes, because without their time and effort the business in question wouldn't exist or be enjoying its current level of success. You need to stop viewing businesses as the personal property of their CEO or shareholders and start looking at them for what they are; social organizations dedicated to a specific set of tasks.

- - - Updated - - -

because i'd rather sit at home than work.

You represent an exception, then. 'Moral hazard' as a whole doesn't exist.