Socialism
What socialism means to Keti:
1. Force
2. Greed
3. Hypocrisy
4. Failure
5. Unfair
6. Majority rule sans minority rights
7. Defeat of the true purpose of government
8. Not freedom
1. Socialism is force.
I see socialists as a wierd group that do things I don't agree with, but I respect them nonetheless. The same applies to gays. They're a wierd group that do things I don't agree with but I respect them nonetheless. They have a right to act however they want, provided they're not harming anyone else (especially me).
Socialism in practice is analagous to laws forcing everyone to participate in homosexual activity twice a week, and imprisoning those that don't. Obviously, I wouldn't put up with that. (I don't think even gays want a law like that passed, but I haven't found any to ask.) Socialism is like that because it's not an individual philosophy. It's a force-the-compliance-of-everyone-in-the-country type of thing, economic totalitarianism, a dictatorship of money, slavery in service of the state. This type of shit has to be FORCED upon people, otherwise it will not work. All it takes is a few people to resist the system and it fails.
2. Socialism is greed.
Socialists are often the people that would benefit most from socialism. By this, I mean poor people. The poor are especially unqualified to tell everyone else what to do, they're society's failures. Don't misinterpret this to mean they shouldn't vote. They should, but that doesn't change the fact that they're unqualified to lead in these matters.
The other group that benefits from socialism is those that seek power. Socialism leads to power of government over the people, and politicians seek to be major players in the increased power they promise to instate (which they promise not because they know it's right, but because it gets them votes).
The socialis poor are selfish self-victimizers that want to take rather than earn. The socialist rich see socialism as a means to power. Both of which are selfish purposes. Which brings me to my next point.
3. Socialism is hypocrisy
Socialists call the rich greedy, selfish, capitalist pigs. Ironic and hypocritical, because they're secretly greedy themselves, but as long as they can shift the blame of being greedy to the rich to take attention off themselves, they feel better about themselves. Doesn't make sense? It's not supposed to. It just has to feel right.
They also have a tendency to equate the money of the rich to power. Not like that's obvious or anything...but it is hypocritical that they complain about it, because the system they advocate and vote for is one that not only gives people power, but gives them power and then tells them to make themselves more powerful (socialism = bigger government = more power). How they expect this to relieve the problem of elitism and class distictions, I'm not sure of myself, it would seem that it would just change it from a poor and rich class to a poor voter class and a rich elected class.
Socialism would also make the government the single largest corporation in country's service industry. A monopoly that taxes whatever amount it desires and provides product as poor as it desires. It does not need to provide good service with minimal resource use, as the free market would demand. It doesn't even have to work for it's money. The money just pours in through taxes. As a result, the government becomes the most monopolistic, greedy, power-whoring, inefficient, and wasteful entity in the country. All the government has to do is terrorize those that don't pay their "protection money."
4. Socialism is a failure
Socialists don't understand the capitalist system. This should be obvious. They're poor. Of course they don't get it. If they did, they wouldn't be poor. So what do they do? Well, instead of trying to figure out the capitalist system, they say "This system is broken," and offer a solution that benefits them. This solution they propose is socialism. They can't get that, so they whittle away at capitalism. They propose things like welfare, minimum wage, unions, etc.
Welfare: How to put single minority moms with 5 kids permanantly on the government teat, keeping the poor in poverty and letting them teach their kids the ways of poverty, so that they may grow up to be welfare-dependant and living in eternal poverty themselves. "Don't work," the government says, "we'll give you money." Of course, the socialists would go crazy if the POOR had to actually pay for the systems that they benefit from. It's only fair that the rich pay higher tax, so that the evil rich are paying for it, right? Even though they don't benefit from the system.
Minimum wage: "Let's help the poor by making other people give them more money. Let's ignore the fact that with the rising costs of labor, the costs of everything that they would be buying would increase as well...we can assume the Chairmen, CEOs, Presidents, and the rest of the capitalist pigs will simply absorb the costs. Things increase in price more than the increase in pay? NONSENSE. IT'S NOT POSSIBLE. Companies are firing people because the employees are too expensive and making fewer people do more work? BULLSHIT. THEY'RE LYING."
