Socialism is mediocrity, often comes with an unattainable utopian pitch. But you either get dictators or demagoguery and corrupted enforces. Don't believe me, but study history. Full of worst of worst examples when tried in every country that got enticed by it. Best to maximise individual freedom rather. Capitalism.

Get triggered you dumb fucks. xD

Voluntary socialism, ie charity, works in a capitalistic framework. The point is choice. You can see this through church orgs that feed and clothe the poor. But like others have said, people are imperfect and so everything has issues.

1) no politics
2) assuming that demagoguery and corrupt enforcers is somehow unique to socialism and doesn't plague our capitalist society is laughable, megacorps and their executives are pretty much above the law

@sudo-woodo When half your pay goes to taxes then you don't have a capitalistic system.

@sudo-woodo But you are right. Dirt bags always exist.

@Demolishun living in a capitalist country, 30% of my pay goes in direct taxes, another roughly 15% in indirect taxes.

@BugsBuggy Taking money against someones will (taxes) and giving it to someone else (welfare, medicade, etc) is socialism. I also live in a "capitalistic" country. But there is a hell of the lot socialism going on. What the fuck do you even call a fucked up country like that? Other than the USA.

@Demolishun I'm not in the USA

And that's not the concept of either taxes or socialism.

Taxes are levied so that the govt can use that money to "develop" the country, more so if you're in a developing country, and indirect taxes are paid by absolutely everyone.

Socialism is completely different bro.
Although yes, most governments have some tinge of socialism, but aren't things like a proper universal healthcare, good govt schools and universities a bliss?

But I do have a problem with indirect taxes though. Someone who earns lesser, decides to buy a chocolate that costs x amount. They'll have to earn x amount to buy it whereas I will need to earn 1.4x to buy the same stuff (because then 30% income tax)

But does that account for how hard the person worked throughout the past few years to reach that particular level?

I've known my college-mates who lived their college life like a honeymoon where as some worked hard.

There was a time when I used to work a normal 10 to 6 job, then head to the gym and work for 90 minutes...

Then after dinner I'd prepare for interviews, brush up my data structures and all... Apply. Rejected. Apply. Rejected. Apply.

Finally a 3x raise with stocks along with it, only to be working 4 months a year for the government?

That sucks in a way

@jfgilmore taxes as an inflation control mechanism? Might be.

But, why not just tax on spending?
Tax differently on necessities, luxuries, super luxuries etc?
That can indirectly make the rich pay more.

But this direct income tax doesn't make sense to me.

"But you either get dictators or demagoguery and corrupted enforces."

Well, that is what we get in any system. Socialism, Capitalism - doesn't matter, there is always a minority having most of the power and using it to enrich themselves at the expense of the majority.

The problem isn't the system, but the omnipresent lure of power.

That said, the best system probably is a somewhat regulated but still also somewhat free market economy under the rule of a democracy with at least as much civic participation as in Switzerland.

Whatever happens, don't go for public private partnerships though - they always fail horribly leaving the people with inflated prizes or rotten infrastructure...

i agree that authoritarian regimes suck, but community based societies have succeeded before, you just haven't heard of them because they were decimated during the colonialist voyages

@jfgilmore and I'm telling you there were native american nations that were community based and they were doing fine

Unfortunately even capitalist countries are not "true capitalists" anymore, always have some kind of socialist garbage ruining their definition.

Once you introduce any form of socialism, there is no drawing the line, what-aboutism creeps in. The only social policy you need is where you get a 100% consensus which is none. You only need few things

- Rule of law.
- Property rights including intellectual property.
- Allow free markets without regulations.
- Government force only applicable when someone's freedom is being violated or coercion is being used.

I find Ayn Rand's objectivism close to this.

@jassole does that account for monopolies and lobbying? as things are, I don't think the law can change to protect those who have their rights violated. it's one of those things that sound nice in a thought experiment, but not in practice

@ostream all hail our lord and savior, the Hand™️

@darksideofyay Monopolies are the result of government regulations. The only thing regulations does is, it prevents small players entering the market because they can't meet the initial cost to meet compliance in the ever-growing regulations, that the easiest option is to just leave that industry and pursue other business ventures.

Any future thriving business starts out small. So if you never let them grow, you get monopolies itself. No giants/pioneers in the industries were built in a regulatory environment.

Under true capitalism, the government has no role in economics, if you limit their power to only enforcing laws and not any kind of economic policies. Thus no point in lobbying.

@jassole i... what have you been reading? how can the government interference be the thing creating monopolies, when generational wealth is a thing? if the government says anything about taxing great fortunes they cry... and like i said, your premise theoretical at best, we know that's not the world we live in

@darksideofyay I don't see issues with the other kind of monopoly, where pioneers create a new market, and entire supply is owned by them just by the fact they were the pioneers and industry creators.

After all its their property, and who are we to violate their rights. Example of this: US accusing MS of monopoly due to internet explorer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....

This was such a waste of taxpayers money.

@darksideofyay Don't see issues with generational wealth. Why should any one care when a parent passes his wealth to his children, or donates to charity, or just burns his money? Not my concern, nor should it be anyones.

@jassole it's not their money though, it's the money of their ancestors... the rich have been the same for centuries, and they're not gonna change... I'm not talking about noveau riches, I'm talking about the people that are in the Senate

@ostream ikr? I don't know why i bother

@jassole the premise of "the market will regulate itself" is untrue when you have inheritance in the play. how can an infant be worthy of having wealth by default when they haven't even lived to prove they deserve it? the same is true for poor kids, it's not their fault their parents are poor, but you're telling me that doesn't matter

I totally agree with this post.

Anybody who thinks otherwise needs to study more of history, economics, finance and human psychology.

I'd be glad if this triggers someone.

@ostream pointless. Without mental elaborations and thought processing there is no meaning in such action.

@darksideofyay There is no such a thing as market regulating itself. What you or I perceive the price of anything should be, is irrelevant. The market simply responds to demands and supplies and the dynamicity of price discovery and price mechanism.

Nobody is wiser to decide who should own what and how much. If you have 10s of kids, it is not society responsibility to take care of them. They can fulfil needs out of goodwill but nobody is under any obligation. But rather it is under the parent's responsibility to do so.

A child does not gain self-sufficiency all at once, at a certain age. Rather, it is learned gradually from the time the child can speak until they leave home. You live within your means, have kids within your means. So if a parent decides to give all billions of dollars to his kids, its fine by me. I don't see issues there.

Its rather immoral to claim the child doesn't deserve a cent and then have some demagogue take their wealth.

@jassole By this logic you should love monarchy.

Unless ofc you believe money does not equal political power. Huh . Interesting.

Edit: money above a certain amount

@jfgilmore my favorite part of marx and engels work is their prediction of the multiple and increasing crisis. those guys knew back then, they talked about real issues people could see, and all we ever hear about is their boogymen reputation