Magical Sailor Fuku

I was thinking how some people think that socialism is evil, and that it amounts to "sharing the wealth." My thoughts came upon this dead road while I was thinking about it... inevitably, my thoughts went down it.

Sharing the wealth = socialism = evil

Socialism = sharing the wealth = evil

Charity = sharing the wealth = socialism = evil

Charity is evil. Greed is, thus, good. Somehow this model makes sense in the real world... I wonder why. <_<;

Congradulations, you have discovered Randian Objectivism.

Exactly in what way? I'm not all that familiar with it, and I'm unsure of its facets.

Empyrean Nikkou wrote:Exactly in what way? I'm not all that familiar with it, and I'm unsure of its facets.

Greed and selfishness are high moral principles and anything that detracts from someone's ability to be a selfish greedy prick is wrong. Charity is wrong because it leads to lazy people. Many republicans who decry socialism are Randians.

I see. No wonder they're so randy and have affairs.

It makes me wonder which is more natural. Do we start out greedy, because, as babies and children, we're needy? I'd like to think that we start from the ground up, but, sometimes, when I look around... It's more like greed is already built and it needs to be demolished as one grows up, if one is to build something on a foundation of charity. It'd be nice if our nature wasn't inclined one way or the other, but... Personally, I don't see enough to give me faith in something like that. Damn love-hate relationship. ;/

Charity can be Good or Bad.

When a disaster strikes, when people rise up to donate Food, Money, Clothes, Time, and Effort, that's good. These people need help because they are unable to help themselves for at least the present. And a lot of them are going to be trying to help themselves. With Shovels, and Saws, and Axes and Chains. They will, hopefully, take it upon themselves to do what they can to recover and rebuild.

Forced Charity is bad. If I have two sons, Peter and Paul. Paul works hard and makes good money. Peter sits at home watching "The Price is Right" in his boxers. If every day I took half of Paul's paycheck and give it to Peter, that is wrong. First, Peter becomes dependent upon it and becomes lazy (or is able to maintain that lifestyle). Second, at some point Paul is going to stop trying as well. He's not going to like having half of his money, that he worked hard for, taken every day to finance the laziness of another.


Economics is a very hard field of study. And even experts don't know why everything works. But, in a free market system, things tend towards becoming streamlined over time. What's good for one person is inevitably good for everyone, with very few checks and balances needed to maintain a healthy balance. People are largely responible for their own fortunes and if they aquit themselves with honor they'll be better off for it in the long run because other people will feel safe and comfortable doing business with them.

In any system that takes power away from the people, that subsidizes people to be lazy and dependent, things will break down. It might not be a quick crash, but a slow, inexorible grinding of the gears of the nation coming to a hault. But it will inevitably happen.

In a Free Market System, people help others because they want to. When everyone has more than enough, they will share, and will do it in a time and manner of their choosing.

Forced charity is evil.
Forced volunteerism is slavery.


People need to be trusted to do the right thing. When the government runs the lives of its citizens that government's death knell has sounded. A nation is not its government; it is its people. Governments can and have been replaced for putting its own agendas ahead of the needs of its people; the right to Life, Liberty, Property, and the Persuit of Happiness.

Women = (Time)(Money)

&

Time = Money

therefore

Women = (Money)(Money)

also

Money = sqrt(Evil)

therefore

Women = Evil

Your equation is flawed by assuming that women equal time and money. Or, rather, it ignores the fact that men also require time and money, and is thus discriminatory.

No, no, no. Men require beer and women. We already have women = evil, so therefore men = evil beer. Whatever that means.

UberLurker wrote:No, no, no. Men require beer and women. We already have women = evil, so therefore men = evil beer. Whatever that means.

Seconded