Unions: "If we get all the workers to make the company do something or they won't work, we'll help them! Let's ignore the fact that it's driving the companies out of business and making all their stuff more expensive. Ford and GM aren't leaving the US because of the unions...the unions are good. Toyota is evil for not having unions and we have no idea why they're staying profitable in this great welfare state of ours."
5. Socialism is unfair.
Socialists of the poor variety claim to be poor because the rich are taking all the money. Gimme a break. Americans are huge spenders. The average American spends 100% of their paycheck and then some. The poor aren't having their money being taken away by the rich, they are in fact all too eager to give it to them, and they give it ALL to the rich that own the power companies, car companies, telecom companies, banks, etc. They spend themselves into poverty and then beg for welfare. They give the rich their money and then complain that the rich have all the money and they don't have any and how unfair it is, and demand to be given their money back, but not if they have to return the stuff that they bought from the rich to get it back. Sounds like a ripoff? Stinks like one too.
6. Socialism is majority rule sans minority rights.
And who cares how fair this stuff is to the rich? There are more happy poor people than angry rich people and that's all that matters, right? As long as more people are happy than angry, you've done the right thing. The rich shouldn't have any say in matters because they're not the majority. "Fuck the minority, it's all their fault anyways." Sound familiar? "Kill the Jews, they're the cause of our problems!" -Nazis. "Screw the rich, they're the cause of our problems!" -Socialists.
Did I mention that Nazis were a socialist party? Yep. Socialists generally don't even consider that socialist, because it wasn't very utopia-ish like they think it should be.
7. Socialism is the defeat of the true purpose of government
What is this purpose, and how is it violated? Let's look at an anarchy, the utter lack of government, to determine what it's true purpose is, and how and why order arises out of chaos.
In anarchy, there is no government, laws are enforced only by the victims of crime, and it's every man for himself. If you don't have self-defense, you have nothing. Now, a group of friends decide "I'll watch your back, you watch mine." They defend each other. Others join this group seeking the protection from thieving freeloaders, willing to protect others to have others protect them. They organize and formalize what things they should protect each other against. This is the basis of government. Government, in it's purest, most basic form, is the organization of the individual right to self-defense. It is mutually beneficial to everybody within the society that lives by the government.
How would a socialist society say it happened in order to justify a claim that the purpose of government is the redistribution of wealth to those who need it?
In an anarchy, the rich are those that could defend themselves against thieves that sought to live at the expense of others. Only then could they possibly aquire and collect enough resources to be considered rich. The unfairness of the ability of the rich to defend their property led to criminals organizing an attack against the rich. After disabling the rich man, they would proceed to forcibly deprive him of his belongings. As they agreed before attacking the rich man, they distributed his belongings among them all. And this would be the basis for government based on redistribution of wealth.
At least that's the only way I can see a government whose original purpose was redistribution of wealth, a government born socialist, rising out of anarchy. This would undoubtedly be a government run by the most powerful of thieves, who would collectively target the most rich, who would yield the highest profits. All those partaking in this government would be thieves seeking to live freely off the work performed by others, just as the first of the thieves did.
A government that is born capitalist and becomes socialist has truly lost sight of it's original purpose, and has been converted from protector of all for the benefit of the honest, to thiever of the honest for the benefit of the thieves.
It's absolutely absurd to think that is a good purpose for government.
8. Socialism is not freedom.
A socialist system would see astronomical taxes to pay for the welfare, healthcare, expanded government and all it's beuraucracy and regulation. Should we not be free to benefit from our work in ways that we choose, rather than be forced to spend our money on what the government mandates? Of course not. If people were allowed to spend money the way they wanted, the money would never go where it needs to go (read as "where they want it to go").
Another note:
All socialists I have met agree: Guns are bad.
