Nostr Web Client

Sharing is a demonstration that you value the relationship more than the stuff.

Forced “sharing” via govt demonstrates caring more about the stuff than the relationship or person’s ownership of their own life.

Socialism is a profoundly narcissistic and materialistic ideology that values material wealth above all other human and moral concerns.

FeyssPalmer 10mo ago

The critique of state redistribution overlooks that many people support state social measures because voluntary sharing often falls short. Social security systems in many democratic societies are seen as expressions of social responsibility, based on values like fairness, social justice, and equal opportunities. In Central Europe and Scandinavia, these systems are deeply embedded and provide systematic security beyond voluntary sharing. In contrast, the USA emphasizes individual freedom and property rights, leading to a more critical stance towards state redistribution.

For instance, Switzerland has an excellent public education system and an extremely good public transportation system. In contrast, the US often faces, to put it kindly, challenges in these areas.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Guy Swann 10mo ago

All you said is that people support forcing others to give resources instead of themselves. Of course they do.

All the rest of that is political jargon that tries to obscure the simple fact. What you described falls under the latter of my examples. And yes it has broad support because most people are materialistic and don’t want to contribute themselves but would rather someone else pay for things.

FeyssPalmer 10mo ago

Sorry - you’re making it a bit too simple.

First, you’re ignoring that modern societies are highly complex. Social security systems don’t exist because people are too stingy to help voluntarily, but because individual charity is simply unreliable. No one relies on spontaneous donations to fund roads, schools, or hospitals. Why should social security be any different?

Second, you’re portraying support for redistribution as pure selfishness. But if that were true, why are countries with strong welfare states economically stable and livable? Why do Scandinavian countries with high taxes thrive, while many countries with minimal welfare systems struggle with poverty and insecurity?

You say that government redistribution is a sign of materialism. But isn’t it just as materialistic to see taxes as a pure burden, rather than an investment in a functioning society?