It makes very little sense to me. it boils down to putting politicians in charge of a group’s collective funds. both collection and distribution.
That is insane.
Discussion
On a communal level it works pretty well until it's corrupted, which is inevitable in a socialist system which evolves into complete nepotism.
You said it right, it will be corrupted, a central system to organize society will never work.
I mean… I guess thats true. Or at least its less likely to work.
I just think people dont really examine the real meaning of what they believe. Socialism is essentially taking voluntary cooperation and imposing a State over the top which controls people through the implicit threat of violence. Its tyrannical on its face.
I have no problem with people deciding they want to pool some of their resources to fund things for the whole group. The problem i have is how many people dont have a problem deciding the next logical step is to force everyone to do something “for the common good” under threat of violence. Its insane.
I hope you both don't get me wrong I totally support your argument. But a system of voluntarism, which I would prefer is less likely to work, because there are simply evil people which do not want this to work, they do everything to exploit the voluntarists and the free, peaceful movement and community, either by stealing, defrauding or by violent means. These people need to be dealt with by force and aggression because that's the only language they understand.
I wish it would be different but in reality it is not and to pretend these problems do not exist is not helping anyone
I really don't understand your point here.
The only rights you have are property, life and speech, if someone attacks one of these rights through violence, then I am in favor of a defense.
At the root, the point being made is actually a justification of tyranny. Though the vibe i get is the person making it doesnt yet understand that. Its a regurgitation of what has been taught, and often repeated..that State violence is the only way to control the masses.
Its like the argument for slavery which was so embedded in cultures all over the world for so long, even Aristotle called it “natural”. It wasnt until the 1800s that this was finally shifted after 1000s of years.
People cannot fathom a world without State violence. Theyve never seen it, so they assume its “natural”.
well said