Why? See number 1: Socialism is force. People that don't like socialism would fight the system. "We can't have people resisting the system!" Panic sets in on the socialist mind. "They need to submit! We can't allow them the means to effectively resist the system! That would destroy it! We must take the guns, so they cannot resist and all resistance will be futile. We also can't have people being independant of the government. We need them all to be dependant upon the government for their welfare and security. If they can hunt, they won't need to use money (which we'll tax) to get their food, and they won't have to rely on the police for their security if they can deal with threats on their own! They cannot be allowed to be so independant! So long as they are dependant, they will not resist the system. They will like the government."
It's also hypocritical. I mean, socialism is a utopian state, right? "There'd be like, no crime because nobody would be poor, and nobody would be so desperate as to need a weapon in a crime, right? And people will be so happy and caring and compassionate under a socialist system that they'll just give the desperate people that won't even exist anything they need!"
So you can allow guns, right? Since there won't be any crime?
"FUCK NO."
Is a gun control stance their way of admitting defeat in their utopian ideal of socialism? Gun control wouldn't be needed if the world were perfect, but they insist that guns should be banned outright anyways.
Now, any socialists reading this might be all "WTF THIS ISNT SOCIALISM THIS IS WELFARE-STATISM."
Yeah.
Duh.
How are you going to get to socialism without going through a welfare-state period first? You can't do it all at once.
At least not without those eeevil guns that you want to ban.
Socialism is already failing us at the welfare-state point and it's just getting worse as we progress further into it.
Capitalism made America strong. It can make us strong again. And your utopian pipe dreams won't do anything to help us.
Besides, socialism is communism in disguise. And as we all saw with the Soviet Union, communism doesn't work. There's no specific line where socialism becomes communism. Your socialist system is communism with a different name and with money still around.
Fuck socialism. And don't you dare try to ruin the best country on the planet (the US) because your poor ass wants socialism. You want socialism, move to a socialist country. Don't fuck up my capitalism and I won't fuck up your socialism. Live and let live? Just take your bullshit commie utopia somewhere else, where the party that disagrees with you ISN'T the one that has all those high-powered semiautomatic high-capacity evil black rifles with all the expensive shit hanging off a mounting rail. Because you probably don't want to piss off that party.
1. Force
2. Greed
3. Hypocrisy
4. Failure
5. Unfair
6. Majority rule sans minority rights
7. Defeat of the true purpose of government
8. Not freedom
1. Socialism is force.
I see socialists as a wierd group that do things I don't agree with, but I respect them nonetheless. The same applies to gays. They're a wierd group that do things I don't agree with but I respect them nonetheless. They have a right to act however they want, provided they're not harming anyone else (especially me).
Socialism in practice is analagous to laws forcing everyone to participate in homosexual activity twice a week, and imprisoning those that don't. Obviously, I wouldn't put up with that. (I don't think even gays want a law like that passed, but I haven't found any to ask.) Socialism is like that because it's not an individual philosophy. It's a force-the-compliance-of-everyone-in-the-country type of thing, economic totalitarianism, a dictatorship of money, slavery in service of the state. This type of shit has to be FORCED upon people, otherwise it will not work. All it takes is a few people to resist the system and it fails.
2. Socialism is greed.
Socialists are often the people that would benefit most from socialism. By this, I mean poor people. The poor are especially unqualified to tell everyone else what to do, they're society's failures. Don't misinterpret this to mean they shouldn't vote. They should, but that doesn't change the fact that they're unqualified to lead in these matters.
The other group that benefits from socialism is those that seek power. Socialism leads to power of government over the people, and politicians seek to be major players in the increased power they promise to instate (which they promise not because they know it's right, but because it gets them votes).
The socialis poor are selfish self-victimizers that want to take rather than earn. The socialist rich see socialism as a means to power. Both of which are selfish purposes. Which brings me to my next point.
3. Socialism is hypocrisy
Socialists call the rich greedy, selfish, capitalist pigs. Ironic and hypocritical, because they're secretly greedy themselves, but as long as they can shift the blame of being greedy to the rich to take attention off themselves, they feel better about themselves. Doesn't make sense? It's not supposed to. It just has to feel right.
