Sharing is a demonstration that you value the relationship more than the stuff.
Forced āsharingā via govt demonstrates caring more about the stuff than the relationship or personās ownership of their own life.
Socialism is a profoundly narcissistic and materialistic ideology that values material wealth above all other human and moral concerns.
Forced sharing is precisely what "Inclusion" and "Equity" are all about.
DEI is the new spin on Marxism, and they want to force you to share more than just your material wealth now, in order that everyone will have equal outcome (Equity) in all areas. Income, status, glory, and whatever else they can think of.
I share with a stranger to make myself feel good, not because of the value of our non-relationship.
It makes you feel good because you value the act of doing good for the idea of humanity. It is specifically because of your value of life that this sharing makes you feel good.
Iād argue those are the same thing, but sure it isnāt necessarily the direct relationship with that person if we just want to be more precise about it. But I still think itās the same idea.
Generosity takes a backseat to survival. If you donāt know where your next meal is coming from or donāt have a safe place to sleep, sharing with strangers isnāt likely to bring you the good feels. Security enables sharing and Bitcoin enables security.
Socialism is the the poverty mentality, plus the envy mentality, plus the victim and coercion mentality.
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.
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 donāt want to contribute themselves but would rather someone else pay for things.
Sorry - youāre making it a bit too simple.
First, youāre ignoring that modern societies are highly complex. Social security systems donāt 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, youāre 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 isnāt it just as materialistic to see taxes as a pure burden, rather than an investment in a functioning society?
Impressive mental gymnastics to come to that conclusion on socialism.
lol, mental humanistic or maybe common sense. You donāt get charity points because you are willing to offer someone else up to the chopping block to do something you are unwilling to do. It just makes that person just an asshole.
True sharing is voluntary and stems from personal values, not coercion. Bitcoin embodies this principle: itās an open, permissionless system where value is exchanged freely, without force or intermediaries.
Fiat systems, on the other hand, thrive on confiscationāwhether through inflation, taxation, or outright seizureājustified under the guise of āthe greater good.ā But taking by force isnāt sharing; itās control.
Bitcoin fixes this by aligning incentives with personal responsibility and free association. When money is sound and incorruptible, people trade and give based on value, not compulsion. Thatās real human cooperation, not state-mandated altruism.
ā”ļøš«¶š§”
Even applies to philanthropy when people give money to a cause which takes away from the local economy they are giving to. Whereas mentorship, strong male leadership, and learning skills is actually what helps a local economy thrive. Handouts donāt help anyone. They are like a bandaid for someone who needs open heart surgery. They may be a temporary fix, but actually loving and helping others takes a lot more sacrifice than giving them money.
