Im not kidding either. I want to make sure everyone has the ability to eat in this country. I want to make sure everyone(including me) has the right to an education(which includes college) and health care.
I don't want to be taxed more, and I'm not kidding either. I want to make sure everyone has the ability to eat in this country while still being able to enjoy the life they enjoy without some organization saying they can't. I want to make sure everyone (including me) has the right to an education that is not controlled by that same organization and favors it over all others, as well as health care that isn't in the hands of that organization.
Collectivism is the only way. human beings are collective by nature. Why? Notice when you're in a group, do you act like a jerk if you dont need them? Most people dont. Social responsibility.
Individualism is the only way. Human beings are individuals by nature. Why? Notice when you're alone you can think for yourself and choose to either join a collective or create one of your own. Most people do, thus creating the concept of social responsibility. Collectives require individuals, thus individuals are superior to collectives.
I've never heard a good argument stating that we are entitled to property. Everything we own is a result of many people, without them it cannot exist, and without them it cannot have value. Most libertarians say we are entitled to our property in one breathe, and then claim to support a police force and military based upon taxation. It seems libertarians dont care about property rights... They claim that if we dont provide these things that life would be worse. This proves two things.
I've never heard a good argument stating that we aren't entitled to property. Everything we own is a result of many people who willingly sell us, through some middleman, the products of their labor. Most Communists say we are not entitled to our property in one breath and in the next claim to not support a police force and military that would enforce such a doctrine. It seems Communists don't care about individual rights. They claim that if we don't provide these things that life would be worse, despite the fact that there has never been a successful, industrial Communist nation. This proves two things:
1) The government is good at providing things
1. The government is bad at providing things like food and health care to people in a fair measure.
2) You dont actually believe in property rights.
2. You don't actually believe in individual rights.
Conclusion: Why not provide more services? Since you dont believe in full-on property rights and believe that some wealth belongs to everyone. The Richest people in the world are respected by libertarians, but they can only make their profits with a functioning government, which requires all of us. Its selfish to think they deserve more of the pie than others do because they NEED the rest of society. Society made it POSSIBLE for them to be rich in the first place.
Conclusion: Why not stay out of the service industries? Since you don't believe in full-on individual rights and believe that wealth belongs to everyone. The poorest people in the world are respected by Communists, because it is from the poorest people that Communists gain their power and are able to parlay that power into a dysfunctional government that caters to some minority. It is selfish to think that they deserve more of the pie than others do because they NEED the rest of society. Society made it POSSIBLE for them to be powerful in the first place.
Democratik
For my own personal piece, though, you've fallen into the naivete of Communism, that being that all people would work for the betterment of society if they could. The end result of the society you describe could be summarized in one sentence:
All animals are created equal, but some are created more equal than others.
Human nature, being derived from the animal instinct, is enough to destroy such a society within a century so long as it industrializes. The collapse of the Soviet Union should be proof enough of that. The only way such a society could exist is if it were to go back in time about two centuries, before the advent of industrial technique. If it were to do that, though, it would very quickly be destroyed by its neighbors unless they were also at such a technologically backwards point.
Log in to comment