They also have a tendency to equate the money of the rich to power. Not like that's obvious or anything...but it is hypocritical that they complain about it, because the system they advocate and vote for is one that not only gives people power, but gives them power and then tells them to make themselves more powerful (socialism = bigger government = more power). How they expect this to relieve the problem of elitism and class distictions, I'm not sure of myself, it would seem that it would just change it from a poor and rich class to a poor voter class and a rich elected class.
Socialism would also make the government the single largest corporation in country's service industry. A monopoly that taxes whatever amount it desires and provides product as poor as it desires. It does not need to provide good service with minimal resource use, as the free market would demand. It doesn't even have to work for it's money. The money just pours in through taxes. As a result, the government becomes the most monopolistic, greedy, power-whoring, inefficient, and wasteful entity in the country. All the government has to do is terrorize those that don't pay their "protection money."
4. Socialism is a failure
Socialists don't understand the capitalist system. This should be obvious. They're poor. Of course they don't get it. If they did, they wouldn't be poor. So what do they do? Well, instead of trying to figure out the capitalist system, they say "This system is broken," and offer a solution that benefits them. This solution they propose is socialism. They can't get that, so they whittle away at capitalism. They propose things like welfare, minimum wage, unions, etc.
Welfare: How to put single minority moms with 5 kids permanantly on the government teat, keeping the poor in poverty and letting them teach their kids the ways of poverty, so that they may grow up to be welfare-dependant and living in eternal poverty themselves. "Don't work," the government says, "we'll give you money." Of course, the socialists would go crazy if the POOR had to actually pay for the systems that they benefit from. It's only fair that the rich pay higher tax, so that the evil rich are paying for it, right? Even though they don't benefit from the system.
Minimum wage: "Let's help the poor by making other people give them more money. Let's ignore the fact that with the rising costs of labor, the costs of everything that they would be buying would increase as well...we can assume the Chairmen, CEOs, Presidents, and the rest of the capitalist pigs will simply absorb the costs. Things increase in price more than the increase in pay? NONSENSE. IT'S NOT POSSIBLE. Companies are firing people because the employees are too expensive and making fewer people do more work? BULLSHIT. THEY'RE LYING."
Unions: "If we get all the workers to make the company do something or they won't work, we'll help them! Let's ignore the fact that it's driving the companies out of business and making all their stuff more expensive. Ford and GM aren't leaving the US because of the unions...the unions are good. Toyota is evil for not having unions and we have no idea why they're staying profitable in this great welfare state of ours."
5. Socialism is unfair.
Socialists of the poor variety claim to be poor because the rich are taking all the money. Gimme a break. Americans are huge spenders. The average American spends 100% of their paycheck and then some. The poor aren't having their money being taken away by the rich, they are in fact all too eager to give it to them, and they give it ALL to the rich that own the power companies, car companies, telecom companies, banks, etc. They spend themselves into poverty and then beg for welfare. They give the rich their money and then complain that the rich have all the money and they don't have any and how unfair it is, and demand to be given their money back, but not if they have to return the stuff that they bought from the rich to get it back. Sounds like a ripoff? Stinks like one too.
6. Socialism is majority rule sans minority rights.
And who cares how fair this stuff is to the rich? There are more happy poor people than angry rich people and that's all that matters, right? As long as more people are happy than angry, you've done the right thing. The rich shouldn't have any say in matters because they're not the majority. "Fuck the minority, it's all their fault anyways." Sound familiar? "Kill the Jews, they're the cause of our problems!" -Nazis. "Screw the rich, they're the cause of our problems!" -Socialists.
Did I mention that Nazis were a socialist party? Yep. Socialists generally don't even consider that socialist, because it wasn't very utopia-ish like they think it should be.
7. Socialism is the defeat of the true purpose of government
What is this purpose, and how is it violated? Let's look at an anarchy, the utter lack of government, to determine what it's true purpose is, and how and why order arises out of chaos.
