Whom would you most like to see appointed as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development?
This has never been the case in any society, throughout any point in human history, ever. The "free…
Granted, nearly all of this is just textbook Red Scare propaganda, that is so intentionally vague that I could copy+paste all of these arguments with "socialism" and "capitalism" swapped and it would be the exact same thing, to the point where I'm not convinced that you even know what socialism is (and given what I've read, I'd be very interested to hear you define it). However, I'll do my best to provide some clear counters to the few actual claims you made:
"Whereas capitalism, the system our founders intended for, supports equality of opportunity, socialists demand equality of outcome..."
Neither of these claims are true. Socialism does not require equality of outcome, it only requires that all workers/citizens have democratic ownership over their own means of production (that is quite literally the defining characteristic of socialism). It is perfectly fine for a neurosurgeon to make more money than a barista under socialism; the only difference is that, under socialism, every worker holds democratic ownership over the profits of their own labor, unlike capitalism, where the private owner(s) hold sole ownership over the profits of all the workers' labor. There is no system that enforces equality of outcomes.
"They despise private property rights,"
"Private property" has a different context under socialism than under capitalism. Under socialism, "private property" refers to the privatized ownership over the means of production of others (things like businesses, factories, land, machinery, and other things that we use to produce profits). On the contrary, things that YOU own for your own personal use (like your car, your home, your food, your TV, etc.) are called "personal property" and are rightfully yours. Under socialism, you are perfectly free to own your own things for you, but you CANNOT own the things for other people. For example, you can own your own home, but you cannot own someone else's<… Read more
@TruthHurts10111mos11MO
Because workers are not forced to work they can freaking quit the job if they believe they are being exploited. With such stupid people as you, the drums of war are beating and let the war come, I repeat, let it come! Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be bought at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me Liberty or give me Death!
@VulcanMan6 11mos11MO
lol so are you literally arguing that "Liberty" means being legally denied ownership over the profits of your own labor? You genuinely mean to tell me that workers are NOT entitled to the fruits of their own labor? That's literally the opposite of freedom and liberty. You're seriously defending the right to steal the product of another man's hard work? What a fake Libertarian you are lol...
@TruthHurts10111mos11MO
What a TRUE libertarian I am. Workers do get the fruits of their labour, it's called a PAYCHECK, stupid. And do you think the business owners, who've worked their butts off to get where they are, should have the fruits of their labour taken by government coercion from THEM? What about THEM, stupid?
@VulcanMan6 11mos11MO
Wow so you DO think that workers' profits should be taken from them? And by people who didn't even have to work at all in the first place? And that the government should legally allow and defend this practice? Yea you for sure do not genuinely believe in freedom or liberty, especially not if you defend systems in which the profits of a man's labor should be legally and forcefully taken from him, by someone who didn't even produce them. That's just messed up, dude.
You'd rather defend the right of a mini dictator to steal the fruits of hard workers' labor than the rights of workers to own their own production. That's some pathetic boot-licker nonsense.
Tell me, do you think the relationship of dictatorships is bad? Why or why not?
@TruthHurts10111mos11MO
Why do you have such powerful predudices against the rich? Why do you demand that the fruits of THEIR hard work by handed to you on a silver platter? Guess what, Snowflake -- no one owes you a dang thing. If you're going to go through life clinging to the illusion that the State is going be your many your going to go through life WRONG. I think the only reason you hate the rich is because your jealous that you have neither the courage nor the brain cell count to be as successful as they are and that's the only way you have left to tell yourself you're not stupid.
@TruthHurts10111mos11MO
If everything you say is true then why has socialism always failed? Answer me that. Look at every socialist dictatorship and name one policy they promised that you disagree with. Name one.
@VulcanMan6 11mos11MO
Which nations are you referring to? Considering socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are socially-owned, can you...name one that instituted such a system? I am not aware of any such nations. I can think of plenty of nations that attempted to break free from global capitalism via transitional state-planning, but I don't know of any that actually implemented a socially-owned economy. Which nations do you know of that had socially-owned economies?
@TruthHurts10111mos11MO
This may help you -- USSR, China, Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, Venezuela, Plymouth, Massachusetts in the 1620s, Jamestown, Nazi Germany, the list goes on
@VulcanMan6 11mos11MO
So you are genuinely trying to tell me that: "USSR, China, Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, Venezuela, Plymouth, Massachusetts in the 1620s, Jamestown, Nazi Germany" had socially-owned economic systems..? Do you know what "socially-owned" means? It should be self-explanatory, but it means that society itself owns the economy. Are you under the impression that every North Korean citizen shares ownership of the North Korean economy? Every Russian citizen shared ownership of the USSR economy? Every German citizen shared ownership of the Nazi economy? I thought you claimed they were dictatorships, now you're telling me they were socially-owned..? Which is it?
@TruthHurts10111mos11MO
They are dictatorships BECAUSE they were socially owned. I surprised your so stupid you haven't heard of the collective farms of the USSR -- everyone shared land equally, the collective wealth and resources. And it made starvation, it made dictatorship. Happened in Plymouth, when they shared all the labour of the farming equally, but what ended up happening was no one got motivated to do anything since they'd get food anyway? Result? No one got food. SOCIALLY OWNED, right there. Difference between us and the Pilgrims is that they LEARNED from their mistakes, while suckers like you keep making them.