A lesson on why socialism never works

[j2k4]

Human nature is the acknowledged problem with all isms, which point I have made many, many (many) times.

Somebody has to suffer for any politically based 'ism to succeed.

Please define "succeed", Bob.

[bigboab]

Somebody has to suffer for any politically based 'ism to succeed.

Please define "succeed", Bob.

A budgie with no teeth.

Sorry, could not resist.

What I meant was that in order to win there has to be a loser. Everybody can't be successful. Everybody in any political system is not born on a level playing field. There are many rich people who never need to work in their lives. They are as much leeches of society as Monarchs and the plain lazy at the bottom of the heap.

[j2k4]

Please define "succeed", Bob.

A budgie with no teeth.

Sorry, could not resist.

What I meant was that in order to win there has to be a loser. Everybody can't be successful. Everybody in any political system is not born on a level playing field. There are many rich people who never need to work in their lives. They are as much leeches of society as Monarchs and the plain lazy at the bottom of the heap.

Not quite.

In the capitalist ideal, anyone who chooses to elevate themselves actually can.

What is often overlooked is the effort required to do so, which fact indicates the level of (to borrow your word) laziness is quite a bit more pervasive; some of us would argue this is due to the nanny-state.

It is not easy, and many think the effort isn't worth it.

They are wrong.

One of the fallacies of "other-than-capitalism" is the 'zero-sum' argument... there is no mathematical one-for-one correlation between winners and losers.

There is room on the hill for everybody.

Fact.

[bigboab]

A budgie with no teeth.

Sorry, could not resist.

What I meant was that in order to win there has to be a loser. Everybody can't be successful. Everybody in any political system is not born on a level playing field. There are many rich people who never need to work in their lives. They are as much leeches of society as Monarchs and the plain lazy at the bottom of the heap.

Not quite.

In the capitalist ideal, anyone who chooses to elevate themselves actually can.

What is often overlooked is the effort required to do so, which fact indicates the level of (to borrow your word) laziness is quite a bit more pervasive; some of us would argue this is due to the nanny-state.

It is not easy, and many think the effort isn't worth it.

They are wrong.

One of the fallacies of "other-than-capitalism" is the 'zero-sum' argument... there is no mathematical one-for-one correlation between winners and losers.

There is room on the hill for everybody.

Fact.

When everybody is on the hill how do you measure success? You are becoming parochial here. The world is a big place, are you suggesting that in the worlds biggest democracy(India) it is possible for everyone to get on the hill? From what I have seen Indians are hard working and striving for success. They will work from morning till night to be successful in this country. Why cant they do it in their own country? I am not being racist here. I just don't think everyone can succeed. We will have to agree to differ.

[j2k4]

Not quite.

In the capitalist ideal, anyone who chooses to elevate themselves actually can.

What is often overlooked is the effort required to do so, which fact indicates the level of (to borrow your word) laziness is quite a bit more pervasive; some of us would argue this is due to the nanny-state.

It is not easy, and many think the effort isn't worth it.

They are wrong.

One of the fallacies of "other-than-capitalism" is the 'zero-sum' argument... there is no mathematical one-for-one correlation between winners and losers.

There is room on the hill for everybody.

Fact.

When everybody is on the hill how do you measure success? You are becoming parochial here. The world is a big place, are you suggesting that in the worlds biggest democracy(India) it is possible for everyone to get on the hill? From what I have seen Indians are hard working and striving for success. They will work from morning till night to be successful in this country. Why cant they do it in their own country? I am not being racist here. I just don't think everyone can succeed. We will have to agree to differ.

Ah, you've made my point, Bob.

There will always be a bottom.

There will always be a top.

Redistribution of wealth is social and cultural poison.

My point is, in any case, that whomever chooses to expend effort on his/her own behalf does not do so in vain.

I prefer a work ethic to the other.

The government hasn't the ability to differentiate between those who deserve their wealth and those who do not; neither has it in the past several decades proven it has the ability to determine who properly deserves it's ill-gotten largesse.

The liberal impetus (such as it is) has always been to "close the wealth gap".

After 55 years or so of trying, no progress can be claimed.

[Rat Faced]

My point is, in any case, that whomever chooses to expend effort on his/her own behalf does not do so in vain.

Then you think that Inheritance Tax should be 100%?

I think boabs point on rich leeches was the playboy kids that have done absolutely nothing to get where they are except take the money off Daddy, who worked so hard he didn't have the time to teach the kids their Social Values.

[bigboab]

My point is, in any case, that whomever chooses to expend effort on his/her own behalf does not do so in vain.

Then you think that Inheritance Tax should be 100%?

I think boabs point on rich leeches was the playboy kids that have done absolutely nothing to get where they are except take the money off Daddy, who worked so hard he didn't have the time to teach the kids their Social Values.

Go easy RF. You have read me correctly but has Kev?

[j2k4]

Well, then - where to start...

No Bob, you are correct: not everyone can be successful, but what constitutes success?

Food in your stomach?

A roof over your head?

A snazzy car?

Some people are lucky to have the first two - we have stupid people, lazy people, handicapped people...some need help, I guess, but how much help?

Inflate them financially until they are...what?

What is enough?

As to why Asian Indians can't make a go of it in India, ask them, because I have no idea.

I would rather tell you why, when they come to the United States, they are much more often than not successful...which fact tells you we in the US must be doing something right.

Right?

Rat-

It is plain you reserve judgment on the rich, but again, as I've pointed out to Bob - wealth is not a zero-sum game, and penalizing the (lazy, idle) rich for having money is naught but purely punitive, and doesn't help the poor at all, no matter how good it makes you feel.

[Rat Faced]

I was just saying what I thought Boab meant.

I have nothing against someone getting rich, if its done through hard work and ethically (ie They done do it via Bank Robberies etc etc)

I dont have a problem with people leaving a substantial inheritance for their Children.

I do have a problem with families hording Billions for generations.

Why should a family be "Idle Rich" now; when the family made their fortune in, as an example, The Slave Industry?

[j2k4]

I was just saying what I thought Boab meant.

I have nothing against someone getting rich, if its done through hard work and ethically (ie They done do it via Bank Robberies etc etc)

I dont have a problem with people leaving a substantial inheritance for their Children.

I do have a problem with families hording Billions for generations.

Why should a family be "Idle Rich" now; when the family made their fortune in, as an example, The Slave Industry?

Shit...these days it's considered racist if a honkie like me even denies complicity in the "slave question".

It's what is considered to be a "disqualifying" blow in the arena of ideas.

Anyhoo...

How do you propose to qualify the idle rich for your morally-justified (read government-sanctioned) fleecing?

How many tabloid appearances would be required, for instance?