In anarchy, there is no government, laws are enforced only by the victims of crime, and it's every man for himself. If you don't have self-defense, you have nothing. Now, a group of friends decide "I'll watch your back, you watch mine." They defend each other. Others join this group seeking the protection from thieving freeloaders, willing to protect others to have others protect them. They organize and formalize what things they should protect each other against. This is the basis of government. Government, in it's purest, most basic form, is the organization of the individual right to self-defense. It is mutually beneficial to everybody within the society that lives by the government.
How would a socialist society say it happened in order to justify a claim that the purpose of government is the redistribution of wealth to those who need it?
In an anarchy, the rich are those that could defend themselves against thieves that sought to live at the expense of others. Only then could they possibly aquire and collect enough resources to be considered rich. The unfairness of the ability of the rich to defend their property led to criminals organizing an attack against the rich. After disabling the rich man, they would proceed to forcibly deprive him of his belongings. As they agreed before attacking the rich man, they distributed his belongings among them all. And this would be the basis for government based on redistribution of wealth.
At least that's the only way I can see a government whose original purpose was redistribution of wealth, a government born socialist, rising out of anarchy. This would undoubtedly be a government run by the most powerful of thieves, who would collectively target the most rich, who would yield the highest profits. All those partaking in this government would be thieves seeking to live freely off the work performed by others, just as the first of the thieves did.
A government that is born capitalist and becomes socialist has truly lost sight of it's original purpose, and has been converted from protector of all for the benefit of the honest, to thiever of the honest for the benefit of the thieves.
It's absolutely absurd to think that is a good purpose for government.
8. Socialism is not freedom.
A socialist system would see astronomical taxes to pay for the welfare, healthcare, expanded government and all it's beuraucracy and regulation. Should we not be free to benefit from our work in ways that we choose, rather than be forced to spend our money on what the government mandates? Of course not. If people were allowed to spend money the way they wanted, the money would never go where it needs to go (read as "where they want it to go").
Another note:
All socialists I have met agree: Guns are bad.
Why? See number 1: Socialism is force. People that don't like socialism would fight the system. "We can't have people resisting the system!" Panic sets in on the socialist mind. "They need to submit! We can't allow them the means to effectively resist the system! That would destroy it! We must take the guns, so they cannot resist and all resistance will be futile. We also can't have people being independant of the government. We need them all to be dependant upon the government for their welfare and security. If they can hunt, they won't need to use money (which we'll tax) to get their food, and they won't have to rely on the police for their security if they can deal with threats on their own! They cannot be allowed to be so independant! So long as they are dependant, they will not resist the system. They will like the government."
It's also hypocritical. I mean, socialism is a utopian state, right? "There'd be like, no crime because nobody would be poor, and nobody would be so desperate as to need a weapon in a crime, right? And people will be so happy and caring and compassionate under a socialist system that they'll just give the desperate people that won't even exist anything they need!"
So you can allow guns, right? Since there won't be any crime?
"FUCK NO."
Is a gun control stance their way of admitting defeat in their utopian ideal of socialism? Gun control wouldn't be needed if the world were perfect, but they insist that guns should be banned outright anyways.
Now, any socialists reading this might be all "WTF THIS ISNT SOCIALISM THIS IS WELFARE-STATISM."
Yeah.
Duh.
How are you going to get to socialism without going through a welfare-state period first? You can't do it all at once.
At least not without those eeevil guns that you want to ban.
Socialism is already failing us at the welfare-state point and it's just getting worse as we progress further into it.
Capitalism made America strong. It can make us strong again. And your utopian pipe dreams won't do anything to help us.
Besides, socialism is communism in disguise. And as we all saw with the Soviet Union, communism doesn't work. There's no specific line where socialism becomes communism. Your socialist system is communism with a different name and with money still around.
Fuck socialism. And don't you dare try to ruin the best country on the planet (the US) because your poor ass wants socialism. You want socialism, move to a socialist country. Don't fuck up my capitalism and I won't fuck up your socialism. Live and let live? Just take your bullshit commie utopia somewhere else, where the party that disagrees with you ISN'T the one that has all those high-powered semiautomatic high-capacity evil black rifles with all the expensive shit hanging off a mounting rail. Because you probably don't want to piss off that party.
posted by Keti 'Kotaree at 11:55 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home